Abstract
<jats:p>The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the concept, types and content of manda tory, dispositive and other rules of private law in regulating intellectual property relations in the current Civil Code of Ukraine and in the draft of its updated version, as well as the practice of their application, primarily by the courts of Ukraine. The study takes into account the specific features of the development of the information society, which determines the transformation of approach es to legal regulation in the field of intellectual property and highlights the issue of proper pro tection and enforcement of the rights of its subjects. The relevance of the topic is обусловed by the existence of discrepancies between the normative model of regulation and law enforcement prac tice concerning mandatory and dispositive rules, despite Ukraine’s implementation of interna tional standards, in particular acts of the European Union, and the ongoing recodification of civil legislation. At the same time, it is necessary to clarify the justification for the legislator’s choice of a particular type of legal norms to regulate personal non-property and property intellectual prop erty relations in the context of digitalisation and the development of information relations.The purpose of the article is to determine the specific features of mandatory and dispositive rules from the perspective of ensuring the effectiveness of legal regulation, as well as to formulate conclusions regarding the approaches of the drafters of the updated Civil Code of Ukraine to the selection of legal instruments and their impact on judicial practice. The methodological basis of the study con sists of the formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal, and systemic-structural methods, as well as the analysis of court decisions. It is substantiated that, notwithstanding the significance of mandatory provisions in the sphere of protection of the creator’s personal non-property rights, the dispositive method, based on legal equality and the autonomy of the parties’ will, remains decisive.</jats:p>