The relevance of this research lies in the need to comprehend the legal implications of the development of stablecoins as new financial instruments. Faced with the processes of digitalization, legal systems have been required to develop a response to the significant changes to the techniques of undertaking domestic and crossborder transactions and settlements. In particular this concerns the emergence of the possibility of direct transactions between counterparties, bypassing the classical financial institutions. The emergence of new, digital objects with an unspecified legal regime (cryptocurrencies, utility tokens, etc.) has also led to problems. Stablecoins are one of the most frequently used objects. They are a type of digital asset accepted in transactions at a predetermined (determined) value (rate). The aim of the research is to establish potential strategies for incorporating stablecoins in Russian civil law as objects of legal rights. For this purpose, the article discusses the approaches of foreign regulators when selecting a model for regulating relations with such assets. It notes that they are characterised by a pragmatism which allows the rules developed for known objects (securities, exchange commodities, etc.) to be extended to different types of stablecoins for a variety of purposes. In the Russian Federation, the formation of a legal environment for the circulation of digital assets, including those which possess the features of stablecoins, is still at an early stage. The main legislative acts, including the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, only address the issue of instruments created and traded on domestic, Russian platforms. An analysis of the Law on Digital Financial Assets and the Law on Attraction of Investments shows that many of the digital rights defined therein are similar in nature to stablecoins. They can be either secured (utilitarian rights, a number of DFAs), or unsecured (digital currency with a fixed value). However, Russian legislation, including the Law on Currency Regulation, does not refer to and, therefore, does not regulate relations with the use of “external” stablecoins. The need to introduce “external” stablecoins into the Russian legal framework, including for use in foreign trade transactions, requires changes to the legislation and regulatory approach. The article analyzes recent legislative changes and legislative initiatives in the field of digital rights regulation, and suggests ways of removing existing gaps and inconsistencies. 

The present study analyses the grounds on which an online intermediary can be held liable in connection with intellectual property rights infringement. Its purpose was to establish the forms of unlawful behavior in which the intermediary’s violation can be expressed and their influence on intermediary’s liability. This problem is of particular importance due to the fact that the Russian legal order has not yet formulated a sustainable approach to its resolution. The negative consequences of this gap are unjustified expansion of intermediaries’ liability and uncertainty of its regulation. In authors’ opinion, the expression «on general grounds» used by the legislator in Article 1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation indicates the heterogeneity of the grounds of intermediary’s liability. Bearing this in mind, the article builds a system that would take into account the diversity of forms of intermediary’s participation in transmission of infringing content. The paper considers the most common options of the grounds of liability of online intermediaries. Using the experience of foreign legal orders, the possibility of their implementation in the Russian legal system is assessed. The authors come to the conclusion that the system of grounds of online intermediary liability should include unlawful use, failure to take measures to prevent or suppress infringement, participation in joint infringement of exclusive rights, as well as material contribution or inducement, which cannot be considered as joint tortfeasor ship. At the same time, the authors consider the application of such grounds as infringement of the right of authorisation and vicarious liability of intermediary for user’s actions to be inappropriate in the paradigm of Russian law. Each of the proposed grounds has its own scope of application, and the regime of liability arising from them is differentiated. In the framework of the proposed model, the scope of liability, its nature and available legal remedies are made dependent on the specific ground.

The purpose of this research is to study the impact of the OECD international standards regarding the taxation of digital services on national regulation. Currently, there is an imbalance in the distribution of revenues in the form of direct and indirect taxes on digital services between developed and developing countries. This problem is due to the fact that the largest digital companies carrying out cross-border activities are subject to direct taxes not in the country where the service is provided but in the country, in which they are located, that is, in a country with a developed economy. The problem is also aggravated by regulatory arbitrage, which is expressed in different country approaches to the taxation of digital services, which ultimately affects the taxpayer’s choice of the most favorable jurisdiction when providing such services. In this research there were analyzed both the OECD international standards and regulation in Austria and the EU, where a harmonized transition from a national tax model for digital services to a model that complies with these international standards took place. Through the prism of these conclusions, the changing tax policy of Russia was examined in terms of the implementation of the OECD international standards as well as the current regulation of VAT for the provision of services in electronic form. Based on the results of the research, a conclusion was drawn about the potential risks associated with the implementation of the OECD international standards, both for Russia and for developing countries, and the prospects for other harmonized approaches to the taxation of digital services were outlined.

The necessity for legal research into the metaverse phenomenon arises due to its considerable economic strength and social capacity. Built on scientific principles and current experience in the metaverse development, this article aims to determine the general outlook for the evolution of legal regulation in the metaverse. The research methodology is based on general methods of scientific knowledge, including analysis, synthesis, systems approach, modeling, and abstraction. The study also employed the following specific scientific methods of legal cognition of reality: formal-legal, historical-legal, comparative, and logical-legal. The distinctive feature of the research consists in its interdisciplinary connection with another branch of knowledge, i.e., political science. As a result, it is shown that the metaverse subject has particularly interested the state, as well as business not only due to the ample opportunities for exploiting the relevant technologies in various areas of life (using public services, educational environment, and others), but also because uncontrolled development of the metaverse can negatively affect public security. The experience of the People’s Republic of China and South Korea holds a special place here. The results of the study enabled the author to identify three possible models of metaverse regulation depending on the level of state control. They are as follows: liberal free (development of the economic component of the metaverse is prioritized), conservative safe (the metaverse sector development should be totally controlled by the state), and mixed (it combines certain key elements of the first two models).

.

Digitalization has not only transformed economy, society and day-to-day routine of individuals, but also has given the government a unique opportunity to keep its sovereignty and power in an ever-changing world provided that the government is open to innovations and digital technologies implementation. Such openness should be confirmed by the willingness to be changed and optimized in order to increase public management efficiency. There are two basic models for optimizing public management: New Public Management and Good Governance. Transfer to a more advanced model of public management — Good Governance — is carried out in parallel with the digitalization of public management and formation of a digital government. The only one way to define the concepts of “digital government”, “Good Governance”, to establish effective legal framework of the relationships in this regard and to identify the reasons why these concepts should be implemented in public management is, on the one hand, to highlight basic principles they are based on, and, on the other hand, to outline essential features of both concepts.