Business programme

A strong family is the basis for a strong state. Families not only offer the most valuable thing – life – but are crucial to the healthy upbringing of a child and personal development. They shape a person’s future success, and act as a link between an individual, society, and the state. They promote moral values and that which is most important in life. In Russia, traditional family values serve as the foundation for the successful development of the entire country. They provide the key to a healthy society guided by a strong moral and spiritual compass. And indeed, this is why spiritual and moral values form the basis of domestic policy in the country, with education, and preserving and strengthening the institution of the family (as it is commonly understood) at the fore. Russia is pursuing a consistent policy to support the traditional family and promote legal initiatives aimed at incorporating traditional values into the normative social order. This position is reflected in a number of regulatory documents, including the Concept for State Family Policy to 2025 (approved by Russian Government Decree No. 1618-r dated 25 August 2014), the new text of the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated 4 July 2020, and the 2021 National Security Strategy (approved by Russian Presidential Decree No. 400 dated 2 July 2021). In each of these documents, the promotion of traditional values was set out as a key priority and the basis for strengthening national sovereignty. This kind of state-level support for traditional family values serves as an example and buttress for other nations – particularly those intending to follow their own ideological pathway to further development and to defend universal human values.
• Strengthening traditional spiritual and moral values, and preserving the cultural and historical heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation.
• The development of a safe information space, and tackling influences considered psychologically destructive to the formation of family values.
• Not the norm: minorities and transgender people.
• Supporting the interests of Russian families abroad in the context of today’s international agenda.
• Addressing issues related to the collection of child support payments.

The Arctic is of strategic importance to the Russian Federation. There is therefore a need to develop a robust national and international legal framework that delineates national jurisdiction in the region. Environmental protection, the prospecting and exploitation of resources, and attempts to define limits of state sovereignty, the boundaries of the continental shelf, navigation regimes, and control of the seabed have become particularly pressing issues in light of a range of factors. These include a refocusing of foreign trade onto alternative markets, rapid climate change, and the development of infrastructure in the Arctic. Efforts to address these challenges need to be based on the norms and principles of international law. In addition, consideration needs to be given to Russia’s preferential position in the Arctic, given historical and regional factors.
• Defining national jurisdiction.
• Unlocking the region’s investment and technological potential.
• Environmental protection and cooperation on ecological issues.
• International cooperation.
• Navigation and the Northern Sea Route.

Russia’s recognition of priority jurisdiction by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne makes it much more difficult for professional athletes and sports bodies to protect their rights under Russian law. In many instances, they are unable to do so in Russian courts or arbitration proceedings, and are obliged to go to the CAS – an international body – in order to resolve a Russian domestic dispute. To change this situation, a number of legislative amendments were made in Russia in 2020, including to the Labour Code, Civil Procedure Code, Federal Law on Sport, and others. These outlined the creation of a national centre for sports arbitration. However, its jurisdiction in sports disputes is frequently hampered by the requirements set out by international sporting federations or associations. With Russian athletes, sports teams, and sporting federations being banned from international tournaments, it has become important to examine new ways of building a management system for Russian sport. This should encompass guidelines regulating subordination to the rules, norms and regulations set out by international federations, as well as to the sports dispute review system. This session will focus on possible ways of changing the sports management system, and the implications these may have for sports dispute review procedures. The possible rejection/restriction of the jurisdiction of national sporting federations and arbitration courts also raises the question of how to develop the national sports justice system.

Practical experience is essential to high-quality education. However, partnerships between universities and companies raise a number of legal issues. Now, senior figures from the legal departments of leading Russian universities are ready to share their case studies and enter into a dialogue with company lawyers.
• Establishing company facilities at universities (departments, labs, etc.): reaching talent, or an unnecessary headache?
• Company training and internships for students: potential pitfalls.
• Network partnerships between universities and companies: combining resources to provide training.
• Involving companies in course quality assessment: learning to forget the phrase, “forget everything you learnt at university”.
• Joint scientific development: sharing intellectual property.

The ubiquitous spread of digitalization is posing new challenges to legal doctrines and judicial practices. This is particularly the case with the introduction of digital platforms, which are providing new ways for market participants to interact with one another. A comprehensive response to these challenges was provided by the adoption of two EU directives. Directive 2019/770 concerned contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, while Directive 2019/771 included, among other things, provisions on purchase/sale agreements concluded remotely, and on the sale of digital content together with hard copy. As a result, new legislation has been implemented which has heralded a new phase of development for European contract law. This legislation overcomes a range of challenges associated with digitalization, including the supply of digital content and digital services. Some aspects of it reinforce tried and tested concepts in traditional contract law. However, it is also marked by several major new developments in order to factor in specific aspects related to digital products and the way they are delivered. Clearly, these new legislative developments are set to play a key role – not just in terms of protecting consumer rights, but in the doctrinal transformation of European contract law as a whole. These new approaches in European legislation evidently demonstrate that contract law needs to address a range of issues that go far beyond current legal regulation in order to develop further. The modernization of contract law therefore requires an understanding of the wholesale transformation of private law in the digital era. It may be necessary to rethink traditional views regarding the relationship between the law of obligations and property/intellectual property law. It appears prudent to make a new distinction between these sub-sectors, and to revise traditional views on how they relate to one another. This is particularly the case if data is recognized under contract law, without said law being able to guarantee sufficient protection of assets. And it is already clear that a range of prerequisites exist for legal tools to work effectively in this context. In the European Union and beyond (particularly in Russia and other Eurasian nations), it has become crucial for new concepts, principles, and rules in the field of contract law and private law as a whole to be developed. This is so that they can be adapted to effectively regulate the changing socioeconomic relations of the digital age.

It was 30 years ago now that Deep Thought first tied Grandmaster Anthony Miles in a chess tournament. Nine years later, in 1997, Garry Kasparov, the thirteenth world chess champion, played a super match against IBM’s Deep Blue. Four years ago, the legal robot LegalApe 2.8 proved that computers were ready to participate in a high-level simulation of a real legal dispute. Many legal institutions, like some other areas of human activity, have shown potential for algorithmic development, which involves the use of a clear sequential tree of conditions and decisions leading to specific legal conclusions. The text of many legal acts is based on logical constructs of a similar nature: if a party has committed a certain act, there will be a certain consequence, if the party meets certain characteristics, it is entitled to a particular status, and so on and so forth. As a result, the possibility of automation has been explored for a straightforward category of court cases that follows an algorithm prescribed by procedural codes and considers formal circumstances alone when issuing a judicial act. It was cases of precisely this category that were automated for a pilot court project that took place in the Belgorod region. A virtual assistant justice of the peace was developed to analyze incoming applications for court orders from the Federal Tax Service and prepare drafts of court orders based on the established algorithms. Can AI successfully be used to automate and streamline court processes and free up judges to focus on real legal disputes? Might we see a full-fledged autonomous robot judge in the near future? We’ll be looking for the answers to these and other questions in our roundtable discussion.

This session will aim to foster a constructive dialogue on innovation in forensic examination. Participants will analyse and systematize modern practices in the development and implementation of new areas of forensic research in the context of today’s challenges. Consideration will also be given to training forensic experts in new areas of forensic research. The following topics will come under focus:
• Today’s challenges in relation to legal proceedings and international cooperation in the development and implementation of new areas of forensic research in Eurasia.
• The interdependence of scientific and technological trends and the boundaries of expertise used in legal proceedings.
• Innovative approaches to improving the classification of and methodological support for the most popular types of forensic examinations.
• Harmonization-related issues in the development of new areas of forensic research at public forensic institutions and educational organizations.
• The development and implementation of modern educational models to train forensic experts in new areas of forensic research.
• The role of standardization in ensuring a high level of competence and methodological support for the work of forensic experts.
• The importance of accreditation, quality management systems, validation, and certification as tools to improve the quality of forensic work.
• Examples of international and regional cooperation in the development of new areas of forensic research.

Legal regulation governing intellectual property today appears to indicate that two contradictory trends are at play. On the one hand, globalization is helping to increase protection of exclusive rights, strengthen the position of major rights holders, and expand the protection of exclusive rights beyond national regulation. However, on the other hand, globalization has led to a growing desire to introduce additional restrictions on rights in ways which may benefit individual countries, society as a whole, or certain groups. It is therefore crucial to strike a balance capable of protecting the interests of all parties. Given that some rights holders have abruptly abandoned their obligations to licensees in Russia, these issues are now cast in a particularly strong light.
• Disputes surrounding Eurasian patents.
• Changing approaches to intellectual property in the digital realm.
• Issues related to the enforced restriction of the validity of exclusive rights.
• Restrictions on exclusive copyright and related rights in the context of globalization.
• The potential to improve EAEU regulation in the field of intellectual property.

Russian sport is going through a difficult time due to external pressure and isolation. A striking example of unsportsmanlike behaviour was the banning of Russian Paralympians, tennis players, soccer players, chess players, and even cyberathletes from participating in tournaments. Mass exclusion of Russian athletes from international competitions can drag on and result in their exclusion from the next Olympic Games. Discrimination, marginalization, and other kinds of restrictions are forms of violation not only of athletes' rights, but also of the human right to work. Obviously, this threatens the fundamental principles of sport. The session is expected to discuss relevant problems of sport, affecting the fulfilment of people’s right to sport. Particular attention will be paid to the legal aspects of sports development, legal protection and guarantees for participants in both Russian and international sporting events. What will Russian sport look like in the near future and what role can the law play in its fate? What are the main problems of implementing the right to sport? How and when will Russian sports be internationally represented again?

As Russia comes under unprecedented sanctions, issues surrounding national security have come to the fore. Today, no other country has come under more sanctions than Russia (7,374 as of 1 May 2022). Western nations have made no secret of the fact that these sanctions are in part intended to put Russia at a technological disadvantage across all areas of the economy. And the biggest restrictions have been those placed on the financial system. A range of Russian banks have been disconnected from SWIFT, two of the world’s biggest payment systems – Visa and Mastercard – have ceased operation, and Apple Pay and Google Pay no longer serve Russian customers. These are the most heavily publicized examples, but by no means serve as an exhaustive list of the consequences arising from the geopolitical standoff between Russia and the West. What are the aims and objectives of the further digitalization of the financial sector? How effective is government policy and the Bank of Russia in supporting the technological development of the financial market? What are the prospects for using digital financial technologies as part of Russia’s counter-sanctions policy? What does the future hold for the country’s digital currency?

The large-scale regulation reform is in full swing. 2020 saw the adoption of a legislative framework for the new reform. Together with the business community the government organized and analyzed all the requirements, which led to cancellation of 143,000 out of 318,000. New regulative mechanisms like preventive visits or long-distance inspections have been introduced to control these requirements. The question remains: is this enough so that the requirements are met, while the inspections do not occur.

Online platforms provide a new way of working which sidesteps the traditional dichotomy of being either employed or self-employed. The use of platforms to work on a regular basis is an area which is yet to be fully covered by law. Today, most countries are attempting to find ways of incorporating this form of working into their systems regulating social and economic relations. Around the world, legal precedents often end with recognition being given to a worker’s fundamental rights as per standard employment. However, these developments should not be viewed as a move towards equating platform-based work with traditional employment, given the regulatory vacuum that continues to exist. How should the interests of companies be taken into account so as to not scare away the players of a rapidly growing market? Conversely, what should be done to avoid any negative social consequences? What balance should be struck between the realities of the innovation economy and a fair labour market?