The article analyses the Russian Federal Education Programmes from the aspect of their impact on student and academic staff mobility. The subject of the analysis is the programmes adopted for the period 2000 to 2020 and their implementation reports. A cluster of academic mobility forms compiled by the authors is based on two groups: academic staff and students. The forms of academic staff mobility have been identified as: (1) a migration flow: outward and incoming; and (2) purpose: teaching and research. The forms of student mobility have been identified as: (1) migration flow: outward and incoming; and (2) purpose: credit mobility and degree mobility. The cluster is based on the National Reports on the Implementation of the Bologna Process by different countries from 2012 to 2015 and the Russian Federal Education Programmes. The analysis finds that academic mobility in Russia has been an indicator of the development of education programmes for almost 20 years. During this period, the government’s approach to academic mobility has undergone a change from a simple reference as an expected result to the establishing of quantitative indicators. The four quantitative indicators of academic mobility have been in place since 2000. As a result of the analysis, the authors conclude that among the forms of student mobility the most developed is the incoming degree mobility of international students. The student outward credit mobility is the least developed of the four indicators. In the current situation, it is necessary to reform and liberalise the recognition of study abroad periods for Russian students. Without reform, it will be difficult to achieve the target set by the government to have 6 percent of students studying abroad for at least one semester by 2020. The data for 2016 show that only a few higher education institutions have approached the target. The authors also identify problems relating to academic staff mobility.

International trade of food products is expected to increase rapidly with the widespread introduction of genetically modified (GM) food. There will be greater participation of developing countries based on investment as well as research and development. Investment in research and development and commercial production of GM crops is high in Asia, particularly in India and China, but also in Latin American countries, such as Brazil, and on the African continent, especially in South Africa. Despite the merits, the introduction of GM foods in the world market has continued to raise public concerns touching upon health, legal, social, ethical and environmental issues. Especially, the issue of contamination is considered asignificant threat at many stages of development of GM food. Transboundary aspects and certain aspects of the components of the food safety system such as safety assessment, liability and redress are still not completely addressed. The present study is the systematic review of the extent of the development of legislation and institutional mechanisms in relation to safety assessment and liability mechanisms for regulating the emerging GM foods in the developing countries of BRICS. Additionally, the comparison of the components of national food safety systems of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa reveals differences in policy and regulation in relation to GM food.

Corruption is a global challenge which may impact negatively on economic growth and sustainable development of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). All of these five countries have been held back by corruption, in varying ways, but their rising importance to the global economic system ensures the spotlight now shines brighter than ever on them. Yet some of the BRICS countries have handled the issue better than others. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (2017), in the BRICS bloc of major emerging economies, South Africa is ranked the best (71st), followed by China (77th) and India (81st), with Brazil is 96th and Russia 135th out of 180 countries. These five nations support the strengthening of international cooperation against corruption, including through the BRICS Anti-Corruption Working Group, as well as on matters related to asset recovery and persons sought for corruption. This article provides a detailed analysis of anti-corruption legislation of four of the BRICS countries (Brazil, South Africa, China and India), as well as a brief overview of the efforts of these countries in the fight against corruption.

The article enriches the discussion on the legal reasons and conditions fostering the viability of democratic constitutions by analyzing the rich experience of the Russian Constitution of 1993. Particular attention is paid to the concept of countermajoritarian institutions. The authors elaborate the idea that countermajoritarian institutions can play an important role in ensuring the viability (put in other terms, the proper balance between stability, adaptability, and dynamic development) of modern democratic constitutions as well as political regimes.

The article presents evidence-based data showing that the President and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation systematically acted as countermajoritarian institutions at the initial stage of the implementation of the “blueprint for the future” set down in the 1993 Russian Constitution. As a result of the activities of these institutions, strong legal frameworks were created that are necessary for the establishment of anew constitutional system of the Russian state and law.

Today, the Russian Constitution of 1993 is one of the longest lasting democratic constitutions in the world (the average “life expectancy” of democratic constitutions adopted over the past 250 years is about seventeen years). The study of the countermajoritarian provisions in the 1993 Russian Constitution is of both theoretical and practical importance. In particular, the results of the study can be useful in creating efficient legal instruments for the maintenance of political stability and social development management both within sovereign states and within interstate communities.

The recent reform of the Russian Civil Code (hereinafter RCC) has also considerably touched the regulation of uncertificated securities. Such issues as the legal nature, the protection of a bona fide purchaser and the transfer, including the creation of security interests were precised by the legislator in the Code. As for the transfer, we may affirm that this was one of the main points of the reform in respect of those securities. What about the Swiss legislation, we can also affirm that the disposition of the intermediated securities was one of the key elements of the Federal Intermediated Securities Act, also known as FISA. In this article we intend to analyze precisely the methods of transfer applicable to intermediated securities under Swiss law and compare them with those which are governed by the modified dispositions of the RCC. In order to finalize our analysis on that subject we will also touch some points raised in the previous article. Thus, the present work will be the consequent continuation of the discussion started in my previous article.

Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement provides that members shall provide for protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis protection or both. While WTO member countries can choose from among intellectual property strategies to protect plant varieties, they may not choose to exclude plant varieties from IP rights protection without facing trade sanctions from the WTO dispute resolution body. The open-ended language of the article creates a flexible standard of protection sympathetic to developing nations’ socio-economic priorities, provided that the effectiveness requirement is satisfied. This flexibility presents a range of possibilities from systems like the plant patent regime of the United States or specific variety protection systems of the European Union to the possibility of customized plant protection regimes suited to the needs of developing nations.

India, while complying with the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement for the protection of plant varieties, enacted the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. The fundamental ideology of the PPVFR Act is to address India’s concerns about protecting the rights of small and marginal farming communities, while at the same time promoting plant breeding by vesting adequate IP rights protection which will boost further research and innovation in this field.

This paper argues that as it is necessary to recognize and protect the rights of farmers in respect of their contribution made at any time in conserving, improving and making available plant genetic resources for the development of new plant varieties, the PPVFR Act has maintained a balance between breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights. The PPVFR Act protects farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange and share all farm produce, including seeds that fall within the purview of the Act, and it provides protection of indigenous knowledge against unwary monetization.