The creation of unique scientific facilities of the “Megascience” class is a very complex and lengthy organizational and technical process, for the implementation of which the resources of several states are usually involved. In connection with the participation in the creation and implementation of a scientific project of the “Megascience” class of several states, it becomes necessary to distribute the rights, duties, costs and powers of project management among the participants. Currently, the Russian Federation lacks a sufficient level of legal regulation of projects of the “Megascience” class. Based on the analysis of Russian and foreign experience in the implementation of scientific projects of the “Megascience” class, the article presents proposals for improving the legal regulation of these projects being implemented on the territory of the Russian Federation. The article also discusses the specific problems that one has to face when implementing projects of the “Megascience” class in Russia, and the ways to solve them. In addition, the authors’ definitions of such key terms as “Megascience” class project, “unique scientific facility of the “Megascience class” and “scientific collaboration,” which are absent in the current legislation, are proposed. This research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 18-29-15036mk “Models for legal regulation of unique scientific facilities of ‘Megascience’ class at the national and international levels in the context of technological development of the Russian Federation”).

Modern technologies and new management concepts — industrial and product platforms — create breakthrough innovative products and services based on the complex integration of artificial intelligence and other latest digital technolog3ies. Platforms are the physical embodiment of connectivity, digitalizing traditional manufacturing, lowering production costs, and converting goods into services that generate more value. Platform law could become a networking mechanism for artificial intelligence, big data, and the internet of things. It has features and instruments of legal regulation similar to those of integration law, but it is permeated, in accordance with its renewed nature, with scientific, technological and information-digital algorithms of legal relations and interactions. To meet the requirements of the time, legal institutions must change; the dominance of platform business models creates new legal relations and the need to search for new content and new legal forms of institutional regulation of changing social relations. Both traditional and adapted for its specifics methods are used in the article: historical, from the EU law — teleological (interpretation based on goals), comparative jurisprudence (synchronous and diachronous), comparative integration law, comparative law of science and technology, comparative legal regulation of AI and digital law, comparative platform law, comparative experimental law. The legal field of platform entities is in constant search of an effective balance between technological and economic innovations and their legal regulation. At the same time, it can become an effective mechanism for regulating artificial intelligence in the interests of humans.

Two decades into the 21st Century, it is abundantly clear that Artificial Intelligence technology will fundamentally change the legal system as well as the economics of our daily lives. During the early years of AI development, computers successfully surpassed humans only in complex games requiring exceptional intelligence (e.g., chess, Go, Shogi). The legal profession assumed that AI would be unable to master the nuances and ambiguities of language and the skills required of first class lawyers. The recent history of AI advancement proved that assumption wrong. When combined with the new focus of neuroscientists and related disciplines on the study of the human brain, AI stands on the threshold of exceeding human intelligence in the areas which have historically been the exclusive domain of the legal profession. There is currently a broad array of important tools in the AI field which lawyers may use to improve efficiency and profitability, These AI tools are just the beginning. We can also anticipate that AI will necessarily and substantially affect decisions traditionally relegated to the autonomy of individual citizenry as well, with dramatic consequences. This paper attempts to identify the implications of AI technology on the legal profession, the broader society in which it operates, and the challenges confronted by the next generation of lawyers and law students.

The proposal for a European Union Regulation establishing harmonized rules for artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) is under consideration. The structure and features of the proposal of this regulatory legal act of the integrational organization are analyzed. EU AI Act scope is analyzed and shown as wider than the current Russian one. The act will contain harmonized rules for placing into market, operation and use of AI systems; bans on certain artificial intelligence methods; special requirements for AI systems with high level of risk and obligations of operators of such systems, harmonized transparency rules for AI systems designed for interaction with individuals, emotion recognition systems and biometric categorization systems, AI systems used to creating or managing images, audio or video content; market surveillance and supervision rules. The provisions of the Act, the features of the proposed institutions and norms, including extraterritoriality (as for GDPR before that raised many questions), risk-oriented approach (which is based both on self-certification and definite criteria for high-risk systems), object, scope, definitions are considered. The possible key concerns based on case-law to undermine possible discrimination are expressed. The author expresses conclusions about the advisability of (non) application of these institutions or rules in Russia.

Since the end of the twentieth century, there has been a trend in Europe towards the accumulation of scientific knowledge, increasing the competitiveness of European research and the mobility of scientists themselves. The goals and objectives set by the European Union are being realised through the creation of a common European Research Area and the implementation of special framework programmes. The EU funding for basic research is now being pursued under a new framework programme known as Horizon Europe. Despite a number of changes caused by the increasing complexity of the structure of the bodies involved in funding research projects, grants to researchers, including through the activities of the European Research Council, remain the main sourсe of investment. Horizon Europe provides research and innovation funding for multinational cooperation projects as well as for individual researchers and supports SMEs with a special funding instrument. Attention should also be paid to such aspects of the programme implementation as European partnerships (in various forms) and research infrastructures. However, despite all the positive experiences of the previous framework programmes, the current legal regulations make it very difficult for researchers from third countries to participate in the call for proposals, usually the possible implementation of such projects is subject to the participation of European researchers or research organisations, thereby ensuring EU competitiveness in the international arena.

The paper looks at the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, focusing upon the invaluable contribution of the platform technologies and artificial intelligence to the fight against this suddenly impending threat. Applying analytical techniques, we focus on some Asian countries (i.e. Singapore, China), Russia and the USA. The results demonstrate that rapid processing of large amounts of data, standardization protocols and quick analysis within a tight deadline cannot be overestimated. However, lack of the appropriate legal regulation significantly limits the functionality of platform solutions. We live in a modern legal state, where human rights arerecognized as the highest value, so implementation of new technologies, regardless of their efficiency and practical value, should not infringe the rights of citizens, but meet the requirements of the law. The article tackles the problem of global COVID-19 pandemic by focusing on the international experience in the use of artificial intelligence and arising legal issues associated with human rights and information privacy laws. This will help to determine the vector of the legislation development globally among the continents and in the Russian Federation specifically.

The author has attempted to show that in the context of building information society the format of its management changes, and law is being transformed accordingly as the main social regulator. Traditional state institutions are being modernized including the sector of registry office. The civil status record as the “primary cell” of the Unified State Register has been transformed from a simple text into an electronic one. The organizational and legal basis for the change in the format of the civil status act was a whole block of normative legal acts of various legal force. At the same time, the adoption of methodological and technical standards is required, without which it is impossible to form the maintenance of act records in a new digital format. We consider the need for the modernization of the entire system of state registration of civil status acts to update the legal terminology used in the field of legal regulation of relations in the field of civil registration. Many terms from everyday life become legal categories in information law, and need official and doctrinal interpretation (“digital landscape,” “digital hygiene”, etc.). It is for this reason that the conceptual legal apparatus is objectively subject to renewal. In this article, the author substantiates the advisability of applying the term architecture to a civil registration in digital format.

This article reviews interdisciplinary literature to explain how state legislation and the practice of law in California influenced the success of Silicon Valley in creating a startup business culture involving the commercialization of technologies built on venture capital finance. Scholarship has identified four major factors in the rise of Silicon Valley: business culture, symbiotic institutional relations with research universities, California contract and employment law, and Silicon Valley law firm culture. Both law and institutional support have been central to the commercialization of scientific knowledge that is the hallmark of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley companies have remained leaders in technological innovation for over sixty years, encompassing various technologies from semiconductors to personal computers to the Internet. This entrepreneurial approach to technology continues to this day as exemplified by the successful DoorDash and Airbnb IPOs launched in 2020. The paradigmatic Silicon Valley technology company consists of a small group of entrepreneurs building a start-up technology company funded by a venture capital fund. The venture capitalists (VC) maintain hands-on management of the company and receive seats on the board of director and preferred stock rights. If the business plan is successful, the company offers shares to the public through an initial public offering (IPO), or arranges additional funding from another VC fund. This Silicon Valley model is characterized by a tolerance for failure and high labor mobility. Technology company employees have the freedom to leave established companies to start their own ventures.

The article deals with the original approach of Canadian French-speaking province (federal entity) to legal regulation of scientific facilities as a type of infrastructural objects governed by “infrastructure law.” The author firstly proves that the expression “scientific facility” and “Megascience” represent no more than the specific types of social infrastructure and, thus, generally denoted in legal instruments as “research infrastructure” which may be qualified as “large” (Megascience), “medium”, “small” etc. Further the article explores the modern legislation of Quebec which, unlike other countries, has decided to create a full-fledged “infrastructure law” governing, amongst other types of infrastructure, the research infrastructure. The article points out and analyses the particularities and principle findings of Quebec infrastructure laws and by-laws: the “supraministerial” governance of all infrastructure projects, the general public infrastructure company (Quebec Society of Infrastructures) etc. The latest developments in the Quebec “infrastructure law” relating to information infrastructures are also taken into account.