САМОРЕГУЛЮВАННЯ ЦИФРОВОЇ ЕКОНОМІКИ В УМОВАХ ПРАВОВОГО РЕЖИМУ ВОЄННОГО СТАНУ: КОДЕКСИ ЕТИКИ.

The legal regime of martial law led not only to changes in the legislation of Ukraine, but also to the activation of self-regulation of economic entities, which covers their internal organizational activities. War changes the conditions for the ethical conduct of digital business and adds certain features that should be reflected in a formalized collection of moral principles of the company. Codes of ethics are one of the important means of self-regulation of business entities in the digital economy. The digital economy is associated with the global movement of goods and services, so companies pay enough attention to the development and promotion of ethical principles and the formation of a certain collection based on them - a code of ethics. The purpose of the study is to determine the peculiarities of ethical codes in the field of the digital economy after the full-scale invasion of russia on the territory of Ukraine. It has been established that economic entities of the digital economy are obliged to take into account and enshrine in ethical codes the peculiarities of carrying out activities under the conditions of the legal regime of martial law. At the same time, it is not enough to have only the formal consolidation of ethical principles in the relevant internal documents of the company, their practical implementation is mandatory. Adherence to the norms of international law (transnational public order) is the duty of a socially responsible civilized business, which should help to recognize the ethical norms of the company, taking into account the peculiarities of the state of war. It is important that companies take responsibility, and not wait for a ban from the state, which needs time to change the regulations. It has been proven that the ethical codes should undergo changes, with the obligatory fixing of provisions: the company does not cooperate with business entities of the aggressor state and with persons who support and cooperate with them; the company does not work in the aggressor state and states that are accomplices and support aggression. Such a position should be formed not only on the basis of legislative prohibitions, but in the case of a regulatory gap, the company’s policy should be revised in order to implement such an idea to achieve the goals of the rule of transnational public order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]