China’s existing regime for eco-environmental damage remedies is beset by prominent practical dilemmas, including fragmented avenues of redress, conflicting normative provisions, and a poorly integrated theoretical framework. In this context, the legislative formulation of the Ecological and Environmental Code provides a systematic institutional opportunity to standardize and integrate the scattered eco-environmental remediation mechanisms in place. A comprehensive analysis of the theoretical bottlenecks and normative deficiencies embedded in China’s diversified environmental remedy mechanisms shows that clarifying the meaning of eco-environmental damage and affirming its private-law orientation in the Civil Code are of crucial theoretical and practical importance for constructing a coherent and standardized system of environmental remedies. To further refine the coordination and consultation mechanisms between different types of environmental litigation, it is essential to achieve effective integration between ecoenvironmental damage compensation actions and civil public interest litigation.

A tiered eco-environmental litigation system should be built on the basic logic of prioritizing administrative remedies, treating procuratorial public interest litigation as a supplementary judicial avenue, and enabling social organizations to participate in related cases on a parallel basis. In addition, it is crucial to clearly affirm the civilcontractual nature of eco-environmental consultation agreements, to delineate in a systematic way the boundaries between public-law and private-law modes of redress, to optimize the procedural sequencing of different types of environmental litigation, and further standardize the pre-litigation consultation procedures.

Data has become a foundational strategic resource in the digital age, and data security has emerged as a crucial issue that affects national security, economic development, and social stability. With the expansion of data sovereignty approach and the collective rise of the “Global South,” the BRICS countries have initiated their respective data legislation processes and changed the passive position of developing countries in the formulation of international data rules through coordinated governance. However, the BRICS still face challenges, including divergences in core legal concepts, legal barriers to cross-border data flow, and a legal vacuum in coordinated dispute resolution. In the context of intensifying global competition over data rules, promoting collaborative governance in the field of data security among the BRICS countries holds significant strategic importance. Only by first building consensus among developing countries on data-driven collaborative empowerment, then establishing a multi-level legal framework for collaborative data security governance, and finally putting in place a regular mechanism for cooperation on digital sovereignty can the digital economy’s potential be fully unlocked and the voice of developing countries in international rule-making be effectively strengthened.

This article presents a comparative analysis of the legal mechanisms of AI assessment in China and Russia. The author employs the functional and dogmatic methods, together with a basic concept—the “AI assessment mechanism”—as the foundation for comparing heterogeneous legal institutions. The comparison is conducted across seven parameters: the object and subject matter of assessment, the criteria for selecting the object, the procedure, the timing, the legal force, and the regulatory purpose. In China, the mechanism is based on algorithm registration and security assessment, established by the Cyberspace Administration of China acts and implemented through administrative practice and technical standards. In Russia, the first legally significant assessment mechanism is introduced by Federal Law No. 243-FZ of July 26, 2026, which establishes a register of large foundation models and a requirement to confirm their compliance with legislation and traditional Russian spiritual and moral values. The comparison reveals two types of relationship: divergence and convergence. The divergence stems from the regulators’ different goals: China develops assessment as an instrument of control over the information space, while Russia designs it as a tool for securing technological sovereignty. There is convergence, however, in the choice of instruments: both legal orders rely on registration or record-keeping and on security or compliance assessment, and both mechanisms operate on an ex ante basis. The article and its findings represent the first comparative study of these mechanisms. The Chinese experience is particularly relevant to the unresolved issues Russia faces in designing procedures for registering large foundation models and confirming their compliance with applicable requirements.

Over the past few years, the introduction of digital technologies into various areas of governance has accelerated markedly. The development and improvement of the legal framework governing international cooperation among the BRICS countries on cross-border gathering of electronic evidence is of strategic importance in combating transnational IT crime, which poses a threat to their economic and national security. This article examines legal mechanisms for crossborder access to and collection of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings in the light of China’s experience, and on this basis proposes ideas for standardizing a single cooperation mechanism responding to requests for mutual legal assistance in cross-border access to electronic evidence within the BRICS. These issues are crucial for the detection, investigation and prosecution of offences and for identifying priority directions for further research in this field.

The traditional framework of global anti-corruption governance has increasingly proved inadequate in responding to emerging challenges, particularly the transformation of the global governance system and the intensification of crossborder corruption. Through their practical anti-corruption efforts, the BRICS countries have developed a distinctive governance model characterized by sovereign equality, mutual benefit, and a development-oriented approach. By adhering to international conventions and fostering multilateral cooperation mechanisms, they have laid an important foundation for reconfiguring the global anti-corruption governance framework. In the course of their governance practice, the BRICS countries have integrated national experience in legal systems and law-enforcement cooperation, thereby constructing a new governance framework. This framework is grounded in the core principles of sovereign equality and mutual benefit, institutionally supported by charter-based guidance and coordination mechanisms, and operationalized through a tripartite structure encompassing dispute settlement, monitoring and evaluation, and phased financial safeguards. It is designed to complement and operate alongside existing international instruments, including the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), thereby promoting a more inclusive trajectory of global anticorruption governance. The BRICS countries are expected to further refine this emerging governance model by strengthening internal coordination, deepening international collaboration, and advancing technological empowerment. By pursuing these efforts, they aim to provide a pragmatic and viable “BRICS solution” to the persistent challenges of global anti-corruption governance, at the same time contributing to the evolution of a more equitable and just global governance order.

The traditional framework of global anti-corruption governance has increasingly proved inadequate in responding to emerging challenges, particularly the transformation of the global governance system and the intensification of crossborder corruption. Through their practical anti-corruption efforts, the BRICS countries have developed a distinctive governance model characterized by sovereign equality, mutual benefit, and a development-oriented approach. By adhering to international conventions and fostering multilateral cooperation mechanisms, they have laid an important foundation for reconfiguring the global anti-corruption governance framework. In the course of their governance practice, the BRICS countries have integrated national experience in legal systems and law-enforcement cooperation, thereby constructing a new governance framework. This framework is grounded in the core principles of sovereign equality and mutual benefit, institutionally supported by charter-based guidance and coordination mechanisms, and operationalized through a tripartite structure encompassing dispute settlement, monitoring and evaluation, and phased financial safeguards. It is designed to complement and operate alongside existing international instruments, including the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), thereby promoting a more inclusive trajectory of global anticorruption governance. The BRICS countries are expected to further refine this emerging governance model by strengthening internal coordination, deepening international collaboration, and advancing technological empowerment. By pursuing these efforts, they aim to provide a pragmatic and viable “BRICS solution” to the persistent challenges of global anti-corruption governance, at the same time contributing to the evolution of a more equitable and just global governance order.

The Declaration of the BRICS Labour and Employment Ministers, signed on September 10, 2024 in Sochi, identifies prospective areas of cooperation in labour relations, social security, and work culture, as well as the reduction of work-related accidents. In light of these objectives, the article analyses the legislation of Russia and China that formalizes the procedures for compensating employees with work-related injuries and occupational diseases. The article examines the legal and regulatory framework, the occurrence of losses, the characteristics of the workers’ compensation systems, and the procedures for providing compensation to employees with workrelated injuries and occupational diseases in both countries. Special emphasis is placed on the analysis of existing fundamental arrangements for the social insurance of work-related events. The authors demonstrate similarities and differences in the approaches to protecting employees who have sustained work-related injuries and make the conclusion that both countries may draw on each other’s experience of legal regulation in order to improve the social security of injured employees.

Quantum communication is among the key segments of the data economy in Russia and of the digital economy in China. Both countries are developing legal frameworks for the quantum communication. In Russia, this process takes place predominantly at the federal level, whereas China has an integrated regulatory system in which provinces with advancing quantum technologies also play an active role in adopting legal instruments for their regulation. The article analyses the specific features of provincial-level regulation of quantum communication in China. Particular emphasis is placed on the Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area, and specifically on measures to support and develop quantum technologies that have been approved by its Administrative Committee—the “Measures for Promoting the Development of Quantum Science and Industry in the Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area.” The article further examines regulation in Zhejiang Province and Hangzhou, in Anhui Province and the Hefei High-Tech Zone, as well as in other provinces (Shanghai, Nanjing, Guangdong). These jurisdictions focus predominantly working out specific measures to stimulate and advance technologies, aimed at achieving their world-class level, which in turn presupposes a systematic approach. Recently, the Russian economy has seen the implementation of several projects involving the creation and use of quantum communication and related equipment, some of them have been introduced at the level of Russia’s regions. Under the Russian Constitution, matters concerning communications and information technology fall within federal jurisdiction. Since regions have not been vested with the corresponding powers, they may regulate only supportive activities for innovative projects in this field. By comparing China’s integrated, province-level regulation with Russia’s primarily federal-level framework, the article provides an understanding of how both countries legally support the development of quantum communication. While adopting a comparative perspective, the analysis places particular emphasis on China’s regulatory architecture and province-level practices. This analysis reveals common challenges and distinct pathways in designing legal mechanisms for quantum technologies in different constitutional settings.