The article presents research on the general approaches taken by BRICS countries through their legislation and legal orders to counteract anticompetitive market strategies such as abuse of dominant market power and market structure control, as a means of both global and regional governance in the legal orders of China, India, Russia, and South Africa. The author pays particular attention to current legislation of the BRICS countries in the field of competition protection with regard to provisions related to (1) the criteria for establishment of a dominant market position and (2) market structure control and restriction of anticompetitive mergers & acquisitions, and 'concentration' of enterprises' market power control fixed by Asian (China and India), Euro-Asian (Russia), and African (South Africa) legal orders and prohibition of abuse of market power. The article argues that our society is interested in the engagement of the population in trade and industrial activity. This is the general rule. Nowadays, however, this rule allows exceptions: restrictions on freedom of trade can be justified by exceptional circumstances in certain cases and under certain circumstances (e.g. an exemption necessary in the interest of security of the state or public interest). The analysis of substantial contents of the laws on competition and monopolies of the abovementioned BRICS countries and relevant case law shows the existence of a number of conventional, generally acknowledged (unified) provisions and norms. At the same time, there are specific features that make them different. These generally acknowledged provisions and peculiarities are a focus of the article.

The present paper outlines the current stage in the development of traditional approaches in the field of property law and the relevant legislation and practice in Russia. Some results and tendencies of adapting traditional approaches to the realities of the new time are introduced. The author shows a gradual shift from the concept of property form toward the concept of property regime based on the actual move away from the property holders themselves to the rights that such holders enjoy. The present paper highlights the economic reasons for this state of affairs. It has also been revealed that the method of appropriation of information leads to the changes in the area of property defined, given the parties involved, as state property concerns its definition as communal and public. As a result, a property network regime for information has been formed according to the information available in the network (from inaccessible and restricted to commercial or generally accessible). The author explains the reasons for more complicated property relations and evolving ownership rights for both tangible and digital objects. It has been established that the spare potential of property interpretation in terms of its regimes is significant; thus, it requires further analysis. It is worth highlighting those property regimes and forms as mobile and variable. This paper states that the ethical problem of justice that arises in the context of the effectiveness and the possibility of traditional forms of property, especially private property, contributes to the reassignment of property functions that fit property regimes. This paper provides up-to-date scientific information on Russian legislation and the doctrine/research works (books, articles, etc.), as well as other ideas in the relevant field; the paper contributes to the understanding of the practical and legislative gap (or its absence) in Russian and foreign research results and implications.

The articles represents a research of general approaches of BRICS countries legislation and legal order to counteraction against such an anticompetitive market strategy and a means of both global and regional governance as abuse of control and dominant market power in legal orders of China, India, Russia and South Africa. The author pays particular attention to current legislation of BRICS countries in the field of competition protection with regard to provisions related to market structure control and restrictions of anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions (further on - M&As) and ‘concentrationʼ of enterprises' market power control fixed by Asian (China and India), Euro-Asian (Russia) and African (South Africa) legal orders. The analysis of substantial contents of laws on competition and monopolies of the abovementioned BRICS countries and relevant case law shows the existence of a number of conventional generally acknowledged (unified) provisions and norms. At the same time there are specific features making them different. These generally acknowledged provisions and peculiarities will be in focus in the article.

The subject of research in this article is the search for answers to the following questions: if there is a need to fix the percentage of originality of scientific papers; can "new knowledge" be "born" when writing a dissertation that on 100% represents "quoting" of the works of other authors, is it legitimate, as recommended by the representative of "Anti-Plagiarism", to combine the indicators of the originality of the text and self-citation to fix the share of the author's text – as well as the establishment of the line between conscientious and non-conscientious self-citation, scientific analysis of the concepts of "originality", "independent scientific work", etc. To answer these questions, an analysis of relevant Russian and foreign legal and local regulations and doctrines is carried out. Special attention is paid to the practice of using similar to the "Anti-Plagiarism" systems abroad. During the study the author proceeds from the subjective-objective determination of processes and phenomena, using general scientific dialectical, historical, comparative legal, etc. methods of scientific cognition. As a result of the study it is concluded that the issue of plagiarism, on the one hand, becomes much broader and more complex than direct verbatim borrowings from scientific works of other authors, captured by the "Anti-Plagiarism" system used for some time in our country, and, on the other hand, requires a rethinking of the approaches prevailing in theory (doctrine) and practice to identify the "originality" by way of "Anti-plagiarism" system used in Russia and puts the question of ways to identify originality and requirements and methods, mechanisms and forms of its expression. There is a need thus for broad discussion, rethinking and finding consensus in society regarding: 1) the prevailing approaches in theory (doctrine) and practice to identify the "originality" by way of "Anti-Plagiarism" system used in Russia and the question of ways to identify originality, requirements for it and methods, mechanisms and forms of its expression, 2) intellectual property objects, in particular, copyright objects that must be subject to the openness regime based on ceasure of protection by copyright.

This article is aimed at understanding the current state and necessity of transformation of traditional mechanisms for protecting the competitive environment under the influence of networking and the place of blockchain in the regulatory system in the context of applying new competitive tools (aggregators price algorithms) based on the experience of foreign countries, including the perspective and approaches of newest law enforcement (judicial) practice, taking into account the fact that its knowledge allowed and allows to successfully solve current problems of legal regulation in our country. The starting point of the research is network communication as a non-market type of communication. Based on analytical reflections on the information gathered from sources and literature from the list of references the author analyzes legal framework of competition protection developed in the new technological reality, takes into account the approaches of foreign countries and the Russian Federation that determine the acceptability of the application of blockchain in the field of legal protection of competition. The relevance, theoretical and practical significance of this research is due to the emergence of new tools (aggregators and price algorithms) of competitive market struggle in the light of application of a blockchain technology that might influence the competition. The author's results are presented, among others, in the idea of the possibility of “transfer” of anti-competitive actions (price manipulation and collusion, unequal sale / distribution of information / advertising, etc. conditions) to the niche occupied by price algorithms and aggregators of information, and the need to establish a new legal framework of these new market factors.