INTRODUCTION. The International Court of Justice is the only international judicial body established by the Charter of the United Nations as “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations”; and the obligations of States under the Charter of the United Nations shall prevail over obligations under any other international agreement (Art. 103 of the Charter of the United Nations); the execution of the decisions of the Court may be ensured by the UN Security Council (Art. 94 of the Charter of the United Nations). All UN member States, including the Russian Federation, are parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and its Statute forms an integral part of the UN Charter (Art. 92). The present article explores in detail the theoretical and practical issues related to the establishment of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It contains the analysis of the features, advantages and disadvantages of the methods of establishing the jurisdiction of the Court in the context of the current practice of the Court and the legal positions of States. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on the analysis, first of all, of the documents of the Court related to the establishment of its jurisdiction in international disputes referred to it. This study also examines the practice of States in the field of recognition of the Court's jurisdiction under the Statute, as well as related scientific works of Russian and foreign scholars in the field of international law. The methods used in the course of this study include general and specific (existing in the legal science) scientific cognition methods, including the methods of formal logic, legal history and comparative legal research. RESEARCH RESULTS. The article shows that it is not legally correct to give identical meaning to the terms “competence of the Court” and “jurisdiction of the Court” used in the Statute of the International Court of Justice, although some authoritative foreign jurists do so. Within the meaning of the UN Charter, the term “competence of the Court” is broader in its meaning than the term “jurisdiction of the Court”: the latter is used only in connection with disputes of States that are resolved by the International Court of Justice, i.e. with the establishment of the jurisdiction over the dispute referred to the Court. The article classifies the ways in which States express their consent to the jurisdiction of the Court under its Statute into three main categories: (1) referral of a case to the Court by means of a special agreement concluded between the contesting States; (2) jurisdiction of the Court over disputes submitted to it on the basis of international agreements; (3) recognition by the State of the jurisdiction of the Court by means of a unilateral declaration. The article indicates the features of different ways of expressing the consent of States to the jurisdiction of the Court in the context of the practice of States and of the Court. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. By means of illustration the authors refer to inter-state disputes, where jurisdictional issues were raised at the Court. The analysis of the use of special agreement (or “compromis”) shows that this method of consent to the jurisdiction of the Court is typical for the consideration of an already formed dispute, the existence of which the relevant States do not contest, and its transfer to the Court is expected by the respondent State. The article also reveals the legal disadvantages inherent in this method. The article reveals legally advantageous as well as problematic aspects related to disputes referred to the Court on the basis of jurisdictional clauses of treaties. Attention is devoted to the analysis of unilateral declarations of States recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court, which may be conditional. It is the practice of States to formulate legally sophisticated conditions that has objectively complicated the whole “Optional Clause” system provided for by the UN Charter. In particular, the article indicates the difficulties of interpretation and application of temporal conditions; difficulties of legal assessment of the content of some conditions made by States in their declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court; cases when excessively broad conditions nullify the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court. The authors conclude that each of the named methods of expressing States’ consent to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice has its own characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. The system of the Court’s jurisdiction established by the UN Charter shows its efficiency only when all legal possibilities provided for in Art. 36 of the Statute are taken into account, and when international legal norms provided in the UN Charter, especially the core principles of international law, are strictly complied with. Selective, fragmentary interpretation of the legal norms applicable to the establishment of the jurisdiction of the Court is not permitted. Each of the methods of recognizing its jurisdiction performs its function only in the general context of the rights and obligations of States under the UN Charter; every method is effective in concrete circumstances and acceptable to disputing States in accordance with their sovereign will. 

INTRODUCTION. The article deals with the insufficiently explored in our legal science the law status of separate territories of the Russian Empire. As an example we took the most “liberal” status of the Grand Duchy of Finland. The Finnish elite had become more and more separate in its mood from one decade to another during the XIX century that lead to formation of state status theory of Finland and its special union connection with the Empire. This status was just simple like unions of Sweden and Norway, Austria and Hungary, England and Scotland. That was the main idea of this theory. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The material for the article was the legislation of the Russian Empire (Full Digest of the Laws of the Russian Empire) and Grand Duchy of Finland (Finlands lagar, Storfurstendömet Finlands Författnings-Samling). Another sources were the works of European and Russian doctors of law, especially the doctrine of international law, how it was worked out at the end of the XIX century. The works of Russian and Finnish historians were also the sources of this article. The methodological basis of this research consists of comparative law and juridical-dogmatic methods. As the main basic method was taken analytical method (deductive and inductive methods of research). RESEARCH RESULTS. In the article the author shows the complicated political reasons that induced Russia to annex Finland and to settle very liberal and privileged ruling regime in Finland. This complicated complex of reasons that had geopolitical, economic, cultural and legal roots permitted to establish a unique status of Finland – from one point of view; but promoted so-called fennomans to demand a separate status for Finland as an independent state – from another point of view. This intention was supported by the western science of international law (first of all in Germany and Sweden) but at the same time it had challenged the annihilating criticism of the Russian lawyers. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. As the result of the discussion and the next actions of the Imperial government the theory of the separate Finland was destroyed. But the crush of the Russian historical power in February 1917 and the coup d’etat that was made by bolsheviks the Finnish separatists could solve their problems. The obtaining of independence by Finland in December 1917 had the most destroying consequences in the XX century: two wars of 1939–1940; 1941–1944 and the growth of russofobia in recent Finland.

INTRODUCTION. Developing States are interested in both the inflow of foreign investment and its efficient use in their national economies. In the furtherance of this objective, host States set in their national legislation trade-related investment measures, referred to as “performance requirements” (requirements to achieve certain national economically useful results). The interests of foreign investors and host States in the matter of measures falling within the concept of “performance requirements” mostly diverge, since these measures create for foreign investors competitive restrictions related to the use of their investments. In legal science and practice there are known trade-related investment measures, such as export requirements, foreign exchange restrictions, local content requirements and others. The possibility for foreign investors to invest without performing trade-related investment measures was one of the main problems of transnational investment. The TRIMs agreement and Art. 1106 of NAFTA are devoted to the sole subject of regulation – “performance requirements”. The idea of limiting these measures was simultaneously discussed in the NAFTA negotiations and within the Uruguay round: the elaborated provisions are similar in some aspects, but have their specific characteristics. The article deals with the rules of both agreements in light of dispute settlement practice. The conclusions of the arbitrators are analyzed in chronological order, which helps to trace the evolution of the single concept in two distinct systems of WTO and NAFTA rules. The article demonstrates the common points and differences in the interpretation of the concerned provisions norms, with consideration for the context and objectives of the agreements. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials used in the article include the works of Russian and foreign scholars in the field of international economic law and WTO law, international legal documents adopted within the WTO and NAFTA, as well as materials of judicial and arbitration practice of investment disputes. The research was done on the basis of general and specific scientific methods of cognition (dialectical method, analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, comparative legal and historical-legal methods). RESEARCH RESULTS. The analysis revealed that trade-related investment measures are part of the “performance requirements” listed in Art. 1106 of NAFTA, which developed countries managed to defend in negotiations with developing countries during the drafting of the TRIMs agreement. Despite the integrity of the concept of “investment requirements”, there is an evident difference in the scope of covered measures, as well as the conceptual difference between the notions of “trims” and “performance requirements”, due to the specifics of the WTO and NAFTA. Nevertheless, in both cases, common qualification criteria of prohibited measures have been developed independently from each other in the practice of investment disputes settlement in order to address similar issues of interpretation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. On the ground of the analysis of arbitration practice in the TRIMs and Art. 1106 of NAFTA, the article gives reasons for the conclusion of the parallel development of the concepts of “trade-related investment measures” and “performance requirements”.

INTRODUCTION. In 2015 UNCTAD elaborated a roadmap for international investment agreements reform, aimed at bringing the terms of such agreements in line with modern sustainable development imperatives. For a long time the question of the balance between investor protection in the territory of the host state and the right of this state to regulate within international investment and trade agreements has caused controversy among international law scholars. In particular, very often international agreements endow foreign investors with greater rights thereby limiting sovereign rights of the host state. The present article provides a comparative analysis of the investment protection and promotion provisions under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or TPP-11). Also, for the first time among Russian scholars, the authors give an analysis of the changes that occurred during the signature of the CPTPP Agreement on March 8, 2018 after the US withdrawal at the beginning of 2017. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research in the article is based on the provisions of the CPTPP and CETA that regulate foreign investments as well as the works of Russian and foreign international investment law scholars. It is necessary to mention the significant role of the World Investment Reports, published by UNCTAD in 2016 and 2017, in making a comparison of provisions dedicated to investment protection and the right to regulate, contained in different international investment agreements and bilateral investment treaties. RESEARCH RESULTS. In-depth analysis of CPTPP and CETA provisions that regulate foreign investments showed that these agreements contain unique and innovative provisions that could rarely be found in contemporary international investment agreements. These provisions not only clarify the foreign investor rights when carrying out activities on the territory of the host state, giving more detailed description of the states obligations and the guarantees provided, but also specify rules for the investorstate disputes settlement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Both megaregional agreements, analyzed in the present article, contain extensive chapters devoted to achievement of maximum transparency in dispute settlement, while CETA introduces its own Investment Court System which includes a permanent appellate body. At the same time, the CPTPP Agreement for the first time, compared with already existent investment agreements, carves out a specific product – tobacco – from protection when settling investor-state disputes. Although neither CETA, nor CPTPP have yet been ratified by the parties, it is important to consider how these provisions on investment regulation would shape future international investment agreements and bilateral investment treaties.

INTRODUCTION. The article examines the extent to which the Union’s internal market can be said to have been externalised, given the extraterritorial implications of the Union’s internal energy market rules and regulations. In this respect, the article investigates the exercise and control of EU regulatory power beyond EU borders by examining the crossborder reach of the Union’s regulatory power beyond its boundaries given its implications for Gazprom and Russia’s interests on the European market. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article pursues a doctrinal approach to the research methodology which includes the internal dimension of the Union’s energy policy and the extent to which the Union’s internal market regulation has been externalised and imposed on its external energy relations with Russia – this includes a detailed analysis of: (i) the Third Energy Package (TEP)’s ownership unbundling rules; (ii) the Third Country Clause; and (iii) the Union’s Competition law (given the recent decision of the EU Competition investigation of Gazprom’s sales in Central and Eastern Europe). RESEARCH RESULTS. A fundamental aspect of the EU’s rule-based market approach, is the perception that a fully liberalised and competitive EU market can facilitate energy security by way of enhancing diversification of suppliers. As such, the TEPs’ ownership unbundling; the Third Country Clause; and the EU’s Competition law have become significant mechanisms in the Union’s toolbox of instruments to further its rule- based approach and market-based agenda for the purpose of ensuring European energy security. The article illustrates the Union’s sectoral application of the acquis beyond its borders in its efforts to export its liberalization model and Europeanise its energy corridors in pursuit of European security of energy supply. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The article reveals a fascinating dimension to the Union’s role as a global actor by analysing the Union’s normative agenda which it pursues through the export of its acquis and rule-based market approach which it imposes on third countries and its strategic energy partner, Russia. In undertaking this analysis, the article shows that the EU’s efforts to reform Russia’s energy markets through its liberalization movement and European model, suggest an external dimension to its internal market rules given the implications for Russia and Gazprom.

INTRODUCTION. Negotiations on improvements and clarifications of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding are on top of the agenda today. WTO members are negotiating new rules, which are deemed to improve the effectiveness of WTO dispute settlement system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The author has analyzed negotiations reports and materials as well as practice of the Dispute Settlement Body with respect to the issues discussed and presented comments concerning twelve issues discussed in the course of negotiations process. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods. RESEARCH RESULTS. The author comes to the conclusion, that the Dispute Settlement Understanding needs substantive review. However, WTO members are very cautions when giving additional powers to the WTO, trying to secure themselves from any decisions, which could be contrary to their interests. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The author has presented the assessment of twelve issues discussed in the course of negotiations on improvements and clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding and come to the conclusion that Dispute Settlement Understanding needs to be reviewed. At the same time certain changes proposed are not viable and beneficial. Moreover, it should be highlighted that the current organization of the course of negotiations is not really productive and the negotiations are not likely to be finished. For this reason, WTO members need to work on organization of the negotiations, putting strict deadlines to facilitate the conclusion of the negotiation process.

INTRODUCTION. The article provides a doctrinal legal description of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus, 25 June 1998) (hereinafter referred as the Aarhus Convention). According to the common position of the Russian and Anglo-American legal scholars, the Aarhus Convention was a new and crucial step in linking environmental protection measures with human rights, including through improved international legal mechanisms for environmental impact assessment. The few assessments of this convention in the Russian science of international law are restrained. In the Anglo-American scientific literature the scholars see legal value of this convention as a source of international law in the context of the Convention setting very specific legal standards for public participation in environmental protection measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The material for the study was the Aarhus Convention itself, the previous international legal instruments on environmental protection, as well as the European Union Directives defining the basis of the environmental impact assessment procedure, primarily against the background of the interpretation of these legal instruments in the Russian and Anglo-American international legal doctrine. The methodological basis of the study was general scientific and private scientific methods of cognition (dialectical method, methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction), as well as special methods used in legal science, such as historical and legal, formal legal and comparative legal methods. RESEARCH RESULTS. In the article, the author critically analyzed how the Russian and AngloAmerican scientific publications on international law assesses the impact of the Aarhus Convention on the development of international environmental law. What is especially important, the conventional mechanisms are analyzed in the context of the applicable court practice to the Arctic regions. The article deals with the doctrinal interpretation of the Convention mechanisms of harmonization of socio-environmental (including environmental) and economic interests of States and their individuals, physical and legal, especially against the background of environmental law of the European Union. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In the article the author draws the reader’s attention to the fact that the Aarhus Convention is little studied even in foreign courses of international law, especially in the Russian international legal doctrine. Having been adopted through the UN Economic Commission for Europe platform, the Aarhus Convention entered into force in 2001, the Anglo-American legal literature is considered as closely interrelated with the development of environmental regulation in the States of the European Union taking into consideration that in the Aarhus Convention that many procedural and legal elements related to public participation in decision-making on specific activities, including in the field of energy, as well as the receipt of significant environmental information by the population, have been developed. The Aarhus Convention, having had a significant impact on the development of the legal mechanisms at the intersection of the human rights and environmental sectors, is aimed at the effective harmonization of social, environmental and economic interests what is especially important for the verification of the regime of environmental protection in the Arctic.