Sporting activities generate impacts on a wide range of human rights. However, international sports organizations who are not subjects of public international law for a long time did not view themselves bound by international human rights standards. The situation began to change when the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) were adopted in 2011, obliging businesses, including entities engaged in sports activities, to implement human rights due diligence (HRDD) requirements, namely to identify, mitigate, assess and remedy adverse human rights impacts of their activities. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) that started to embrace consistently the HRDD model is setting a good example to follow.

International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) demonstrates a responsible approach to human rights issues. By means of adopting its own normative documents, namely FIFA’s Human Rights Policy of 2017 and FIFA World Cup 2026 Sustainability and Human Rights Strategy of 2024, FIFA signals its readiness to be guided by HRDD in its global operations. A specific unit named the Human Rights Advisory Board (HRAB) operated within FIFA from 2017 to 2021, after which it was disbanded. It analyzed the human rights situation in global football and formulated recommendations on the steps FIFA was expected to undertake to fulfill its human rights obligations more effectively. The authors of the article consider it necessary to revive the FIFA Human Rights Advisory Board.

Furthermore, based on the analysis of the most recent human rights violations that occurred at sporting events organized by CONMEBOL (South American Football Confederation), the authors believe that this entity should align itself with FIFA’s normative provisions on human rights and integrate HRDD requirements into its practical activities. The most effective way for regional football confederations to achieve this goal would be to adopt their own human rights policies and establish the necessary bodies to ensure commitment to the UNGPs and FIFA’s Human Rights Policy.

Although the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights marks a formal legal milestone, the regional human rights framework remains deeply constrained because Art. 34(6) of its Protocol narrowly limits direct individual access. The voluntary nature of the direct access declaration compounded by State pushback, selective withdrawals, and institutional inertia within the African Commission’s referral framework generates structural jurisdictional obstacles that effectively exclude individual litigants and non-governmental organizations from accessing legal remedies. The paper critically analyze how jurisdictional limitations under Art. 5 and Art. 34(6) stifle public interest litigation. The paper employs a doctrinal legal methodology, conducting a rigorous exegesis through the systematic analysis of primary and secondary sources. Consequently, the core questions are: what specific State ratification patterns and Art. 34(6) declarations currently impedes individual and non-governmental organizations access to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights? How can institutional frameworks be redesigned to protect applicants and local actors from State retaliation after filing a case? What structural lessons can the African Court learn from the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding standing and direct petitions? What precise legal amendments to the protocol establishing the Court are required to make direct individual access universal and mandatory for all State parties? These core questions serve as the foundational axis of this paper, dictating the trajectory of the analysis. The paper finds that Art. 34(6) create a bottleneck, leading to severe under-utilization with only a handful of ratifying States and subsequent strategic State withdrawals. It concludes that optional direct access under Art. 34(6) of the African Court Protocol severely fragments regional justice, requiring mandatory institutional referral rules and universal State ratification to transition from a symbolic tribunal to an effective human rights remedy.

The article analyzes the legal regulation of diagnostic technologies in human reproduction, focusing on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). It examines the ethical and legal dilemmas arising from the introduction of this technology, including the balance between reproductive autonomy and non-directive counseling, the problem of “wrongful birth” and “wrongful life,” and the risks of eugenic selection and discrimination against persons with disabilities. Through a com-parative legal analysis of the regulatory frameworks in the Russian Federation and some foreign countries, the study identifies distinct national models for balancing ethical principles and legal imperatives. The article highlights the progressive steps taken by the Russian Federation in providing accessible reproductive care, such as the inclusion of NIPT in state guarantees. The purpose of this article is to systematically evaluate the ethical-legal nexus of diagnostic reproductive technologies and to substantiate doctrinally sound pathways for enhancing national regulatory frameworks without compromising sovereign constitutional values. 

The paper examines the legal regimes governing the use of prompts in the training and deployment of large language models (LLMs) and generative artificial intelligence systems (AI systems). It analyzes risks, including prompt injection that may result in unauthorized access to information; intellectual property rights infringements, and AI systems manipulation. The paper further addresses the protection of prompts as objects of intellectual property, including protection under copyright law and trade secret regimes. Particular attention is devoted to jurisprudence in various jurisdictions, including China and the United States, where courts are developing approaches to determining the extent of human creative contribution in works generated with the assistance of AI. The study emphasizes the need for regulatory and technical measures to ensure security, oversight, and the allocation of responsibility in the use of generative AI systems.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) is vital in shaping the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for Indian businesses and companies. The research explores the critical legal subtleties to analyse the key paths provided with the IBC 2016 and choosing the appropriate process of “rehabilitation and liquidation of insolvent businesses in India beginning with the country’s insolvency restructurings and rapid economic progress.” The choice of the resolution procedures aims to interpret rehabilitation as a practical and viable approach with quantifiable consequences as compared to liquidation and analyses major aspects such as maximizing economic worth for stakeholders, delaying the resolution process herein, liquidation or insolvency, creditors looking for incentives, a viable restructuring process, sustainability of the businesses, and improper institutional capacity of restructuring as referred to the doctrinal provisions of the code. The study employs a mixed-methods approach employing real statistical data that uses doctrinal legal analysis of empirical research with institutional data from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India as well as qualitative research with statutory provisions, National Company Law Tribunal judgments, judicial precedents, case reviews, and legal reports pertaining to the procedure under the CIRP, IBC, and other related laws. A comparative study with insolvency resolution practices in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the European Union for executing the rehabilitation approach along with landmark cases from all of these in the past as well as those of recent times is integrated effectively. The outcomes depict the rise in implementation of rehabilitation techniques over liquidation by as much as 30 % on an average as compared to the latter. Employing the appropriate methods gives the readers, legal experts, counsels, academicians, and further research enthusiasts the predilection to choose rehabilitation as a better procedure of resolution in India’s insolvent businesses, as it conserves employment, capitalizes the economic worth, sustains businesses, achieves stakeholder gratification, and provides long-term economic benefits, further explaining the prospective need to progress research into viable options, taking into account the pros and cons of this process over liquidation as well as the factors that influence creditor composition and bidder interests.

The paper focuses on the role of legal aid clinics in enhancing access to justice. The first part provides a brief overview of law clinics history and development of clinical legal education in some English-speaking countries, highlighting the US evolution from student-led initiatives to accredited experiential learning, the UK’s community-focused programs, Australia’s community-center-based clinics, and Singapore’s mandatory pro bono requirements. Dual goal setting — providing citizens with access to justice and students with real cases experience — is an important characteristic feature of the majority of legal aid clinics. The second part deals with clinical legal education in Russia, where clinics emerged in 1995 and now number about 200 nationwide, coordinated by the Center for Development of Legal Clinics. A case study of Saratov State Law Academy’s clinic illustrates its structure: tiered student involvement (from interns-observers to consultants), specialized supervision by faculty and/or practitioners, and outreach programs aiding diverse groups of vulnerable citizens. Empirical data from a Saratov State Law Academy students’ survey reveals reasons for joining the law clinic, students’ preferences in work carried out in the clinic, their evaluation of gained experience and importance for future careers. The article concludes that integrating compulsory credit-bearing clinical course-work would advance both educational outcomes and access to justice.

The present overview raises questions regarding the degree of regulation of educational network cooperation between domestic and foreign universities. The current networking models within the educational space, the so-called constructors, are analysed. Special attention is given to the Network University of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Eurasian Network University, the “Russian-African Network University” Consortium, the University Alliance of the Silk Road, the Australia Africa Universities Network, the Matariki Network of Universities, the Network of Universities of South and South-East Asia, the International Strategic Technology Alliance, the Black Sea Universities Network, and the Association of Pacific Rim Universities. The author highlights the unique advantages of network cooperation, the possibility of combining different processes (theoretical training, research activities, practical internships with employers), the possibility of cooperation in all forms of training with the utilization of remote resources. In the conclusion, it is stated that the network form of cooperation is a trend of innovative and qualitative movement of the educational system and, equally, a special tool for rationalizing partner universities, as well as a mechanism for monitoring and regulating the quality of educational programs. Moreover, a common set of barriers in the development of network educational programs and online universities are identified, in particular, insufficient activity in the field of goal-setting and strategic management and inadequate effectiveness of institutional structures coordinating online educational activities.