The growing influence of renewable energy in the economy raises concerns about the need for perfecting the relevant international legal regime so as to satisfy all the stakeholders concerned. This article analyzes the relevant legal position of Russia as one of the largest exporters of energy-related products, while focusing on cooperation in this area as the BRICS Energy Prospects. The research reveals a number of findings: Russian Energy Policy has so far cautiously supported the promotion of renewable energy internationally in the context of energy efficiency and energy security; nevertheless, Russia has demonstrated a very restrained approach to the development of legally binding instruments on the matter. The authors conclude that it may be viable to find a reasonable “compromise of compromises” for the evolving international legal regime of renewable energy, and if this were to be accomplished, BRICS could assume a leading international position for the creation of such a regime.

As a platform of cooperation among its member states, questions of whether or how the BRICS alliance can influence and shape the global governance system and improve their internal governance systems have often been raised. In the process of exploring the role that the law can play in this context, comparative studies on the laws of the BRICS member states, particularly in the defined areas of cooperation, are an important perspective to be addressed in order to be able to contribute to the improvement of their internal governance systems. However, much work remains to be done on this perspective. This article partially fills this gap by conducting a comparative study related to one of the BRICS areas of cooperation – sustainable development – between two of its members: China and Brazil. Specifically, it compares how both states, as stakeholders, use the legal regime of liability for environmental infractions to influence the green governance of companies. The article, therefore, uses comparative legal methodology, using as its objects of research relevant legal provisions on legal liability for environmental infractions gathered from the legal systems of China and Brazil. The adoption of strict civil liability, liability for environmental damages per se and the extension of criminal liability to legal persons are among the similarities found. As for the differences, it finds that, as a principle, Chinese law shields directors and senior officers from liability toward third parties, while Brazilian law fully extends such liability to these entities; additionally, in the Chinese legal system, the burden of disproving causality between the harm and the activity that caused it falls upon the actor, while the Brazilian legal system adopts a double-standard approach for collective suits and individual suits; and finally, the Chinese law imposes a legal obligation to adopt what, in effect, is close to a corporate environmental management system, while the Brazilian legal system lacks a similar mandate.

There has been a growing interest in the extent to which international investment law imposes an obligation on the state to compensate for losses arising from an armed conflict. This contribution explores the prevalence of war clauses that hold the state liable to pay compensation for war losses without the investor needing to prove fault. The contribution considers a recent case against Syria in which an investor was permitted to rely on such a war clause in another treaty through the most favoured nation (MFN) clause. The contribution finds that MFN clauses substantially increase the number of investors who can rely on unqualified extended war clauses. It considers unqualified extended war clauses and the extent to which other investors can rely on them through an MFN clause in Cameroon, Syria and Yemen. It then considers the role that the BRICS countries can play in bringing about the necessary reforms to unqualified extended war clauses. It argues that these reforms are urgently needed as these states emerging from armed conflict can scarcely afford to meet their people’s most essential developmental needs, let alone virtually unlimited liability to foreign investors.

The global challenges brought about by the recent pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 have forced many countries to seek out effective digital tools for supporting higher education. The issue of not only the technological complexity of the digitalization of education but also the necessity to develop and standardize the social and legal frameworks of E-education in the BRICS countries has become acute. This article examines how the BRICS countries regulate the digital transformation of higher education and discusses the changes that need to be made to social and legal regulation in order to accommodate the process of digital transformation. The authors’ research leads them to the conclusion that the process of social and legal modification of higher education in the aspect of its digital transformation is patchy. On the one hand, it is forced by unpredictable global challenges like the pandemic outbreak. In this aspect, the digital transformation across the BRICS countries tends to be rather international. On the other hand, the absence of common settings and digital standards within the BRICS countries could intensify the digital stratification among universities and lead to a decrease in the quality of higher education. The authors propose the establishment of a set of common digital standards that comprise a unified ecosystem of digital tools and services, a common model for a “digital university,” unified standards of digital competences and educational services, frameworks and standards of technical modernization as the basis of digital transformation and the creation of a common technical landscape.

International arbitration has flourished as a private adjudicatory forum and is consistently evolving because of its versatile nature, assimilating the needs of modern arbitration users. Arbitration institutes have bent over backward for the development of international arbitration. All jurisdictions, through sporadic amendments, upgrade their curial law in alignment with the current global arbitration norms. The leading jurisdictions of Southeast Asia, specifically Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong, through timely updates in their curial law and atonement of their premier arbitration institute’s policies incorporating the recent trends, continue to grow and rival each other as regional players in international arbitration. Keeping in mind India’s position in the global market, it is about time that India reserves its name among the leading arbitration hubs in Southeast Asia. Upon consideration of the trifecta of the curial law, the role of the premier arbitral institution, and the deference of the judiciary of a leading arbitration hub, the author through critical analysis, coherent reasoning, and statistical interpretation of data attempts to unveil the following questions raised. Firstly, whether India’s endeavour to strengthen and reinforce institutional arbitration in India vide the Amendment Act, 2019 would derive the desired result. Secondly, whether India’s attempt to become an international hub of arbitration that could rival Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysian arbitration institutes would be successful. Consequently, India’s attempt to march alongside the leading arbitral forces in Southeast Asia is like a lucid dream having the potential of manifestation.

This article discusses the currently relevant direction of the ongoing reform of the “regulatory guillotine.” Specifically, the article focuses on the development of new trends in the regulation of control and supervisory activities. The reasons for the reform, its goals and objectives, as well as the results achieved, are analyzed. It is concluded that the key reason for the launch of the “regulatory guillotine” is the problem of redundancy and moral obsolescence of the regulatory framework. Furthermore, the current state of control and supervision activities carried out by the public authorities of the Russian Federation is characterized, trends are analyzed and the results of the ongoing reforms are summarized. One of the main problems in the implementation of the reform is corruption. Excessive bureaucratization of control and supervisory activities is highlighted as a key factor influencing the transition to electronic document management. In connection with the identified problems, the following potential areas for future research have been identified: the introduction and legitimization of electronic document management, the reduction of corruption, the impossibility of withdrawing from the reform of some departments, the identification of all kinds of threats and so on. In evaluating the effectiveness of the activities of control and supervisory bodies in foreign countries, the emphasis has shifted away from assessing the actual number of inspections, violations detected, fines and penalties imposed, open criminal cases, the amounts of illegally spent public funds returned to the budget, etc., and to assessing the “quantity” and the “quality” of the facts revealed and the events prevented in advance, which in one way or another contained a potential threat to the security of the state and society. It was thus implied that there was a risk of not achieving socially significant indicators (results), on the basis of which society ultimately evaluates the activities of government bodies in general and the activities of control and supervisory bodies in particular.

International arbitration has flourished as a private adjudicatory forum and is consistently evolving because of its versatile nature, assimilating the needs of modern arbitration users. Arbitration institutes have bent over backward for the development of international arbitration. All jurisdictions through sporadic amendments upgrade its curial law in alignment with the current global arbitration norms. Users selecting India as the seat of arbitral proceedings often face the conundrum of delayed arbitration proceedings and enforcement of the award; moreover, the bulk of domestic users in India opt for ad-hoc arbitration and not institutional arbitration. Following the common practice, India in 2019 passed the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amending) Act, 2019 and the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Ac,t 2019, making changes to intensify the object of the principal Act further, strengthening institutional arbitration and striving to transpire as an international arbitration hub. While the other jurisdictions of Southeast Asia, specifically Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong, through timely updates in their curial law and atonement of their premier arbitration institute’s policies incorporating the recent trends continued to grow as regional players in international arbitration rivaling each other. Upon considering India’s position in the global market, it is about time that India reserves its name among the leading arbitration hub in Southeast Asia. The author in this article through reasoning and statistical interpretation of data attempts to unveil the following questions raised. Firstly, whether India’s endeavor to strengthen and reinforce institutional arbitration in India vide the Amendment Act, 2019 would derive the desired result. Secondly, whether India’s attempt to become an international hub of arbitration that could rival Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysian arbitration institutes would be successful.