INTRODUCTION. The sixtieth anniversary of the adoption of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights brings renewed relevance to the question of their place within the universal system for the international protection of human rights. These treaties, which together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitute the International Bill of Human Rights, retain their system-forming significance for the development of international cooperation in the field of human rights and for the determination of the international legal obligations of States in the promotion and protection of human rights. This article is devoted to certain aspects of the evolution of the universal human rights system following the adoption of the International Covenants, the impact of the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action on the institutional architecture of the United Nations system, and contemporary trends relating to the activities of the human rights treaty bodies — the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee. The article also examines the issue of the relationship between the proclaimed indivisibility of all human rights and a practice in which instances of their institutional and procedural “division” occur.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study employed general scientific and formal-logical methods, including methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison, analogy, systematization and modelling, as well as special methods: formal legal, historical and comparative legal methods.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The study presents an analysis of the state of the International Covenants on Human Rights and their place in the universal human rights system as of 2026, considering the changes that have occurred within the UN system since 1993. The author provides a detailed overview of the outcomes of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in terms of their impact on the universal human rights system. The author also analyses crisis trends in the UN human rights system through the example of their impact on the system of human rights treaty bodies, particularly the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee, which monitor and supervise the implementation of the provisions of the two International Covenants on Human Rights.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION. The study makes it possible to conclude that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights retain their system-forming significance for the universal system of human rights protection. The analysis shows that the indivisibility of human rights and freedoms proclaimed within the UN system is not always consistently ensured in the universal human rights system at the level of institutional practice. In this regard, it appears necessary to strengthen the role of treaty bodies established based on the relevant international treaties and to ensure their genuine independence from politicized administrative influence. Of particular importance in this respect is the preservation of the Charter-based role of ECOSOC in international cooperation in the economic and social spheres, as well as in the field of human rights. The anniversary of the International Covenants on Human Rights, in turn, should be regarded not as an occasion to revise their significance, but as an opportunity to restore the balance laid down in the UN Charter, without diluting or substituting the conceptual foundations of the International Bill of Human Rights.

INTRODUCTION. In 2026, one of the main trends in regulating the Internet as a whole can be attributed to attempts by various states to restrict access for underage users in order to protect them from destructive content, which, in fact, may cause even greater legal uncertainty and lead to the attempts of the underage users to gain access by bypassing blocking. The article analyzes both domestic and foreign terminological devices used in the relevant national and international legislation on this issue (for example, the terms “social networks”, “destructive content” (CSEA and CSAM), the rights of the child within the meaning of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), etc. The authors give examples of foreign legal approaches to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable category of users - children and adolescents, providing up-to-date statistical data and links to leading researchers on this issue. In conclusion, the authors propose to be guided by a flexible approach to the protection of the rights of children and adolescents, not limited only to prohibitive measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article provides up-to-date statistical data on attempts by some countries to restrict children’s access to social networks. At the same time, the legislation and legislative initiatives of such states as the USA, Australia, Great Britain, France and Brazil on the protection of the rights of children and adolescents from CSAM and CSEA are analyzed. Special attention is paid to the statistical data on the beginning of the use of social networks in childhood; about the dangers that a minor user may face on the Internet in general, on social networks and on gaming platforms. The study is based on the historical, comparative legal methods and the method of system analysis.

RESEARCH RESULTS. As a result of the study, the authors identified three possible algorithms for solving the task of protecting the rights of minors in social networks.: 1) the legal method; 2) the technical and legal method; and 3) the psychological method. Any national approach to solving the problem should be based on a proactive approach involving cooperation between States and technology companies and the inclusion of a parental control mechanism.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The study shows that despite the potential ineffectiveness of restrictive measures for minors, states will nevertheless strive to implement these measures, since this approach seems to be the “simplest”. However, the authors note that in the absence of an alternative point of view, there is a real risk that the number of cybercrimes committed involving children and adolescents on the Internet will increase.

INTRODUCTION. Underwater infrastructure, which is represented by underwater cables and pipelines, plays a critical role in the global economy. Underwater cables ensure stable transmission of information between countries and continents, and pipelines ensure energy supplies. It is quite difficult to control underwater infrastructure due to the fact that a significant part of it is located underwater at great depths. In addition, underwater infrastructure passes through underwater territory that is a part of the state territory and also through territories that are characterized by mixed and international legal regimes. In addition to unintentional damage as a result of natural factors, in recent years, underwater infrastructure has been subject to some targeted attacks. Sabotage, cable breaks and loss of cables have been regularly occurring, which raises the question of how exactly an investigation of such incidents should be carried out, and whether it is possible to bring the guilty party to international responsibility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study was based on a comprehensive analysis of both academic literature examining various political, legal, and technical aspects related to underwater infrastructure, and international legal documents regulating the installation and maintenance of underwater cables and pipelines. The research methodology is based on general theoretical methods, specifically, formal logic, deduction and induction, analysis, and synthesis. In addition to all of the above, specific scientific methods such as historical and comparative legal approaches were also employed in preparing the article.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The article analyzes the main stages of the development of international legal cooperation in protection of critical underwater infrastructure, as well as key legal aspects arising from the process of its installation and maintenance. In particular, the article covers the problem of organizing investigations aſter damage of underwater cables and pipelines and provides the classification of underwater crimes from the point of international law. The work also examines specific cases of damage to underwater infrastructure in recent years, analyzes the legal and political consequences of the committed attacks, and evaluates the response measures and their effectiveness.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. The underwater arena can already be considered a distinct sphere of interstate confrontation. The intensification of deliberate attacks on underwater cables and pipelines in recent years has raised the issue of new challenges arising from terrorist attacks on underwater facilities. International legal regulation of underwater infrastructure is more in line with the realities of the 20th century than the 21st, in which digital communications are critically important for any state. Given the existing gaps in international law, the likelihood that states will resort to underwater sabotage as part of a modern "hybrid" confrontation can be assessed as quite high.

INTRODUCTION. This article provides a critical analysis of the international legal aspects of regulating illicit trafficking in military robots, which is a new and rapidly growing threat to global stability. The relevance of this research is driven by technological revolution in the military sphere, characterized by autonomous systems capable of identifying targets and using lethal force independently, coupled with a parallel formation of a global black market for their illegal distribution. The authors identify a deep crisis within the current framework of international law to address this challenge. Traditional approaches, including norms of international humanitarian law and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, as well as multilateral export controls, demonstrate systemic weaknesses. Their main shortcomings are their fragmentation and their primary focus on states and conventional weapons. Their chronic failure to keep pace with the rate of technological advancement gives rise to a number of fundamental legal problems. These include the absence of universal legal definitions and classification criteria for autonomous systems, regulatory gaps that allow non-state actors, such as terrorist groups and organized criminal networks, to gain access to critical components and ready-made platforms without consequences, and ultimately, a lack of clarity regarding attribution and enforcement of liability for damage caused by autonomous systems circulating in the black market. As a strategic response, the article argues for the urgent need to develop a new, comprehensive international legal approach that should include the elaboration and adoption of a multilateral treaty establishing clear prohibitions and harmonizing terminology, creating effective control and verification mechanisms. At the same time, a set of complementary measures are proposed, including strengthening national legislation, modernizing customs procedures and financial oversight, fostering enhanced international cooperation in incident investigation and data exchange. The goal of the research is to create a conceptual basis for establishing a strong legal barrier against proliferation of these dangerous technologies and protecting the fundamental principles of international law in the era of autonomous weapons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. This research is based on a comprehensive doctrinal and analytical methodology, which is typical of fundamental legal work in the field of international law. It is both theoretical and applied, and includes an in-depth analysis of existing legal norms, such as international treaties, conventions, charters of international organizations, and documents from international conferences. It also includes analysis of theoretical approaches to problem research in scientific monographs, articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. The research also examines practical approach, such as public reports from States. Finally, the research aims to develop scientifically sound proposals for improving legal regulation in the area under study. The study primarily employs a qualitative approach, which focuses on interpreting legal texts, identifying semantic conflicts, assessing the effectiveness of legal mechanisms, and forecasting the evolution of regulations. The main research methods are both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) and private scientific methods (formal legal analysis, risk-based approach).

RESEARCH RESULTS. The research concludes that existing international law is fundamentally inadequate to address the illicit trafficking of military robots. Key deficiencies include the absence of universally binding definitions, ineffective control over dual-use components and non-state actors, and unworkable accountability mechanisms for autonomous systems. To address this, the study proposes a comprehensive legal framework centered on a new international treaty, supported by enhanced national regulations, modernized monitoring tools, and stronger international cooperation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. This analysis concludes that the current frameworks of international law are fundamentally unprepared to deal with the distinct and rapidly evolving challenges posed by the illegal spread of military robotics. Traditional arms control and humanitarian law, with their static and state-centric foundations, struggle to accommodate the reality of these rapidly developing, commercially available, soſtware-driven technologies. This gap has led to significant governance deficits, allowing critical vulnerabilities to persist. Therefore, this study advocates for a necessary shiſt in paradigm towards a more coherent and integrated approach to governance. This new approach should thoughtfully combine several key elements: an international treaty to establish clear legal prohibitions and control measures must be integrated with stronger complementary measures. These key measures include harmonizing national regulatory frameworks, implementing strategic trade controls targeting critical algorithms and supply chain components, and formalizing international forensic and investigative cooperation to ensure credible enforcement and accountability. Developing such a comprehensive and adaptive regime is crucial for the international community to mitigate profound security risks arising from the uncontrolled proliferation of autonomous military capabilities.

INTRODUCTION. In view of global competition/ cooperation trends in Moon exploration the current stage of space activities development, provided an effective response to the system “new great challenges”, can become a period of not only inevitable objective changes, but also global opportunities for the progressive development of international space law in the interests of all states. One of the most illustrative examples in this context, partly due to its “structured nature” is the question of the legal regime governing space resource activities. The research is accordingly dedicated to: 1) Systemic analysis of contemporary trends in the competition/cooperation between the two alternative international lunar projects, the “Artemis” and the “International Lunar Research Station” (ILRS), in their legal dimension (as a factor of fundamental significance in this regard); 2) Defining possible and appropriate paths, forms, levels, and priority directions for harmonizing relevant approaches of China, Russia, the United States on the example of a future international legal regime for space resource activities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical background of this research consists of works of Russian and foreign legal scholars, including leading experts in international space law (ISL); as well as, for matters of fact for the purposes of legal research, of experts in the field of space economics, space science, and space technology. In addition to the ISL principles and rules) the analysis is based on a system of the following acts and documents: 1) the Artemis Accords and the Agreement on the International Lunar Research Station (the ILRS Agreement) as main elements; 2) the positions of China, Russia, and the USA within the relevant Working Group of the Legal Subcommittee of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space as an additional element for understanding the respective approaches reflected in the indicated agreements; national legislation on space resources, the main acts of which “preceded” the two elements indicated above, to provide a unified vision of interconnected substantive legal and economic processes. The methodology includes analysis, synthesis, analogy, as well as a combination of comparative legal and systemic methods, modeling, and forecasting.

RESEARCH RESULTS. 1. Despite the de jure different status of the Artemis Accords and the ILRS Agreement, there are sufficient grounds for a substantive comparison of their provisions in order to determine priority directions for harmonizing the legal approaches of Russia, China, and the USA by identifying potential areas and types of competing activities in both international lunar projects, as well as assessing them in terms of the likelihood of approaching a “critical point”. 2. Four of the five United Nations treaties on outer space (except the 1979 Moon Agreement, in which China, Russia, and the United States do not participate) are included in the preambles of both agreements as the international legal basis for joint space activities. 3. In the absence of direct coordination of competing activities, additional mechanisms for preliminary harmonization of the respective approaches, including legal ones, are required. Currently, besides the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities, such opportunities are provided within BRICS, APSCO; emergence of new formats of intersubject interaction should be expected. 4. Comprehensive regulation of private space activities (within the limits permitted by international obligations) provides conditions for the prompt achievement (without waiting for the broad implementation of a specific type of regulated activity) of significant economic results. Corresponding additional legislative mechanisms are in demand in China and Russia. 5. The content of the Initial Draſt Set of Recommended Principles for Space Resource Activities of the Working Group, as well as the positions of states on it, indicates an established “common understanding”: space resource activities are not prohibited by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and fall within its scope, like other types of space activities.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. 1. The obvious differences in the status of the Artemis Accords and the ILRS Agreement are leveled by the identified specifics of the subsequent implementation of the provisions of the Artemis Accords. 2. The ILRS Agreement (comparable to the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement on the ISS) does not contain provisions defining the legal regime of space resource activities. The Artemis Accords, on the contrary, have an unprecedented character, primarily in the approach of participating states to establishing “safety zones”. 3. A proposal by China to create a special registry of space objects on the Moon and other celestial bodies by the UN Secretariat, which is in demand in practice and do not contradict applicable international law principles and norms (unlike the “safety zones”), may become relevant. Such an additional registry or, more rationally, the allocation of space objects on celestial bodies into a separate category of the existing United Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space could facilitate coordination of competing and complementary types of activities on celestial bodies. 4. The Artemis Aсcords, unlike the US Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015, does not establish property rights to the “extracted space resources.” Paragraph 1 of Section 10 notes that “the utilization of space resources can benefit humankind by providing critical support for safe and sustainable operations”. This provision corresponds with similar provisions of the ILRS Agreement on the use of lunar resources. 5. When defining issues for the initial harmonization of approaches of China, Russia, and the USA, it is advisable to proceed from priorities regarding the goals and directions of space resource activities (use of lunar resources for life support in outer space – the concept of “In-Situ Resource Utilization” (ISRU), that coincide in the Artemis Accords, the ILRS Agreement, the Initial Draſt Set of Recommended Principles of the Working Group, and the relevant positions of states. 6) The main incentive for transforming current rivalry into effective international legal cooperation will come from the practical interests of the involved entities to prevent approaching the “critical point” – the impossibility of stable development of competing types of natural resource activities in outer space (in the relatively short term – within the framework of the ISRU concept). 7) Only an international treaty can ensure effective coordination of activities beyond national jurisdiction. Harmonization of the substantive approaches of China, Russia, and the USA can become a significant step towards the development of a special international legal regime.

INTRODUCTION. Although States continue to play a major role in creating rules of international law, including norms on the protection of human life at sea, the mechanisms of international law-making in this special area have been evolving in recent decades. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) plays an increasingly important role in this process, acting not only based on its founding convention, but also in accordance with many other multilateral international treaties, the composition of the States parties to which is not the same.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article examines the application of the rules of universal international treaties to the protection of human life at sea, primarily the Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Organization of 1948, the Convention on the Protection of Human Life at Sea of 1974, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. The methodological basis of the research consists of general theoretical methods, including formal logical deduction and induction, analysis and synthesis, as well as special methods of cognition of jurisprudence, such as historical-legal and comparative-legal.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The authors' analysis of the participation of Members-States of the International Maritime Organization in the development, implementation and amendment of international conventions applicable to the protection of human life at sea shows their objectively growing interest in the verified interpretation of international legal norms, their effective application in this area, and the creation of an increasingly advanced legal framework for sustainable maritime navigation, with steady increase in its volume, and, at the same time, a decrease in the number of disasters at sea. The activities of the International Maritime Organization have made a significant contribution to the improvement of such legal framework at the universal level, which is more in line with the best available scientific and technical achievements and practices. At the same time, the article also notes legal shortcomings in this activity, first of all, the shiſt in the IMO emphasis from ensuring safety at sea to environmental issues.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. IMO has created a global platform for the development and adoption of documents relating to international maritime law that are in demand at this stage of scientific and technological development, while setting high standards of professionalism and specialization. The documents developed and adopted within the IMO framework are not legally identical, which is due not only to the well-known difference between the rules of an international treaty and decisions taken by international organizations. The same IMO document, adopted by the organization as an amendment to the convention, has a different status: before and aſter the States parties to the relevant convention express agreement with the document. The issue of relationship between the norms on the protection of human life at sea, outlined in general terms by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), on the one hand, and, on the other, the very detailed rules of the conventions developed under the IMO, remains disputable. It should be added that the number of States parties to UNCLOS is less than the number of States parties to some of the IMO conventions.

INTRODUCTION. The trend to further growth in number of regional organizations in trade and economic area gave rise to the dispute on the effect of this process either on the world economic system, or the effect of International Law (general principles and universal treaties) on regional legal orders, and relations between regional organizations and third states. Regionalism is described as a natural process, providing for achievement the goals inaccessible in plurilateral cooperation. The article focuses on the application of general principles of International Law and provisions of universal treaties, including WTO Agreements, to the relations between members and outer relations of regional organizations. From this point of view the universal foundations for regional cooperation, reinforced in the UN Charter, constituent agreements and other legal acts of most developed regional institutions of different forms and degree or integrity are under discussion. Special attention is paid to regional hybrid organizations (for political and economic cooperation) and to the regulation of interregional (interintegration’s) relations, which points out to an emerging trend in the context of regionalism.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The basic scientific materials for this article were publications of Russian and foreign scholars in the field of economic and integration law. International treaties and other international acts form the legal basis of the investigation. Methodological foundation includes general scientific methods, such as analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction; and special methods: formal-legal, technical-legal, legal analogy, comparative legal method.

RESEACH RESULTS. As follows from UN Charter, constitutive and other acts of regional organizations of economic integration, the creation of these entities is based on the general principles of International Law. Regional acts contain references to universal rules of International Law to be applied to the relations between members of these organizations in special situations; the universal rules of International Law proved to be the instrument for regulation the relations between regional integrations with third states and the relations of interregional (interintegration’s) cooperation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The processes of regionalism are based on the principles of UN Charter, applied to the states constituting integrations, proceeding from their status of the subjects of International Law. The integrated entity in the form of international regional organization, being the subject of International Law as well, shall follow these principles, getting into relations with other subjects of International Law. Therefore, the rules of Universal International Law do not lose its relevance for interregional (interintegration’s) cooperation. Certain changes in International Law, namely the increasing role of “soſt” law, are the result of regionalism. However, the need in universal regulator, either “hard” or “soſt”, in international economic system seems to remain immutable.

INTRODUCTION. The protection of national security, as an expression of sovereignty, is acquiring growing significance in the field of international investment law. This is attributable to the fact that host States are increasingly invoking national security considerations both to justify the application of the police powers doctrine and to rely on the corresponding treaty-based national security exceptions. In doing so, they seek to exclude or minimise their international legal responsibility. This trend is particularly pronounced in investment disputes, where investors contend that restrictive measures ("sanctions") adopted against them violate the investment protection standards set forth in the investment agreement concluded between the State imposing the "sanctions" and the investor's home State. Furthermore, the issue of national security protection has an interdisciplinary character and is not confined to international investment law. Questions concerning the limits of State discretion when introducing restrictive measures, the content of the good faith requirement, and the reasonableness of invoking the national security exception have been progressively developed in the practice of the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the past seven years. Within this framework, a distinct approach to assessing measures justified by the need to protect national security has emerged.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the instruments for protecting national security interests in international investment arbitration and the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (WTO DSB). As the criteria for such analysis, the author has selected the following: the degree of State discretion in defining national security interests; the threshold of threat required for a lawful invocation of the instrument; the possibility of recourse to customary international law in its interpretation; and the requisite degree of connection between the contested measure and the protection of national security. The primary focus is placed on such instruments as the essential security interest exceptions in the practice of the WTO DSB and international investment tribunals, as well as the police powers doctrine as a potential justification for unilateral regulatory measures adopted by the host State. The methodological framework includes an analysis of the provisions of international investment agreements and WTO agreements, as well as an examination of the practice of investment arbitral tribunals, the WTO DSB and the European Court of Human Rights.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The presented analysis demonstrates that, in the practice of both international investment tribunals and the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), an approach has been established according to which a State’s invocation of the need to protect national security does not exempt the contested measures from objective review by adjudicative bodies. Such an approach serves as a safeguard against the abuse of this right. Recent practice particularly emphasises that the protection of national security is not a universal justification; consequently, measures must be applied in an individualised manner and in good faith. At the same time, alongside common trends, and on the basis of the identified comparative criteria, a number of differences are observed between the approaches of the WTO DSB and international investment arbitral tribunals.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. First, in international investment law, unlike WTO law, the selfjudging nature of a State’s invocation of the need to protect national security depends exclusively on the wording of the particular treaty, and the State's discretionary powers are limited by the requirements of non-discrimination and proportionality. Second, the threshold of threat required for a lawful invocation of the need to protect national security also varies: in the WTO, it is determined by the objective criterion of an “emergency”, whereas in investment arbitration it depends to a greater extent on the wording of the agreement, which may result in a lower threshold for the admissibility of State measures, particularly in the context of the application of the police powers doctrine. Third, a difference is observed in the determination of the content of the “necessity” standard of the contested measure for the protection of national security and the role of customary international law in that process. Investment arbitral tribunals interpret the “necessity” criterion inconsistently: while some adhere to the strict requirement of the “only possible solution” imported from customary international law, others interpret the term solely on the basis of the wording of the specific agreements. In the practice of the WTO DSB, the interpretation of necessity in the context of the national security exception is based entirely on the wording of the applicable WTO agreements, which is largely attributable to the more limited role of customary international law compared to investment arbitration. Finally, although both international investment law and WTO law require a direct link between the challenged measure and the necessity of protecting national security (a requirement particularly evident in the context of the police powers doctrine), the understanding of this link differs. Where investment tribunals interpret security exceptions by reference to customary international law, they insist that the challenged measure be the sole possible means of protecting national security interests. The identified differences in approaches create a risk of investors abusing the right to choose jurisdiction (forum shopping), as well as a risk of parallel proceedings.

INTRODUCTION. In the current context of human evolution, ensuring environmental sustainability is acquiring strategic importance at both the interstate and national levels of regulation. The Action Plan for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, adopted in 2015, emphasizes the unity of approaches of various countries to the development of an effective mechanism for environmental protection. At the same time, alarming trends in the increasing scale of pollution persist: the spread of arid zones, accelerated desertification, declining quality of freshwater sources, increasing ocean acidity, warming of water masses, depletion of natural resource potential, and loss of biodiversity are becoming global problems. The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe of 1975, which significantly enriched the experience of state interaction in the field of global environmental security, emphasized that solutions to planetary-scale problems can only be achieved through concerted international efforts aimed at implementing the goals enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The article presents an in-depth scientific analysis of evolutionary processes within the framework of international legal regulation of interaction between the BRICS countries, aimed at strengthening environmental cooperation and achieving environmental safety of natural objects, due to the need for an integrated approach to solving global environmental problems caused by accelerated economic growth and urbanization, the intensity of industrial production and the increase in anthropogenic pressure on the environment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The scientific methodology is based on a comprehensive approach, involving a multifaceted study of the issues under consideration and the development of optimal solutions. To achieve these goals, a system of analytical tools is used, with particular emphasis on the following research methods: systematic comparison of initiatives and activities undertaken by BRICS member states; critical assessment of the success of agreements reached; historical and comparative analysis of the relevant policy decision-making process; and a thorough examination of the documentary base represented by regulations and specialized literature. The research is based on the principles of integrating efforts, embodied in the concept of sustainable development and the preservation of our planet's ecosystem.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The article aims to study the key areas of international legal cooperation of the BRICS countries in all areas of environmentally oriented activities in order to ensure environmental safety, including national measures aimed at: reducing greenhouse gas emissions; protecting water resources (including improving the quality of drinking water); recycling all types of waste, including plastic and its microparticles; preserving biodiversity; searching for alternative energy sources; reducing atmospheric emissions. The work notes the existing difficulties associated, among other things, with the presence of gaps in legislation leading to a rapid increase in various categories of waste, an increase in the concentration of CO2 emissions and other industrial pollutants generated as a result of large-scale economic activities of the member states, into the aquatic environment, soil and atmosphere. The article focuses on the role of the Russian Federation in the formation and implementation of the BRICS environmental strategy, and identifies key areas for further development and strengthening of global cooperation in the development of advanced technologies, the formation of a responsible approach to the use of natural resource potential for the purpose of sustainable economic growth and ensuring global and national environmental security.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. A key area of activity for BRICS member states in legal support for environmental safety at the national and global levels is the creation of a coordinated system of interaction on issues of pollutant emissions control, modernization of waste management infrastructure, implementation of effective approaches to water supply and water resource protection, and other issues. However, despite the positive results of several projects, significant challenges remain, stemming from insufficient infrastructure and the low effectiveness of certain environmental initiatives. Improving productivity requires a comprehensive approach based on the widespread use of modern technological solutions, addressing gaps in the legal regulation of environmentally relevant issues, and increasing investment in the environmental sector.

INTRODUCTION. This article examines the pressing issue of discrimination in biotechnology, which is a global concern and has prompted the adoption of specialized legislation at the national level (particularly in the United States, the Republic of Korea, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia). It analyzes various manifestations of genetic discrimination, including denial of employment or changes to insurance coverage based on genetic predisposition to disease, as well as ethical and legal issues related to assisted reproductive technologies and termination of pregnancy for genetic reasons. Particular attention is paid to the development of the principle of nondiscrimination not only in national legislation but also in international law, including the law of international integration associations. In this context, the role of the Organization of American States (OAS)— a regional international organization for which discrimination is a pressing issue—is examined. The article analyzes key OAS documents affecting the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination in biotechnology and explores the role of the practice of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in regulating this area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The methodological basis of the study was traditional general scientific and specialized methods for understanding legal phenomena: the comparative legal method; the method of scientific analysis; the formal legal method; and the method of synthesizing socio-legal phenomena.

RESEARECH RESULTS. The legal foundations for combating discrimination within the OAS are formed both within the framework of general international treaties (in particular, the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969) and within the framework of specialized international treaties devoted to the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination against certain categories of persons and on certain grounds (gender, health status, race, etc.). The relevant practice of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights demonstrates a general trend toward the unification of provisions at the global and supranational levels devoted to the protection of human rights in the application of new technologies (including in the field of healthcare).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance (hereinaſter referred to as the Anti-Discrimination Convention) occupies a special place in the OAS system of international treaties in this area. It contains relevant conceptual frameworks relevant for interpreting the principle of nondiscrimination, including the differentiation of discriminatory practices into specific types (direct and indirect discrimination, multiple discrimination, etc.). The Anti-Discrimination Convention is almost entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of key international anti-discrimination instruments, including UNESCO international treaties in the fields of bioethics and genetic technology. However, the terminology does not always demonstrate 100% agreement. For example, the Anti-Discrimination Convention mentions "intolerance" as a form of discrimination, while UNESCO documents use the term "stigmatization." However, these terms can be considered closely related in meaning. The practice of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, does not boast a large number of cases addressing the issue of implementing the principle of non-discrimination in the field of biotechnology (including genetic technologies). In fact, only two cases are at issue, which vividly illustrate the holding of states liable for violating the prohibition of discrimination on multiple grounds, including genetic discrimination. In formulating their conclusions, approaches developed in the consideration of similar cases by the European Court of Human Rights were adopted.

INTRODUCTION. Concepts such as “harmonization” and “unification” are currently widely used in the legal field as methods for harmonizing legal regulation. Unlike domestic harmonization and unification, international legal convergence aims to eliminate contradictions in the laws of different states. The implementation of transnational harmonization and unification projects has been greatly facilitated by the activities of international organizations in the field of private law, including the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The efforts of these highly respected organizations, which can be loosely referred to as the "Big Three" in the world of private law, have contributed to the convergence of legal regulation globally and have been quite successful in some areas. Bilateral international treaties, as well as regional unification and harmonization, should not be overlooked. The process of convergence of legal regulation has encompassed such areas as the international sale and purchase of goods, family law, the protection of foreign investments, the international carriage of goods, international civil litigation, international commercial arbitration, and cross-border bankruptcy. Unification and harmonization processes have also affected international financial instrument markets, which, in the understanding of Russian law, are represented by the market for issued securities, such as stocks and bonds, and the market for derivative financial instruments. In the latter case, it is permissible to speak of a significant variety of contractual structures, such as options, swaps, futures, forwards, and their analogues. This publication proposes to study the process of convergence of law in the field of financial markets in relation to the substantive and conflict of laws regulation of the issue and circulation of financial instruments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The primary research material utilized legal unification and harmonization instruments, such as international treaties and soſt law documents, including model laws and collections of principles. Materials from Russian and foreign legal doctrine provided significant assistance. The methodological basis of the study included both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction) and specialized legal methods. Specifically, the formal legal method was used for a literal interpretation of the provisions of various legal harmonization instruments.

RESEARCH RESULTS. This article formulates and substantiates the thesis that the process of regulatory convergence in financial markets has been extremely uneven. Regarding equity securities, international treaties aimed at unifying substantive and conflict-oflaws approaches were developed under the auspices of UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL. However, no binding treaties were proposed for derivative financial instruments. Instead, associations of financial market regulators, professional associations, and later UNIDROIT published soſt law documents aimed at substantive harmonization of the derivatives market. Conflict-of-laws issues were of no interest to them in this case, as their focus was on the procedure for satisfying claims under derivative contracts during bankruptcy proceedings. Furthermore, the authors of the instruments for harmonizing derivatives law were interested not only in the international aspects of satisfying claims under financial contracts but also in the legal fate of purely domestic contracts.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The author concludes that the unification project in the securities market has failed. At the same time, the harmonization of legal regulation in derivatives markets has proven extremely successful: the possibility of early termination of obligations with subsequent netting is now recognized almost universally. It is also noteworthy that the main lobbyists for derivatives market harmonization were not international organizations or even regulatory bodies, but rather an association of professional securities participants. According to the author, the success of harmonization in this case lies in the "initiative from below" and the shared interest of market players in legal convergence.

INTRODUCTION. The system of international justice faces a new challenge. In the struggle for international legitimacy States are increasingly turning to international dispute settlement bodies as an instrument of foreign policy. In a few cases it takes the form of “lawfare” – the abuse of international dispute settlement mechanisms for political purposes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article highlights maintaining the independence and impartiality of international justice bodies – international courts, arbitrations, and quasi-judicial bodies – are of particular importance. Consideration of a dispute by an independent and impartial panel of judges (arbitrators) is one of the key conditions for the State’s consent to such consideration, which in turn is an indispensable requirement for the initial emergence of the authority to consider this dispute. The legitimacy of the court or arbitration tribunal itself, as well as the validity of its decisions directly depends on the fulfillment of this condition.

RESEARCH RESULTS. Author's research spots the existence, content and observance of the principle of independence and impartiality of arbitrators, the execution of relative rules of procedure and the grounds for invalidating an arbitration award using the example of interstate ad hoc arbitration established on the basis of Annex VII to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to resolve a dispute between the Russian Federation and Ukraine related to the so-called “Kerch incident”.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Through examination of the relevant legal doctrines and analysis of the case materials, several specific problems of the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators have been identified, having both local signifi-cance for Annex VII arbitrations and broader, global significance for the situation in international justice. Options for overcoming these problems are proposed to prevent the politicization of international arbitrations, maintain their impartiality and equidistance, which is an indispensable component of the implementation of the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

INTRODUCTION. This article explores the interaction between international legal regimes for maritime transport and the transnational regulation established by private operators. It demonstrates that the norms of international treaties form the foundational framework for order in the maritime transport market, while day-to-day commercial practice is governed by other normative blocks, predominantly transnational rules created by Western corporations, oſten operating in monopolistic or oligopolistic market structures. This is particularly evident in the spheres of chartering and insurance. Consequently, the global maritime transport market and its order are structured on at least two levels of governance: international legal regulation and transnational regulation. The "lower" level is more volatile and politicized; it can either reinforce the overall transport order or weaken, and even substantially disrupt, it. Political norms and national legislation also exert their own influence on order within the transport sector.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study is built on a combination of formal-legal and systemic methods, which allow for the analysis of the norms of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and IMO instruments (SOLAS, MARPOL, the ISM Code, and the IMDG Code) not in isolation, but in their functional unity. Additionally, the comparative legal method was applied (to compare approaches to regulating chartering and insurance) along with the legal modeling method (for analyzing the formation of "mixed regimes" of transit). Special attention is given to the case-study method, which, using the examples of the Strait of Hormuz and anti-Russian sanctions, made it possible to identify the mechanisms of transformation of transnational regulation under the influence of political factors.

RESEARCH RESULTS. Illustratively, the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by Western states and the conduct of corporations under their control in the sphere of maritime cargo transport demonstrate how transnational regulation, succumbing to political interests, loses its stabilizing function and itself becomes a source of risks. The result of this study is the identifi-cation of a specific nexus of legal uncertainty: concerning the transit passage through strategic straits, the framework provided by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Part III, Arts. 37–44) enters into a complex relationship with the non-participation of certain coastal states (using Iran as an example) and the ambiguity of customary norms. The case study of the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates that the priority given to national security logic and countermeasures can lead to the formation of a local "mixed regime" for transit, where international treaties, customary law, national regulations, and political decisions operate concurrently.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The current situation in the global maritime transport market leads to the conclusion that there is a need to strengthen inter-state regulation, including through the creation of regional normative complexes within non-Western associations (BRICS, EAEU) capable of competing with the dominant transnational corporations in regulating transport markets.

INTRODUCTION. The subject of the study is the constitutional model of interaction between international and national law in the Republic of Kazakhstan, which underwent changes because of the adoption of the new version of the Constitution in the referendum of March 15, 2026. Relevance is determined by the need for theoretical reflection on the abandonment of the previously enshrined priority of ratified international treaties over laws and the transition to a model where international obligations remain part of the current law, but their application is mediated by legislation and subordinated to the supremacy of the Constitution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials include the texts of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the 1995 and 2026 versions, normative resolutions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, sectoral legislation (criminal, criminal procedure), universal and regional international treaties to which Kazakhstan is a party, and doctrinal sources. The methodological basis comprises the formal-legal method (analysis of normative texts), the comparative-legal method (comparison of doctrinal concepts of monism, dualism, coordination), and the method of doctrinal interpretation and analysis of judicial practice.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The content of the article reveals the evolution of Kazakhstan’s constitutional model: from the priority of ratified international treaties over laws enshrined in the previous version, to a new construction in which international treaty obligations remain part of the current law, but their domestic effect is to a greater extent mediated by legislation and subordinated to the supremacy of the Constitution. It is established that the new Constitution (Article 5) includes international treaty obligations in the current law, while at the same time affirming the supremacy of the Constitution and stipulating that the procedure for applying international treaties is determined by law. Ratified treaties retain priority over laws (but not over the Constitution); however, their direct effect is limited by the need for legislative mediation in cases requiring specification. It is revealed that the proposed model does not contradict the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as it leaves the state free to choose domestic implementation mechanisms. Using the example of Kazakhstan’s participation in basic international treaties in the field of crime counteraction, it is shown that successful implementation requires the alignment of international norms with national criminal and criminal procedure legislation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The new Constitution of Kazakhstan does not signify a rejection of international legal openness, but rather a transition to a constitutionally ordered model of implementing international obligations, in which international treaties are applied through clearly defined domestic procedures and under the supervision of the Constitutional Court. Such a model enhances legal certainty, preserves the structural integrity of the national legal system, and at the same time sets the perspective for further development of implementation mechanisms aimed at overcoming gaps between constitutional provisions and actual law enforcement practice.

INTRODUCTION. The question of the legal nature of alimony obligations has traditionally been a subject of discussion in both Russian and foreign science. The debate concerns both the law branch affiliation of this institution and its place in the system of civil legal relations. This article presents a comparative legal analysis of existing theories of the legal nature of alimony obligations in Russian, German, and Austrian law and attempts to determine the position of the institution in the system of civil legal relations in the legal systems thereof.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article provides an analysis of the approaches developed in Russian, German, and Austrian doctrine on the matter. The subject of the analysis is Ph.D and doctoral theses, articles, monographs and case law. The article uses both general scientific (synthesis, analysis, induction, deduction) and specific scientific research methods (formal-legal, comparative-legal).

RESEARCH RESULTS. In accordance with the conducted analysis, there is no scientific consensus reached on the matter of legal nature of alimony obligations in Russian and German law. The concept of the mixed legal nature of alimony obligations is currently the most popular in Russian and German academia. In Austrian law there is a relative scientific consensus.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The relative scientific consensus in Austrian doctrine is reflected in the prevailing understanding of alimony as a civil law obligation. Within the framework of this concept of the legal nature of alimony obligations, Austrian researchers put forward additional hypotheses, such as the existence of synallagma in alimony legal relations. The article also substantiates the conclusion that in Russian and German law, alimony obligation is a strictly targeted relationship established by law, while in Austrian law, this institution is a civil law obligation. In addition, the results of the study suggest that in all the jurisdictions, alimony claims are claims of a creditor against a debtor in a civil legal relationship.