Currently, insufficient attention is paid to the issues of regulation and maintenance of labor and other directly related relations with athletes and coaches in Russian professional sports. The main source of legal regulation of the labor of athletes and coaches is the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Chapter 54.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation allows us to define a special mechanism for the legal regulation of labor for this category of workers. This mechanism is based on one of the principles of legislation on physical culture and sports - a combination of state regulation of relations in the field of physical culture and sports with self-regulation of such relations by the subjects themselves (Clause 3 of Art. 3 of the Federal Law "On Physical Culture and Sports in the Russian Federation"). Therefore, the federal law provides that all-Russian sports federations can develop and approve standards establishing the rights, obligations and restrictions for subjects of physical culture and sports that recognize such standards (Clause 5, Part 1, Art. 16). All-Russian sports federations for certain sports may establish various sports sanctions. The regulations of sports federations usually include norms governing the procedure for the transition (transfer) and the transfer on the terms of rent of athletes from one sports organization to another. The regulation of athletes' work is ensured by general and special norms, which, as it seems to us, are not combined in the best way. There is no harmony between general and special rules in matters of transition (transfer) and transfer on the terms of rent of athletes. The issues related to the relationship between labor law and special sports law regulation in determining the procedure for transfer on the terms of rent and transfer (transition) of athletes from one employer to another remain problematic.
Following the Maffezini case, debates regarding the scope of application of the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) clause in investment arbitration have continued. Despite the extensive practice of international arbitral tribunals, a uniform and predictable approach to the interpretation and application of this provision has not yet been established. In this context, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) can and should serve as a platform for the systematic study and development of approaches to the application of the MFN clause in investment relations among its member states. The analysis of precedents involving SCO countries in investment arbitration cases is of particular importance. Such analysis helps to identify the main challenges associated with the fragmentation of interpretative methods and the lack of predictability in arbitral decisions. These shortcomings are especially acute in the interpretation of MFN clauses, leading to legal uncertainty for both investors and states.The current Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) between China and other SCO member states are, to a large extent, outdated and require revision to align with contemporary practices and to reflect the current needs for deepening economic and investment cooperation. Based on existing arbitral practice, concrete proposals can be developed to unify and improve the provisions on MFN treatment in future versions of these treaties. Moreover, as an intergovernmental international organization with growing global influence, the SCO has the potential to propose a model for a multilateral approach to the application of the MFN clause. This model could also be adopted by other regional integration frameworks, including BRICS, the Eurasian Economic Union, and ASEAN. Such an initiative would help to enhance legal certainty and investor protection at both the regional and international levels.
This article comments on the advisory opinion issued by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on May 21, 2024 on a request submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS). Seeking to strike a balance between conflicting views of participants in the proceedings, ITLOS has made pronouncements that are difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, it found that states parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) had obligations to protect the marine environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases that went beyond those under the international climate change regime and in particular the Paris Agreement. On the other, it refrained from unequivocally stating that the parties to UNCLOS were under an obligation to take all necessary measures to limit the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C. What is more, ITLOS opined that the Paris Agreement, which does not lay down legally binding temperature thresholds or emission reduction targets, could be a factor in determining the scope of the parties' relevant obligations under UNCLOS. A brief overview of the climate change challenge and of the international legal framework governing the global response to it is intended to make the article accessible to readers who are not familiar with the intricacies of the global climate agenda and its international legal dimension.
The article presents an analysis of the changes made to the Competition Law within the framework of the fifth antimonopoly package and related to the digitalization of commodity markets. The concepts of "digital platform", "network effect", prohibition of monopolistic activity by persons using computer programs in information and telecommunication networks to conclude transactions between sellers and buyers are considered. It is proposed to extend the concept of "digital platform" for the purposes of antimonopoly regulation to all types of platform entities that facilitate transactions using computer programs in information and telecommunications networks, and to separate the owner of the platform and its operator, since the operational activities, which are carried out by the operator of the digital platform for transactions using computer programs, are important for the state of competition, but not the ownership of the latter as the fact. The necessity of introducing the concept of "digital commodity market" and its opposition to the conventional (non-digital) commodity market, the qualification of digital and non-digital commodity markets as related, which allows the possibility of interpenetration of anticompetitive and pro-competitive effects between them, is substantiated. The existing measures of antimonopoly influence on digital commodity markets, presented in the legislation only in the form of a ban on the implementation of monopolistic activities by an economic entity, owning a digital platform, are analyzed. It is advisable to introduce into the antimonopoly legislation such measures as a ban on digital anticompetitive agreements, a ban on unfair competition in the digital commodity market, to provide for the features of state control over economic concentration when making transactions with assets in the digital environment that may lead to an anticompetitive effect.
Starting from the difference between language and speech, the author concludes that a speech act, in its linguistic form is subject to the norms of the language (its system), and in its social content - to the prescriptions of social norms (politeness, etiquette, religion, morality and law). Failure to comply with linguistic rules leads to conclusions about the illiteracy of the speaker or writer, non-compliance with social norms - to conclusions about the uncultured behavior, and sometimes - to legal liability. Failure to comply with linguistic norms usually does not have legal consequences if it does not affect the effectiveness of socially significant communication, for example, the comprehensibility of texts that have legal significance. Language norms, remaining for a long time in a kind of "gray zone", undefined from the point of view of their legal force, de facto play a significant role in ensuring the effectiveness of legal communication, which is evident in Russian judicial practice. The obligation to follow the rules of language is not expressed in the form of a specific normative prescription; they only create general conditions for legal communication: the desire for a correct, accurate and adequate perception of what is written in a legal document is built on the implied observance of language rules and norms. The author comes to the conclusion that for such situations, their official consolidation is important, although the rules and norms of language themselves, by their nature, cannot be the subject of legal establishment, in contrast to the requirements of admissibility (appropriateness) in certain social situations. Norms of word usage (the meaning given to words) are recorded in dictionaries and have a number of features similar to the rules of grammar. The commonly used meaning of a word when used in legal documents must be taken into account, and a word from a common language should not be used as a term with a special meaning without special notes or reservations that prevent its misunderstanding.
