This article assesses the problems and prospects of the development of cooperation among the BRICS countries’ in the sphere of law and the movement of these countries towards the creation of a common legal framework. The article presents a comparative analysis of the systems of law, including the cultural, historical, social and political contexts of their formation and development as well as the functioning of the systems in the conditions of the modern world.The article particularly focuses on the subject of a common philosophy of law for the BRICS countries that would allow not only to establish the interaction of such dissimilar partners in the legal sphere, but also to move towards a new model of legal interaction for the whole world that has embarked on the path of globalization. Special means allowing the assessment of the possibility of future legal integration and globalization based on a common philosophy of law are the traditions and values of the civilizations represented by the BRICS countries. The article suggests that the core of the civilizational and value- based identity of each BRICS partner consists in a set of ideas and interpretations of the notion of justice clearly manifested in the controversy with the theory and ideology of justice proposed by the initiators and leaders of globalization - the countries of the West led by the United States. The theory and ideology of justice promoted by the "Atlantists" is concisely formulated in the book "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls. Therefore, the reaction to and discussion of such a theory by the philosophers and jurists from Russia, India and China allows determining the contours of the common philosophical and legal position of these countries as well as outlining its significance for the future of the BRICS countries and, perhaps, of the whole system of legal relations in a new globalizing world.

No abstract

In terms of social (public) needs, science is a global system. General laws of nature expand beyond political boundaries. This process is currently driven by an increase in the number of the countries actively participating in the scientific (research) process; a significant increase in the number of international scientific (research) teams and articles published by them; an increase in the number of international grant programs. At the same time, the legal status of academic professionals (scientists, researchers, etc.) – who are the direct actors of scientific (research) activities – differs significantly in different countries of the world. As the Russian President pointed out: “it is critically important to focus resources on supporting talented, committed researchers and teachers, to create the conditions in which the best domestic and foreign, primarily young, scientists, promising university graduates, would, certainly, aspire to work in Russian higher education institutions”. In order for the presented political platform of the head of state to be implemented, it is important to choose – based of a comparative analysis of the existing models of legal regulation of the status of academic professionals in the global legal space – as strategically important for implementation, a model that would meet the requirements of government (public governance) efficiency. The article analyzes the constituents of the legal status of academic professionals in France. Based on diachronic and synchronic comparison, the author draws conclusions with regard to the possibility of using efficient French legal models for the purpose of reforming the sector of Russian law related to academic (research and education) matters.

No abstract

The author of the article analyzes various legal empirical aspects of the transformation of the legal map of the world in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It is concluded that, by analogy with Graeme Simsion’s novel, these empirical aspects might be metaphorically described as the “Rosie eff ect” which is characterized by a dialectic unity of the social and the biological through Hegel’s law of the “unity and struggle of opposites”.