en

Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Home
  • Volume 15, No. 3, 2025

  • Intellectual property rights as proactive means of narrative field protection in the context of information warfare and counter-propaganda

  • Received 11.06.2025,
  • Revised 05.09.2025,
  • Accepted 29.09.2025
Download article Download article
Volume 15, No. 3, 2025
  • strategic discourse; strategic narrative; narrative field; legal protection of meanings; intangible assets; legal legitimation; semiotic control
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-chasopis/3.2025.59
  • Pages 59-69

The Russian-Ukrainian war shows that information and cognitive space are critical dimensions of confrontation and aggression. Strategic narratives, on the other hand, are both a resource and a target for attacks. The study aimed to identify the potential of intellectual property rights as a means of asymmetrical counteraction to information threats through semiotic control, the establishment of authentic meanings, and ensuring the dominance of national narratives in the narrative field. The research was conducted using a methodology based on dogmatic analysis of Ukrainian and international legal acts, systemic-structural and conceptual approaches to narrative typology, as well as elements of interdisciplinary analysis in the field of security and communications and analysis of specific cases. Based on the results of the study, conclusions were proposed regarding the narrative field, which is a multi-level structure of strategic, regional and local narratives, each of which can become the subject of protection in the legal field. This approach can reinforce traditional tools for countering propaganda (fact-checking, strategic communications, sanctions), which cannot ensure political and legal superiority, while the use of intellectual property mechanisms makes it possible to legitimise national counter-narratives and thus prevent their exploitation by the aggressor. National legislation and international mechanisms that create the basis for the legal protection of authentic meanings were analysed. The study concluded that this approach has advantages in terms of democratic standards, as the IP approach does not restrict freedom of speech or focus on censorship, but instead offers forms of protection for the expression of content and the rights of the author. Accordingly, intellectual property instruments can be used as a proactive tool in the context of strengthening information security, as they reinforce the strategic discourse of the state. The proposed approach may, in the future, become the basis for the formation of a policy to protect national narratives and strengthen information sovereignty

References

  1. Bernal, P. (2020). The road to digital unfreedom: How artificial intelligence is reshaping our lives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108877534.
  2. Bjola, C., & Pamment, J. (Eds.). (2019). Countering online propaganda and extremism: The dark side of digital diplomacy. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781351588409.
  3. Bjola, C., & Zaiotti, R. (Eds.). (2023). Digital diplomacy and international organisations: Autonomy, legitimacy and contestation. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003032724.
  4. Bykov, O.M. (2023). Information security: Legal and cultural dimensions. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law, 78, 396-402. doi: 10.24144/2788-6018.2024.02.67.
  5. Carpenter, K., Katyal, S.K., & Riley, A. (2009). In defense of property. Yale Law Journal, 118(6), 1022-1125.
  6. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753-1820. doi: 10.15779/Z38RV0D15J.
  7. Diatlova, I., Kondratyuk-Antonova, T., & Tsykhuliak, I. (2025). Philosophical aspects of information warfare: Truth, manipulation, and critical thinking. Philosophy and Governance, 3(7). doi: 10.70651/3041-248X/2025.3.07.
  8. Dinwoodie, G.B., & Janis, M.D. (2022). Trade dress and design law (2nd ed.). Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
  9. Doichyk, O.Ya., & Hanzin, V.V. (2025). War narrative: Definition and structure (Context of modern armed conflicts). Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University Scientific Bulletin. Philological Sciences, 1(2), 9-15. doi: 10.32999/ksu2663-3426/2025-1-2.
  10. Freedman, L. (2006). The transformation of strategic affairs. London: Routledge for the International Institute for Strategic Studies. doi: 10.4324/9780203820001.
  11. Gervais, D.J. (Ed.). (2021). International intellectual property: A handbook of contemporary research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781788975551.
  12. Hasani, A., Rasheed, J., Alsubai, S., & Luma Osmani, S. (2024). Personal rights and intellectual properties in the upcoming era: The rise of deepfake technologies. In J. Rasheed, A.M. Abu Mahfouz & M. Fahim (Eds.), Forthcoming networks and sustainability in the AIoT Era (pp. 379-391). Geneva: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-62881-8_32.
  13. Horbulin, V.P. (2017). World hybrid war: Ukrainian front. Kharkiv: Folio.
  14. Huyvan, P.D. (2020). Civilizational foundations of freedom of speech and legitimacy of its restriction. Actual Problems of State and Law, 86, 56-61. doi: 10.32837/apdp.v0i86.2404.
  15. Kavanagh, J., & Rich, M.D. (2018). Truth decay: An initial exploration of the diminishing role of facts and analysis in American public life. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. doi: 10.7249/RR2314.
  16. Kryzhanovskyi, O.M., & Kryzhanovskyi, P.O. (2025). Prevention of criminal offenses under Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Scientific Notes of the Lviv University of Business and Law. Economic Series. Legal Series, 40. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15185445.
  17. Kyrylyuk, O.L. (2021). Narrativity of information warfare. In Modern pedagogue and pedagogical theory, philological disputes, and language science (pp. 106-108). Vinnytsia: European Scientific Platform. doi: 10.36074/mcnd-19.02.2021.pedphilol.
  18. Kyrylyuk, O.L. (2023). Discourse of information warfare: Linguocognitive and psycholinguistic aspects. (Doctoral dissertation, Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University of Drohobych, Drohobych, Ukraine).
  19. Lipkan, V.A. (2022). Narrative analysis of destructive geopolitical concepts. Politykus: Scientific Journal, 4, 47-55. doi: 10.24195/2414-9616.2022-4.7.
  20. Lixinski, L. (2013). Intangible cultural heritage in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668533.001.0001.
  21. Mahda, Ye. (2023). Russiaʼs hybrid aggression: Lessons for Europe. Kyiv: Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
  22. Mazurenko, S. (2025). Infringement of copyright in the media space during martial law. Legal Bulletin of Odesa Law Academy, 3, 59-65. doi: 10.32782/yuv.v3.2025.7.
  23. Miskimmon, A., OʼLoughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2012). Strategic narratives: Communication power and the new world order. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315871264.
  24. Nemitz, P. (2018). Constitutional democracy and technology in the age of artificial intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133). doi: 10.1098/ rsta.2018.0089.
  25. Orliuk, О. (2025). Copyright on guard for national security: Why this is no exaggeration. Retrieved from https://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2025/07/30/7524038/.
  26. Pamment, J., Nothhaft, H., Agardh-Twetman, H., & Fjallhed, A. (2018). Countering information influence activities: The state of the art. Lund: Lund University, Department of Strategic Communication.
  27. Peter, K.Yu. (2024). War and IP. Brigham Young University Law Review, 49(3), 823-882.
  28. Petrenko, V. (2025). Protection of intellectual property rights in the context of intellectual security of an enterprise. In Creation, protection, defense and commercialization of intellectual property rights objects: Proceedings of the VIII all-Ukrainian scientific and practical conference with international participation dedicated to the World Intellectual Property Day. Kyiv: National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”.
  29. Pocheptsov, G. (2015). Hybrid war: Information component. Retrieved from https://www.academia. edu/17274555/Гібридна_війна_інформаційна_складова.
  30. Pocheptsov, G. (2019). Modern information wars. Kyiv: Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Publishing House.
  31. Romanyshyn, A.M., et al. (2023). 100 false Russian narratives about the RussianUkrainian war. Kyiv: SKIF Publishing House.
  32. Spesyvtseva, O. (2023). Consequences of spreading unverified information: Advice for media. Kyiv: Center for Democracy and Rule of Law (CEDEM).
  33. UNESCO. (2022). Culture of Ukrainian borscht cooking inscribed on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/ru/articles/kultura-prigotovleniya-ukrainskogo-borscha-vnesena-v-spisok-nematerialnogo-kulturnogo-naslediya.
  34. Vedeniapina, M., & Pidvysotska, M. (2024). Problems of protection of intellectual property rights during the war. In VIII international scientific and practical conference “Actual problems of intellectual property in Ukraine and the European Union” (56-59). Budapest: Institute of Educational and Professional Development.
  35. WIPO. (2024). WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/ center/background.html.
  36. Zavershinskaia, P., & Spera, F. (2024). A change of paradigm? How the Russian invasion of Ukraine influenced Italian memory laws. Contemporary Italian Politics. doi: 10.1080/23248823.2024.2439175.