digitallawJournal of Digital Technologies and LawJournal of Digital Technologies and Law2949-2483Kazan Innovative University named after V. G. Timiryasov10.21202/jdtl.2024.26ypfqzddigitallaw-476Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИLegal Issues of Ensuring Technological SovereigntyПравовые проблемы обеспечения технологического суверенитетаhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4247-5242ЗалоилоМ. В.ZaloiloM. V.

Залоило Максим Викторович – кандидат юридических наук, ведущий научный сотрудник отдела теории права и междисциплинарных исследований законодательства

117218, г. Москва, ул. Большая Черемушкинская, 34

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57215428686

WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/S-4168-2018

Google Scholar ID:

РИНЦ Author ID: https://www.elibrary.ru/author_profile.asp?id=595876

Maksim V. Zaloilo – Cand. Sci. (Law), Leading Researcher of the Department of Theory of Law and Interdisciplinary Research of Legislation

34 Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya Str., 117218 Moscow

Scopus Author ID: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57215428686

WoS Researcher ID: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/S-4168-2018

Google Scholar ID:

РИНЦ Author ID: https://www.elibrary.ru/author_profile.asp?id=595876

z-lo@mail.ruИнститут законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве Российской ФедерацииРоссияInstitute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian FederationRussian Federation20241011202423500520Copyright © Zaloilo M.V., 20242024Залоило М.В.Zaloilo M.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.lawjournal.digital/jour/article/view/476Objective

Objective: to identify the legal issues of ensuring technological sovereignty and to determine scientifically grounded vectors of their solution.

Methods

Methods: the study is based on formal-legal, historical-legal, comparative legal methods, as well as the methodology of soft systematicity, legal forecasting, and legal modeling.

Results

Results: the article presents a theoretical and legal approach to understanding sovereignty and differentiating its types. Under modern conditions, a significant role is given to the independence and autonomy of the state in the technological sphere. The correlation of digital and technological sovereignty is considered; the latter notion is outlined taking into account the gaining popularity of the Western concept of digital (technological) solidarity. The regulatory foundation of the state strategic autonomy is legal regulation, in which the concept of technology-centrism has been firmly established in recent years. The technological paradigm of modern legal regulations was identified. It consists in strategizing the scientific and technological innovations in strategic planning documents, as well as in sovereignization and cyclization of the legal sphere, digital transformation of the culture of lawmaking and law enforcement, technologization of the legal language, expansion of the scope of legislative regulation and the volume of subordinate legislation. The analysis of the correlation between the legislative and subordinate law levels of technological positioning of the Russian Federation in strategic areas has allowed to emphasize the important systemic interrelation of the involved traditional and innovative law-making tools as they ensure technological development. The author also identifies the risks of expanding legal experimentation in the digital area of public relations, which should exclude the possibility of circumventing the established critical limitations.

Scientific novelty

Scientific novelty: the work forms a theoretical and legal model of ensuring technological sovereignty, which is of strategic importance for the preservation of the Russian Federation sovereignty in its classical understanding as the main and most important feature of the state.

Practical significance

Practical significance: the results can be used in law-making activities of public authorities to create legal mechanisms for research, development and implementation of critical and end-to-end technologies and the production of high-tech products based on them in order to ensure national security of the Russian Federation.

Цель

Цель: выявить правовые проблемы обеспечения технологического суверенитета и определить научно обоснованные векторы их решения.

Методы

Методы: в основе исследования лежат формально-юридический, историко-правовой, сравнительно-правовой методы, а также методология мягкой системности, юридического прогнозирования, правового моделирования.

Результаты

Результаты: в статье представлен теоретико-правовой подход к пониманию и разграничению суверенитета на виды, где в современных условиях значительная роль отводится независимости и самостоятельности государства в технологической сфере. Рассмотрено соотношение цифрового и технологического суверенитета, а понятие последнего изложено с учетом набирающей популярность западной концепции цифровой (технологической) солидарности. Регулятивным фундаментом стратегической автономии государства служит право вое регулирование, в сфере которого в последние годы прочно закрепляется концепция технологоцентризма. Выявленная технологическая парадигма современных правовых регуляторов заключается в стратегировании научно-технологических новаций в документах стратегического планирования, суверенизации и циклизации правовой сферы, цифровой трансформации культуры правотворчества и правоприменения, технологизации юридического языка, расширении сферы законодательного регулирования и объема подзаконного правового массива. Проведенный анализ соотношения законодательного и под законного уровней технологического позиционирования Российской Федерации в стратегических областях позволил подчеркнуть важность системной взаимосвязи задействованных традиционных и инновационных инструментов правотворческого процесса в обеспечении технологического развития и выявить риски расширения правового экспериментирования в цифровой области общественных отношений, которое должно исключать возможность обхода таким образом установленных критически важных ограничений.

Научная новизна

Научная новизна: в работе сформирована теоретико-правовая модель обеспечения технологического суверенитета, имеющего стратегическое значение для сохранения суверенитета Российской Федерации в его классическом понимании как основного и важнейшего признака государства.

Практическая значимость

Практическая значимость: полученные результаты могут найти применение в правотворческой деятельности органов государственной власти по созданию правовых механизмов исследования, разработки и внедрения критических и сквозных технологий и основанному на них производству высокотехнологичной продукции в целях обеспечения национальной безопасности Российской Федерации.

правостратегическая автономиястратегическое планированиесуверенизация правового регулированиятехнологическая безопасностьтехнологический суверенитеттехнологический укладтехнологическое лидерствоцифровая солидарностьцифровые технологииdigital solidaritydigital technologieslawsovereignization of legal regulationstrategic autonomystrategic planningtechnological leadershiptechnological modetechnological securitytechnological sovereignityИсследование проведено в рамках государственного задания Института законодательства и сравни тельного правоведения при Правительстве Российской Федерации на 2024 годThe research was performed within the framework of the 2024 state assignment of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation.ReferencesАбрамова, А. И. (2019). Подзаконное правотворчество в современном понимании: реалии и перспективы. Журнал российского права, 8, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2019.8.3Abramova, A. I. (2019). By-law-making in the Modern Understanding: Realities and Prospects. Journal of Russian Law, 8, 25–35. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2019.8.3Баранов, В. М. (2022). Ссылки (отсылки) в актах правотворчества: технико-юридические дефекты и пути преодоления их вредных последствий. Журнал российского права, 3, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2022.025Acosta, M., Coronado, D., León, M., & Moreno, P. (2020). The Production of Academic Technological Knowledge: an Exploration at the Research Group Level. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 1003–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-0586-9Васильев, А. А. (2020). Научное право как отрасль российского права. Управление наукой: теория и практика, 2(4), 52–70. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/xjobbj. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2020.2.4.3Adams, J., & Albakajai, M. (2016). Cyberspace: A New Threat to the Sovereignty of the State. Management Studies, 4(6), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2185/2016.06.003Габов, А. В., Путило, Н. В., Гутников, О. В. (2017). Проект федерального закона о науке – новый формат правового регулирования научной и инновационной деятельности. Вестник Пермского университета. Юридические науки, 38, 385–399. https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2017-38-385-399Adonis, A. A. (2019). Critical Engagement on Digital Sovereignty in International Relations: Actor Transformation and Global Hierarchy. Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional, 21(2), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.7454/global.v21i2.412Глазьев, С. Ю., Косакян, Д. Л. (2024). Состояние и перспективы формирования 6-го технологического уклада в Российской экономике. Экономика науки, 10(2), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.22394/2410132X-2024-10-2-11-29Baranov, V. M. (2022). References in Law-Making Acts: Technical and Legal Defects and Ways to Overcome Their Harmful Consequences. Journal of Russian Law, 26(3), 5–21. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2022.025Глазьев, С. Ю., Харитонов, В. В. (ред.) (2009). Нанотехнологии как ключевой фактор нового технологического уклада в экономике: монография. Москва: Тровант. https://elibrary.ru/quaadzBeltrán, N. C. (2016). Technological Sovereignty: What Chances for Alternative Practices to Emerge in Daily IT Use? Hybrid [Online], 3. https://doi.org/10.4000/hybrid.987Лапаева, В. В. (2023). Технологический суверенитет России: правовые проблемы. Науковедческие исследования, 2, 60–72. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/mntsbs. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31249/scis/2023.02.04Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., Markard, J., Sandén, B., & Truffer, B. (2015). Technological innovation systems in contexts: Conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.003Пашенцев, Д. А. (ред.) (2019). Цифровизация правотворчества: поиск новый решений: монография. Москва: ИЗиСП: ИНФРА-М. https://elibrary.ru/qrnijyBex, F., Prakken, H., van Engers, T., & Verheij, B. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on Artificial Intelligence for Justice (AI4J). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9198-5Пашенцев, Д. А., Залоило, М. В., Дорская, А. А. (2021). Смена технологических укладов и правовое развитие России: монография. Москва: ИЗиСП: Норма: ИНФРА-М. https://elibrary.ru/tqiyanBroeders, D., Cristiano, F., & Kaminska, M. (2023). In Search of Digital Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy: Normative Power Europe to the Test of Its Geopolitical Ambitions. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 61, 1261–1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13462Потапцева, Е. В., Акбердина, В. В. (2023). Технологический суверенитет: понятие, содержание и формы реализации. Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Экономика, 25(3), 5–16. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/vdglxr. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/ek.jvolsu.2023.3.1Couture, S., & Toupin, S. (2019). What does the notion of “sovereignty” mean when referring to the digital? New Media & Society, 21(10), 2305–2322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819865984Семенов Е. В., Гутников О. В., Путило Н. В., Постников А. Е., Андриченко Л. В., Егерев С. В., Тамбовцев В. Л., Дементьев А. Н., Лапаева В. В., Боринская С. А., Салицкая Е. А., Ваганов А. Г. (2019). Проект федерального закона «О научной и научно-технической деятельности». Управление наукой: теория и практика, 1, 13–50. https://elibrary.ru/tzhvioCrespi, F., Caravella, S., Menghini, M., & Salvatori, C. (2021). European Technological Sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy. Intereconomics, 56(6), 348–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6Степанов, П. В. (2024). Подходы к пониманию цифрового суверенитета России. Журнал российского права, 28(4), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.61205/jrp.2024.4.1da Ponte, A., Leon, G., & Alvarez, I. (2023). Technological Sovereignty of the EU in Advanced 5G Mobile Communications: An Empirical Approach. Telecommunications Policy, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459Тихомиров, Ю. А. (ред.) (2022). Правовое управление в кризисных ситуациях: монография. Москва: Проспект. https://elibrary.ru/medwfmDosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35, 1450–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2006.09.012Тихомиров, Ю. А. (ред.) (2023). Интересы в механизме публичной власти: проблемы теории и практики: монография. Москва: Проспект. https://elibrary.ru/gryaciEdler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., & Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, 52(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765Филипова, И. А. (2021). Нейротехнологии: развитие, применение на практике и правовое регулирование. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право, 3, 502–521. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.302Ermakova, E. P., & Frolova, E. E. (2022). Using Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution. In A. O. Inshakova, E. E. Frolova. (Eds.), Smart Technologies for the Digitisation of Industry: Entrepreneurial Environment. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies (Vol. 254). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981 16-4621-8_11Acosta, M., Coronado, D., León, M., & Moreno, P. (2020). The Production of Academic Technological Knowledge: an Exploration at the Research Group Level. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 1003–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-0586-9Filipova, I. A. (2021). Neurotechnologies: Development, practical application and regulation. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 3, 502–521. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.302Adams, J., & Albakajai, M. (2016). Cyberspace: A New Threat to the Sovereignty of the State. Management Studies, 4(6), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2185/2016.06.003Floridi, L. (2020). The Fight for Digital Sovereignty: What It IS, and Why It Matters, Especially for the EU. Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00423-6Adonis, A. A. (2019). Critical Engagement on Digital Sovereignty in International Relations: Actor Transformation and Global Hierarchy. Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional, 21(2), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.7454/global.v21i2.412Gabov, A. V., Putilo, N. V., & Gutnikov, O. V. (2017). The Draft Federal Law on Science – a New Format of Legal Regulation of Scientific and Innovation Activities. Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences, 38, 385–399. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2017-38-385-399Beltrán, N. C. (2016). Technological Sovereignty: What Chances for Alternative Practices to Emerge in Daily IT Use? Hybrid [Online], 3. https://doi.org/10.4000/hybrid.987Glazyev, S. Yu., & Kharitonov, V. V. (Eds.) (2009). Nanotechnology as a key factor of the new technological mode in the economy: monograph. Moscow: Trovant. (In Russ.).Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., Markard, J., Sandén, B., & Truffer, B. (2015). Technological innovation systems in contexts: Conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.003Glazyev, S. Yu., & Kosakyan, D. L. (2024). State and Prospects of 6th Technological Mode in Russian Economy. Economics of Science, 10(2), 11–29. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-2-11-29Bex, F., Prakken, H., van Engers, T., & Verheij, B. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on Artificial Intelligence for Justice (AI4J). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9198-5Hellmeier, M., & Scherenberg, F. V. (2023). A Delimitation of Data Sovereignty from Digital and Technological Sovereignty. In European Conference on Information Systems 2023 Research Papers, Kristiansand. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2023_rp/306Broeders, D., Cristiano, F., & Kaminska, M. (2023). In Search of Digital Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy: Normative Power Europe to the Test of Its Geopolitical Ambitions. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 61, 1261–1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13462Istace, T. (2024). Human rights law: an incomplete but flexible framework to protect the human mind against neurotechnological intrusions. Law, Innovation and Technology, 16, 309–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2024.2313796Couture, S., & Toupin, S. (2019). What does the notion of “sovereignty” mean when referring to the digital? New Media & Society, 21(10), 2305–2322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819865984Johnson, D. R. & Post, D. G. (1996). Law and Borders – the Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 48, 1367–1402. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.535Crespi, F., Caravella, S., Menghini, M., & Salvatori, C. (2021). European Technological Sovereignty: An Emerging Framework for Policy Strategy. Intereconomics, 56(6), 348–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6Lapaeva, V. V. (2023). Technological sovereignty of Russia: legal issues. Science Studies, 2, 60–72. (In Russ.).da Ponte, A., Leon, G., & Alvarez, I. (2023). Technological Sovereignty of the EU in Advanced 5G Mobile Communications: An Empirical Approach. Telecommunications Policy, 47(1), 102459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459Ligthart, S., Ienca, M., Meynen, G., Molnár-Gábor, F., Andorno, R., Bublitz, C., Catley, P., Claydon, L., Douglas, T., Fins, J. J., Goering, S., Haselager, W. F., Jotterand, F., Lavazza, A., McCay, A., Paz, A. W., Rainey, S., Ryberg, J., & Kellmeyer, P. (2023). Minding rights: Mapping ethical and legal foundations of ‘neurorights’. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 32(4), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180123000245Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35, 1450–1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2006.09.012Luan, C., Deng, S., Porter, A. L., & Song, B. (2024). An Approach to Construct Technological Convergence Networks Across Different IPC Hierarchies and Identify Key Technology Fields. In IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3120709Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., & Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, 52(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765Marchant, G. E., & Allenby, B. R. (2017). Soft law: New tools for governing emerging technologies. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73, 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1288447Ermakova, E. P., & Frolova, E. E. (2022). Using Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution. In A. O. Inshakova, E. E. Frolova. (Eds.), Smart Technologies for the Digitisation of Industry: Entrepreneurial Environment. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies (Vol. 254). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4621-8_11Maurer, T., Skierka, I., Morgus, R., & Hohmann, M. (2015). Technological sovereignty: Missing the point? In 2015 7th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Architectures in Cyberspace, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/CYCON.2015.7158468Floridi, L. (2020). The Fight for Digital Sovereignty: What It IS, and Why It Matters, Especially for the EU. Philosophy & Technology, 33(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00423-6Pashentsev, D. A. (Ed.) (2019). Digitalization of Law-Making: the Research for New Solutions: monograph. Moscow: ILCL: INFRA-M. (In Russ.).Hellmeier, M., & Scherenberg, F. V. (2023). A Delimitation of Data Sovereignty from Digital and Technological Sovereignty. In European Conference on Information Systems 2023 Research Papers, Kristiansand. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2023_rp/306Pashentsev, D. A., & Babaeva, Y. G. (2024). Artificial intelligence in law-making and law enforcement: Risks and new opportunities. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 15(2), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.214Istace, T. (2024). Human rights law: an incomplete but flexible framework to protect the human mind against neurotechnological intrusions. Law, Innovation and Technology, 16, 309–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2024.2313796Pashentsev, D. A., Zaloilo, M. V., & Dorskaya, А. А. (2021). Changing of Technological Orders and Legal Development of Russia: monograph. Moscow: ILCL: Norma: INFRA-М. (In Russ.).Johnson, D. R. & Post, D. G. (1996). Law and Borders – the Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 48, 1367–1402. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.535Pizzul, D., & Veneziano, M. (2023). Digital sovereignty or sovereignism? Investigating the political discourse on digital contact tracing apps in France. Information, Communication & Society, 27(5), 1008–1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2232840Ligthart, S., Ienca, M., Meynen, G., Molnár-Gábor, F., Andorno, R., Bublitz, C., Catley, P., Claydon, L., Douglas, T., Fins, J. J., Goering, S., Haselager, W. F., Jotterand, F., Lavazza, A., McCay, A., Paz, A. W., Rainey, S., Ryberg, J., & Kellmeyer, P. (2023). Minding rights: Mapping ethical and legal foundations of ‘neurorights’. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics, 32(4), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180123000245Potaptseva, E. V., Akberdina, V. V. (2023). Technological Sovereignty: Concept, Content, and Forms of Implementation. Journal of Volgograd State University. Economics, 25(3), 5–16. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15688/ek.jvolsu.2023.3.1Luan, C., Deng, S., Porter, A. L., & Song, B. (2024). An Approach to Construct Technological Convergence Networks Across Different IPC Hierarchies and Identify Key Technology Fields. In IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3120709Reiling, A. D. (2020). Courts and Artificial Intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343Marchant, G. E., & Allenby, B. R. (2017). Soft law: New tools for governing emerging technologies. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73, 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1288447Semenov, Е. V., Gutnikov, О. V., Putilo, N. V., Postnikov, А. Е., Andrichenko, L. V., Egerev, S. V., Tambovtsev, V. L., Dementiev, А. N., Lapaeva, V. V., Borinskaya, S. А., Salitskaya, Е. А., & Vaganov, А. G. (2019). Draft Federal Law “On scientific and scientific-technical activity”. Upravlenie naukoj: teoriya i praktika, 1, 13–50. (In Russ.).Maurer, T., Skierka, I., Morgus, R., & Hohmann, M. (2015). Technological sovereignty: Missing the point? In 2015 7th International Conference on Cyber Conflict: Architectures in Cyberspace, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/CYCON.2015.7158468Stepanov, P. V. (2024). Approaches to Understanding Russia’s Digital Sovereignty. Journal of Russian Law, 28(4), 37–51. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.61205/jrp.2024.4.1Pashentsev, D. A., & Babaeva, Y. G. (2024). Artificial intelligence in law-making and law enforcement: Risks and new opportunities. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право, 15(2), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2024.214Tikhomirov, Yu. A. (Ed.) (2022). Legal Management in Crisis Situations: monograph. Moscow: Prospect. (In Russ)Pizzul, D., & Veneziano, M. (2023). Digital sovereignty or sovereignism? Investigating the political discourse on digital contact tracing apps in France. Information, Communication & Society, 27(5), 1008–1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2232840Tikhomirov, Yu. A. (Ed.) (2023). Interests in the mechanism of public power: issues of theory and practice: monograph. Moscow: Prospect. (In Russ.).Reiling, A. D. (2020). Courts and Artificial Intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343Timmers, P. (2019). Ethics of Al and Cybersecurity When Sovereignty is at Stake. Minds and Machines, 29(4), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09508-4Timmers, P. (2019). Ethics of Al and Cybersecurity When Sovereignty is at Stake. Minds and Machines, 29(4), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09508-4Ulmanen, J., & Bergek, A. (2021). Influences of technological and sectoral contexts on technological innovation systems. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 40, 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.04.007Ulmanen, J., & Bergek, A. (2021). Influences of technological and sectoral contexts on technological innovation systems. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 40, 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.04.007Vasiliev, A. A. (2020). Scientific law as a branch of Russian law. Science Management: Theory and Practice, 2(4), 52–70. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2020.2.4.3

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.