bricslawjournalBRICS Law JournalЮридический журнал БРИКС2409-90582412-2343Publishing House V.Ема10.21684/2412-2343-2025-12-1-20-39bricslawjournal-1206Research ArticleARTICLELegal Regulations of Surrogate Motherhood in Russia and South Africa: Similarities and DifferencesMitryakovaE.

Elena Mitryakova  – Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Law and Procedure

6 Volodarskogo St., Tyumen, 625003

e.s.mitryakova@utmn.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1507-6695BonifaceA.

Amanda Boniface  – Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Advocate, High Court of South Africa

Kingsway Ave., Auckland Park, South Africa, Or PO Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006

aeboniface@uj.ac.zaUniversity of TyumenRussian FederationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa2025220420251212039Copyright © Mitryakova E., Boniface A., 20252025Mitryakova E., Boniface A.Mitryakova E., Boniface A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.bricslawjournal.com/jour/article/view/1206

This study analyzes the laws and regulations surrounding surrogacy in two of the BRICS countries, namely Russia and South Africa. In particular, the authors examine the list of persons authorized to act as parties to such a contract and the requirements that must be met. The methodological basis of the research is the multidisciplinary approach. The research methods employed included the analysis of scientific literature and legislation. Furthermore, this research examines issues related to determining a child’s origin when using assisted reproductive technologies. It also employs a comparative legal analysis to suggest potential solutions for resolving issues in this area that are relevant in both Russia and South Africa. This study is significant given that no comparative analysis of Russian and South African surrogacy legislation has previously been conducted

surrogacy agreementcommissioning parentssurrogate motherreproductive technologiesRussiaSouth AfricaThis article was published as part of the NRU HSE Project “Mirror Laboratories” 2022 entitled, “Actual Aspects of Human Rights in Bioethics.”ReferencesAshuha, V.M. (2017). Paragraph 4 of Art. 51 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation – A Guarantee of Protection of Maternal Rights, a Reason for Abuse of the Right, an Anachronism? Bulletin of Omsk University. Series: Law, 3(52), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.25513/1990-5173.2017.3.111-116. (In Russian).Ashuha, V.M. (2017). Paragraph 4 of Art. 51 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation – A Guarantee of Protection of Maternal Rights, a Reason for Abuse of the Right, an Anachronism? Bulletin of Omsk University. Series: Law, 3(52), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.25513/1990-5173.2017.3.111-116. (In Russian).Gaibatova, K.D., & Shamsudinova, P.M. (2022). The Problem of Establishing the Origin of Children as a Legal Consequence of the Surrogacy Contract. Legal Bulletin of Dagestan State University, 41(1), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.21779/2224-0241-2022-41-1-66-70. (In Russian).Gaibatova, K.D., & Shamsudinova, P.M. (2022). The Problem of Establishing the Origin of Children as a Legal Consequence of the Surrogacy Contract. Legal Bulletin of Dagestan State University, 41(1), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.21779/2224-0241-2022-41-1-66-70. (In Russian).Harris, P.T. (2020). Chapter 5 – Surrogacy. In P.T. Harris & E. Baker (Eds.), Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat (2nd ed) (pp. 97–113). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814960-7.00005-1Harris, P.T. (2020). Chapter 5 – Surrogacy. In P.T. Harris & E. Baker (Eds.), Seafloor Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat (2nd ed) (pp. 97–113). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814960-7.00005-1Levushkin, A.N., & Saveliev, I.S. (2015). Requirements imposed legislators to the future parents of a child born using surrogate motherhood technology. Modern Law, 9, 92–96. (In Russian).Levushkin, A.N., & Saveliev, I.S. (2015). Requirements imposed legislators to the future parents of a child born using surrogate motherhood technology. Modern Law, 9, 92–96. (In Russian).Pande, A., & Moll, T. (2018). Gendered bio-responsibilities and travelling egg providers from South Africa. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 6, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.08.002Pande, A., & Moll, T. (2018). Gendered bio-responsibilities and travelling egg providers from South Africa. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 6, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.08.002Savchenkova, E.C., & Sadovaya, L.C. (2015). Ethical Aspects of Surrogacy. Education and Science in Modern Conditions, 3, 244–246. (In Russian).Savchenkova, E.C., & Sadovaya, L.C. (2015). Ethical Aspects of Surrogacy. Education and Science in Modern Conditions, 3, 244–246. (In Russian).Stebleva, E.V. (2011). Legal regulation of posthumous reproduction using the surrogate motherhood method. Civilist, 3, 92–96. (In Russian).Stebleva, E.V. (2011). Legal regulation of posthumous reproduction using the surrogate motherhood method. Civilist, 3, 92–96. (In Russian).Svitnev, K.N. (2010). 196 Surrogacy and its Legal Regulation in Russia. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 20, Supplement 3, S90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62614-4Svitnev, K.N. (2010). 196 Surrogacy and its Legal Regulation in Russia. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 20, Supplement 3, S90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62614-4

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.