Criteria for the effectiveness of normative legal regulation of the right to freedom of creativity in Ukraine
The article presents the result of determining the effectiveness of normative legal regulation of the right to freedom of creativity. It is established that the criteria of effectiveness are: a) the perfection of legal regulation of the right to freedom of creativity; b) conformity of normative legal acts in the sphere of the right to freedom of creativity with socio-economic and political realities, possibilities of exercising the norms of the right of creative competences enshrined therein and their protection in court; c) reduction of imperative, imperative methods of regulation by increasing the dispositive methods; d) a clear definition of the types of legal responsibility for the violation of the right to freedom of creativity. As a result of the theoretical modeling of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the normative legal regulation of the right to creativity in Ukraine, it is proposed to amend the legislation.
It is proved that Article 54 of the Constitution of Ukraine should be set out in the following wording: types of intellectual activity. Everyone is guaranteed the right to the results of his intellectual, creative activity; no one may use or distribute them without his or her consent, except as provided by law. The state contributes to the development of all kinds of creative activity, establishing appropriate ties of Ukraine with the world community. Cultural heritage is protected by law. The state ensures the preservation of historical monuments and other objects of cultural value, takes measures to return to Ukraine cultural values of the people who are beyond its borders. "
It is substantiated that these changes will enhance the effectiveness of ensuring the right to freedom of creativity in terms of creating a scientifically sound system of legislation and its ability to ensure that the real needs and interests of the subjects of law are harmonized.
The inconsistency of normative legal acts in the sphere of the right to freedom of creativity with socio-economic and political realities has been proved. There is a lack of effective socio-economic support for creators, creative unions and associations. It is substantiated that tendencies of socio-economic development should be directed to the development of science, technology, and culture.
It is noted that the absence of a definition of the concept of academic responsibility in the legislation testifies to the lack of a clear definition of the types of legal responsibility for violations in the field of the right to creative work.
Alekseev S. S. (1981). Obshchaia teoryia prava : v 2 t. Moskva : Yuryd. lyt., T. 1. 360. 196. [in Ukrainian].
Zaichenko H. A. (red.). Filosofiia ( 1995). Kyiv : Vyshcha shk., 454. 26. [in Ukrainian].
Skakun O. F. (2008). Teoriia derzhavy i prava : pidruchnyk. Kharkiv : Konsum, 543 [in Ukrainian].
Ryshkova O.V. (2008). Vidpovidalnist za porushennia prav intelektualnoi vlasnosti. Uchenye zapysky Tavrycheskoho nats. un-ta ym. V.Y. Vernadskoho. Seryia «Iurydycheskye nauky». T. 21 (60). 1. 89–98 [in Ukrainian].