Today’s economy is undergoing a fundamental institutional shift in which digital ecosystems have emerged not only as a key driver of development but also as a critical condition for market access for billions of users. Despite the rapid global proliferation of these phenomena, the evolution of legal regulation—from e-commerce and data protection to antitrust oversight of platforms—demonstrates a lag behind the dynamics of technological development. The existing regulatory framework fails to adequately address contemporary challenges that require comprehensive oversight of the platform economy. Traditional approaches are insufficient to address systemic integration, multi-layered control over data, and competitive dynamics of digital platforms and broader digital ecosystems. The absence of terminological consensus in differentiating key concepts such as “digital platform,” “ecosystem,” and “super-app” stems from the inadequacy of current economic and socio-legal theory to describe these new phenomena. The emerging legal lacunae, which fail to account for the multi-layered nature of ecosystems, pose significant risks to the protection of legally protected values. This is even more significant in the conditions of the global involvement of billions of users in digital ecosystems, where the cost of hard regulatory measures primarily risks being passed on to consumers. This article provides an analysis of the platform economy’s evolution from e-commerce to digital ecosystems, alongside the adaptation process of the regulatory environment to the changes. As a key scientific and practical outcome, the article proposes new systemic definitions of a complex digital platform, a digital ecosystem, and a meta-ecosystem. The definitions are grounded in the authors’ original classification of the values and characteristics related to digital ecosystems. This represents a foundational step towards filling doctrinal gaps and establishing a framework for effective legal regulation of this novel economic phenomenon, aligned with the developmental stages of the platform economy.

Fifth-generation brain–computer interface neurotechnologies enable the instrumental registration of cognitive traces of crime, transforming the conditions of investigative practices. Brain fingerprinting, employing event-related brain potentials, allows the establishment of the presence or absence of specific information in memory without verbal mediation. The adoption of the first global neuroethical standard—the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology adopted on November 11, 2025 in Samarkand at the 43^rd session of the UNESCO General Conference—creates an international legal framework that has not yet been conceptualized in forensic and criminal procedural terms in post-Soviet and BRICS legal systems. The aim of this article is to substantiate “neurocriminalistics” as a new branch of forensic science and to develop a model of legal regulation of “neuroexpertise” in the criminal procedural law of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The research methodology combines comparative legal analysis of the regulatory frameworks of Uzbekistan, BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), Chile, the European Union and the United States; inductive generalisation of criminal neurotesting cases; functional analysis of investigative actions under the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan; and normative modelling of admissibility. The research contribution lies in five proposals: an instrumentally registrable ideational trace as an autonomous object of forensic research; the attributive gap between neurorecognised familiarity and evidentially relevant knowledge; the two-tier admissibility regime distinguishing orienting application in operational-investigative activity from procedural application in particularly grave cases; the “Samarkand Process” as an institutional mechanism for regional implementation; and “neuroexpertise” as an autonomous form of forensic examination.

The expansion of BRICS into BRICS+ has transformed the bloc into a significant actor in global trade and dispute resolution. This article provides the first comprehensive examination of arbitration practices within the BRICS+ framework, combining doctrinal analysis, comparative legal study, and empirical research. It maps the treaty commitments, legislative frameworks, and institutional preferences of BRICS+ jurisdictions. It analyzes over a decade of case law from Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (2014–2025) concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The findings reveal uneven alignment with the New York Convention, persistent divergences in public policy standards, and notable asymmetries in institutional participation – particularly China’s dominance and Africa’s limited engagement. However, recognition decisions remain overwhelmingly supportive of enforcement, indicating a trend toward convergence. By situating these dynamics within broader debates on regionalization, judicial control, and Global South arbitration initiatives, this study provides new empirical evidence and theoretical insights into how emerging powers are reshaping transnational dispute resolution, offering policy-relevant recommendations to enhance cooperation and harmonize arbitration practices across the BRICS+ landscape.

The article presents the authors’ conceptual vision of a new stage in the development of law as a social regulator, a stage that is predetermined by the biotechnologization of human activity. The purpose of the study is to articulate the foundational vectors of potential transformations of law—both at the doctrinal level and within the sphere of legal implementation—under the influence of two constitutive factors of the contemporary context: biotechnology and artificial intelligence. Proceeding from the premise that the emerging reality substantively reshapes a number of elements traditionally regarded as axiomatic within legal theory, the authors outline possible trajectories for the further development of law under conditions of biotechnologization. Particular attention is paid to the methodological grounds of such transformation, which are determined, inter alia, by changes in the very nature of the human being, the modification of fundamental legal conceptual and categorical units, as well as shifts in the content of legal relations associated with the emergence of novel features of subject–object interactions. Each identified methodological ground necessitates the revision of existing doctrinal and regulatory approaches, which allows biotechnologization to be conceptualized as a new point of legal development in the current socio-technological environment. This conclusion is supported by emerging trends in normative regulation, demonstrated through the authors’ analysis of BRICS countries, namely the Russian Federation, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the People’s Republic of China, and India.

Tax incentives continue to be a favoured instrument used by the Indonesian government to attract investors, especially in Indonesia’s new capital, Nusantara. These incentives result in low to zero income tax burdens. However, as a G20 member, Indonesia is committed to implementing the Global Minimum Tax (GMT). This commitment to the GMT poses new challenges when the applied incentives result in tax burdens below 15%. This article discusses the urgency, challenges, and sustainability of income tax incentive policies in the new capital in the context of the concurrent implementation of the GMT. Utilizing qualitative methods, this research was based on data collection through a literature review, document analysis, and interviews with key informants. The findings suggest that the Indonesian government considers it necessary to implement incentives for investors, particularly in the new capital, Nusantara, to provide legal certainty. The government faces challenges in formulating policies, particularly related to the complexity of interactions among interested parties. Tax incentive policies will be applied while the government awaits global developments related to the GMT. The government is also considering redesigning tax incentives after the official implementation of the GMT, potentially introducing adjustments in the form of Qualified Refundable Tax Credits (QRTC) and Marketable Transferable Tax Credits (MTTC).

The concept of a “fresh start” has been recognized worldwide, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitative justice and legal forgiveness. This article examines the evolving jurisprudence surrounding the right to oblivion in India, particularly as it pertains to individuals acquitted of criminal charges. Indian High Courts have increasingly affirmed this right as a means of safeguarding the privacy, dignity, autonomy, and reputation of individuals. They have also underscored the principle of a fresh start, as seen in the Madras High Court’s decision in Karthiсk Theodore case, acknowledging the lasting stigma of criminal accusations that can obstruct future opportunities. Presently, the portal Indian Kanoon has appealed this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that it has a duty to keep the public informed because the case implicates the principle of open justice. This has opened up an important opportunity for the Court to determine the contours of this right. Meanwhile, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has recognized the right to oblivion in a case wherein the petitioner was acquitted of charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) to protect his family life, his younger child, and his future prospects. However, the Court has not offered an adequate guidance on balancing the competing rights of privacy and freedom of information. The study examines the intricate relationship between the right to oblivion and other fundamental rights, such as privacy, dignity, autonomy, and the freedoms of speech, expression, and information. To provide a comparative framework, the research analyses the landmark U.K. case NT1 and NT2 v. Google, which presents a thoughtful approach to balancing these competing rights. By conducting a comprehensive analysis and proposing potential guidelines, this paper aims to contribute to establishing a robust legal framework for the right to oblivion in India.

The transformation of BRICS from an economic concept to a significant political entity represents one of the most significant developments in contemporary international relations. This comprehensive study examines the evolution of BRICS from its inception as an investment framework to its status as a significant geopolitical force in an increasingly multipolar world. Through a multidisciplinary approach, the research examines the impact of BRICS on global economic governance, its geopolitical implications, and the grouping’s response to contemporary global challenges. The study explores the group’s expansion, internal dynamics, and external perceptions while also considering theoretical frameworks to understand BRICS’ role in reshaping international relations. By critically assessing BRICS’ achievements and limitations, this research provides insights into the prospects of the alliance and its potential to influence global affairs.

In the 21^st century, state sovereignty is undergoing a profound transformation, largely driven by advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and the changing landscape of jurisprudential autonomy and structural power. This article explores how AI is challenging traditional notions of sovereignty and influencing states in the interaction with each other and with emerging technologies. The study discusses the ethical and legal dilemmas raised by artificial intelligence, focusing on decision-making procedures, surveillance tools, and regulations on data use. Additionally, it discusses the geopolitical ramifications of AI development, emphasizing the possibility of shifts in power and global competitiveness. Drawing from case studies and scholarly insights, the article suggests that AI’s evolution necessitates reimagining sovereignty, moving towards a more fluid and networked governance model. It underscores the need for global cooperation and ethical frameworks to ensure AI’s responsible development and deployment while safeguarding individual rights and democratic principles.

The article suggests a comparative analysis of the legal framework for the distribution of value added tax between different levels of the budget in the BRICS states—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the Republic of South Africa. The aim of the study is to identify general patterns and unique national models that have developed in the context of federal or decentralized state structures. Drawing on an analysis of the constitutional norms and the tax and budget legislation of these countries, the author identifies three main approaches. China demonstrates a centralized model where equal sharing of VAT revenues is combined with a system of strictly targeted redistribution of funds for the implementation of economic development plans. India exemplifies a cooperative model based on joint decision‑making by the centre and the states through a special council and an independent commission that set out detailed distribution formulas. Brazil and South Africa can be seen as opposite poles. The Brazilian system, owing to the detailed constitutional entrenchment of state rights, is characterized by internal contradictions and stagnation, whereas the South African system is marked by strong centralization and the passive dependence of provinces on grants. The article emphasizes that, despite the differences, all countries face similar problems: the need to bridge the gap between regional revenues and expenditures, reduce territorial inequality, and create effective incentives for the development of the local economy. The author using the comparative analysis makes contribution to the Russian model, i.e., to avoid extreme models, develop a system that combines stable regional revenues with nationwide oversight, and gradually transform financial assistance to territories into an instrument for stimulating specific socio‑economic development. The scientific contribution of the research lies in a comprehensive comparison of the legal frameworks for VAT distribution in the largest developing economies of the BRICS group, which makes it possible to identify strategic guidelines for improving intergovernmental fiscal relations.

Nationality is the political and legal bond that links an individual to a state and makes that person one of its citizens. It is well established that nationality is a legal status connected to the sovereignty of the state. Due to the importance of nationality, international instruments and conventions allow each state to determine the grounds for the acquisition and revocation of its nationality. There are various grounds for the revocation of nationality, including voluntary renunciation of nationality, naturalization in a foreign state without prior permission from the competent authorities, serving a foreign state without permission from the state that holds one’s nationality, and non-compliance with instructions or orders prohibiting such actions. One of the most common reasons for nationality revocation in Egypt currently is condemnation for terrorist acts and other serious crimes that harm the basic interests of the state. The Egyptian Nationality Law uniquely includes holding Zionist ideologies as a reason for nationality revocation. Due to the serious effects of nationality revocation, the legislator has enacted legal protections for such cases. Article 16 of the Egyptian Nationality Law No. 26-75 lists exclusive reasons for nationality revocation, which must not be expanded upon. The administrative authority is required to provide justification for its decision to revoke nationality. Nationality revocation is considered an administrative sanction and must be proportional to the committed act; otherwise, the sanction would be deemed illegal.

This article offers a comprehensive study of the foundations for a consortium of Russian universities within a world‑class inter‑university campus, addressing both its theoretical and applied dimensions. The purpose of the study is to identify optimal mechanisms of cooperation between educational and research institutions in order to enhance their effectiveness. The analysis covers the conceptual underpinnings of consortia, examines international cases in establishing university and research consortia (in particular, the European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) model and examples from the United States), and identifies problematic aspects of the Russian legal framework governing consortium‑based university cooperation. The authors employ content analysis, document analysis, economic analysis of law, and comparative jurisprudence. This methodological toolkit makes it possible to identify relevant legal foundations, systematise practices, and outline mechanisms suitable for Russian educational landscape. The article argues that, despite the diversity of approaches to defining consortia and the various options for their organisational and legal design, current Russian legislation does not provide unified, systematic or detailed regulation in this area. This gap significantly complicates the practical implementation of the consortium concept, including in the context of world‑class university campuses. The authors propose improvements to the legislative framework, grounded in scientific analysis, to support the effective development of new forms of educational integration and cooperation. The article considers the feasibility of different management models (such as single‑hub and multi‑hub structures) and highlights the strategic importance of consortium‑based integration for the scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation. The findings have both theoretical and practical significance for legislative activity, strategic planning in higher education and research, and the management of integration processes within inter‑university campuses.