Whilst the DX policy of the Japanese government started in 2001, then called the E-Japan Strategy and being replaced a few years later by the i-Japan Strategy, in the 20 years since then IT has not been a success in Japan’s administrative system. On the other hand, the private sector, concerned about Japan’s lagging in its adoption of information technology, has been gradually moving forward to DX measures, such as electronic contracts. Then, this year, the COVID-19 pandemic broke out. Japan is (as of July 2020) about to experience a second wave of this disease. The need for DX has become imperative in all aspects of Japanese society, especially the government and business sectors. In the first half of 2020, the government set up DX policy rapidly; for example, civil court proceedings, the traditional carve seals custom, and the submission of administrative documents to government agencies have also been forced to move forward to DX due to COVID-19. It might be said that the crisis has been the catalyst for Japan’s shift to DX. However, it will be at least a few years before it can be known whether Japan’s DX will succeed, looking at the past examples within the Japanese bureaucratic system and politicians’ attitudes towards DX.

“Regulatory sandboxes” are regarded as a special mechanism for setting up experimental regulation in the area of digital innovation (especially in financial technologies), creating a special regime for a limited number of participants and for a limited time.Russiahas its own method of experimental regulation, which is not typical but may be helpful for other jurisdictions. There are three approaches to legal experiments (including digital innovations) inRussia. The first approach is accepting special regulation on different issues. There are recent examples of special laws (e.g. Federal Law on the experiment with artificial intelligence technologies inMoscow). An alternative to this option is establishing experimental regulation by an act of the Government if legislation does not prohibit it (e.g. labeling with means of identification). The second approach deals only with Fintech innovations and provides a special mechanism to pilot models of innovative financial technologies. The participants of such a “sandbox” may create a close-to-life model in order to estimate the effects and risks. If the model works fine, the regulation may be amended. The third approach works with creating a universal mechanism of real-life experiments in the sphere of digital innovations based on the special Federal Law and the specific decision of the Government of theRussian Federationor the Bank of Russia in the financial sphere. The author compares the three approaches and their implementation within the framework of Russian legislation and practice and concludes that this experience may be used by developing countries with inflexible regulation, in order to facilitate the development of digital innovations.

The subject of the research is the transformation of the state institution under the influence of the digital revolution. The choice of topic is determined by the transition of the state institution from bureaucratic to service and from service to digital. This transition entails significant changes in the methods of regulating public relations, the forms of state participation in the life of citizens, as well as the architecture of interaction between state, business and society in the new environment. The aim of the research is to create and justify a model of digital public administration, in which the necessary access to personal information of the digitized state will not be used against citizens. Therefore, the digitalization of public administration should be a tool to improve the efficiency of public services. The research methods are: institutional and comparative legal analysis, as well as methodology of value chain management by M. Porter. The results of the research show that (1) the created value chain of public administration includes main and auxiliary activities in the system of public administration in the digital state, (2) changes in the governance due to the increasing role of the digital state have been proved based on the doctrinal components of the new public administration of C. Hood, and (3) substantiated the reasons for the evolution of public administration through the prism of management structures: from linear-functional to project-functional structure and, as a result, to state digital platforms. Based on the declarations of the UN General Assembly, the conclusion is made that it is necessary to strengthen the control of the judiciary over the executive to avoid the establishment of digital totalitarianism. These findings reinforce the methodological significance of the evolution of public administration, as well as the practical value in reforming the system of governance under the influence of the digital revolution.

This paper focuses on identifying key legal considerations and developments in the area of surveillance in Europein human rights, with its emphasis on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of this research was to enhance and align law and practices in this area in Russiaand Europe. The author analysed the core and most novel Court cases that may be applicable to the subject matter, including by analogy, as well as the latest research in this area. This paper considers, inter alia, ability to challenge relevant law and practices in abstracto, legitimate aims justifying interference, the requirements for the relevant laws, fetters to authorities’ discretion on surveillance matters, and appropriate nature of supervision by authorities and the scope of their powers, as well as certain other safeguards. This paper also discusses interactions and balances between freedom and security, modern approaches taken by the EU and theUS, and tensions on pervasive surveillance matters. This paper reveals that, in a COVID-19 world, with those privacy issues that arise from the “track and trace” system and similar practices having already been widely scrutinised by the courts, it is possible to fight COVID-19 through surveillance methods with minimum interference with human rights. Key considerations outlined in this paper are pertinent to all sorts of surveillance features in the modern world. This paper should serve as an impetus for enhancing human rights protection through case law and legal framework in this area, with a view to strengthen democratic values without compromising health and safety concerns.

Although distance medicine has been actively developing worldwide over the past 20 years, no universal mechanism of legislation has been developed across foreign countries to achieve main goals of tele-health services: convenience, effectiveness, and accessibility.

The need to improve states’ healthcare systems has increased after dealing with the challenges that the world faced in 2020. While organizing the fight against the spread of the coronavirus infection, a number of countries invoked telemedicine technologies. The experience of using e-health in difficult epidemiological situations should be perceived by states as positive and thus incorporated when preparing legislative changes aimed at improving the regulation of telemedicine.

States should act jointly in relation to the development of remote medical care technologies. This will help to build up experience and knowledge that can be used in the future when transforming telemedical assistance into cross-border practice, including the adoption of international acts.

Telemedicine should be regulated comprehensively, instigating legal regulations for such issues as medical care provision, digital technologies, medical insurance aspects, licensing, and the protection of personal data. As for theRussian Federation, the remote medicine care model implemented in the country is incomplete due to the inability to diagnose diseases remotely. Such a restriction entails the appearance of a number of questions in other areas: the responsibility of the doctor, the possibilities of cross-border medicine, or insurance compensation issues.

The purpose of the article is to describe the legal regulation of telemedicine technologies in theRussian Federation, comparing Russian regulation with American experiences, and analyzing the main approaches taken by foreign researchers.