The article proposes a systematic assessment of the right to the Internet in the context of modern legal and political challenges. The authors substantiate the thesis that the right to the Internet is a complex category that cannot be considered solely in terms of providing technical capabilities and overcoming the digital divide (inequality) between different social groups and states. Much more complex and important is the consideration of the right to the Internet in the context of the corresponding duty of states not to impede the possibility of information exchange via the Internet, as well as in the plane of the search for a “golden mean” between the right to the Internet and natural human rights.

The main purpose of the article was to determine the main features of the right to the Internet in the context of human and civil rights and freedoms and to analyze the main manifestations of digital discrimination as a consequence of the digital divide.

A detailed methodological basis of the article contributed to the achievement of the abovementioned purpose. The research was based on a systematic method, which made it possible to consider the right to the Internet as a complex and dynamically developing legal and political category. The authors used functional and logical (deduction, induction and analogy) methods, as well as a number of particular scientific methods: historical, sociological and statistical. The approach proposed in the article to determine the key parameters of the right to the Internet was substantiated mainly on the basis of the application of comparative legal, formal legal and axiological methods.

The methodology of the research made it possible to formulate and substantiate the conclusion that the right to the Internet in the face of modern legal and political challenges is undergoing a qualitative transformation both in the direction of expanding the positive obligations of the state to overcome the digital divide, and in the direction of restricting the right to freedom of Internet communication under the auspices of ensuring the right to privacy and the need to respect the public interest. The presence of «double standards» in determining the boundaries of the right to the Internet leads to conflicting legal decisions and allows us to predict the aggravation of this contradiction in the context of the rapid development of digital platforms and the active sanction policy of the collective West.

The article examines the role of digitalization in EAEU–ASEAN dialogue. The EAEU tries to develop cooperation with Southeast Asia, as for separate states, so with ASEAN. The sides have made some significant steps for strengthening of their interaction for the last years. However, the EAEU and ASEAN still have no free trade agreement or other formal document for economic cooperation. One of reasons for that seems to be relatively low level of trade ties and integration between EAEU and ASEAN member-states. EAEU and ASEAN officials make focus at their dialogue for facilitation and development of their economic cooperation. The digitalization takes important position in this interaction. The EAEU and ASEAN pay special attention to digitalization in their programs of development. The EAEU and ASEAN representatives accented the importance of digitalization as an instrument of cooperation (for example, in the relation of customs regulations and electronic trade). Digitalization issues have been included into agenda of different events with participation of the EAEU and ASEAN (for instance, Petersburg International Economic Forums). Representatives of the EAEU and ASEAN, separate member-states and business-communities discussed digitalization. Although the digitalization of EAEU–ASEAN cooperation makes the first steps, but, at the same time, we can see some practical results (on the example of activities of the Russia-Singapore Business Council and Singaporean company vCargoCloud). The digitalization in the framework of EAEU–ASEAN interaction has prospects for further development and can create conditions for strengthening ties between the EAEU and ASEAN.

Exploration of an outer-space initially and currently is closely related to militarization. All spacecraft, in one way or another, have a dual purpose and can be used for both peaceful and military purposes – from the use of launchers for orbital and suborbital flights to telecommunication systems. In the doctrinal documents of the USA, NATO and the European Union space is considered, among other functions, as a source of “space threats” and as an environment for potential military operations. Military space forces and Commands are structurally separated into a special category within the Armed Forces of Western countries. Comparative analysis of NATO and EU space strategies shows significant differences. NATO places an emphasis on the use of already existing space resources of its member states to implement its traditional goals and objectives, without concentrating on the formation of collective structures advancing space technologies. EU, in contrast, actively integrates technological inputs of its member states with powerful economic potential, initiates and develops collective inter-state projects and structures for space exploration. EU in recent times pays special attention to attempts to ensure European strategic autonomy from the USA and third countries in the space sector. The increasingly intensive entry of private enterprises into the outer space sector has been a characteristic feature at the beginning of the 21st century, their role is expanding, and cooperation of businesses with the state is strengthening on a commercial basis in the form of public-private partnerships.

Many observers expect artificial intelligence (AI) to become one of the most important technologies of the 21st century, whose development will be a decisive factor in shaping the future global technological balance of power. A practical confirmation of this statement is the fact that today an increasing number of states are striving to accelerate their national AI development programmes. Russia is one of them, although it is generally not perceived in the West as a potential leader in this emerging competition. At the same time, Russia’s demonstrated ability to build its own successful national IT ecosystem is attracting increased international interest in its national AI development efforts. The purpose of this paper is to outline the contours of these efforts, and to trace the evolution of the regulatory framework and its underlying principles. The authors draw the following conclusions. Russia is developing a flexible and science-based approach to AI and its potential humanitarian impacts, combining its own historical experience with international practices. Strategically, Russia sees the development of national AI as an important means of advancing its economic and technological development in a way that benefits its citizens and businesses, as well as preventing a possible economic and technological slowdown. Significant progress has been made on legal and ethical issues. The focus of Russian efforts in this area is more on soft law norms and self-regulation rather than on prohibitive legislative norms. This approach leaves a lot of room for the development of AI and reduces the possibility of its premature bureaucratisation, which could hinder innovation in the field. There are certain similarities between the Russian and European approaches to AI development and regulation. Human security concerns, data protection and a risk-based approach to the development of AI technologies are prioritised by the state and supranational institutions (respectively) as the main actors responsible for safeguarding the well-being, interests and rights of the citizens.

This article analyzes the transformation of the attitude of the Russian-speaking and Estonian-speaking communities of Estonia towards the reception of refugees from the 1990s until the present day. A comparison is made of the attitude towards immigrants of various origins (African, Asian, Ukrainian refugees, entrants from Russia) by ethnic Estonians with the perception of them by local Russian-speaking residents of this Baltic state. The author examines the reasons for the negative and positive perception of Estonians towards immigrants of various origins. It is noted that there is a direct connection between the current perception of immigrants in Estonia and the historical past of this country. The paper describes the sharp increase in Euroscepticism in Estonia after the start of the European migration crisis in 2015, as well as the serious joint opposition of the state’s authorities and its residents to the refugee distribution quotas imposed by the European Commission. In addition to the similarities in the approaches of the two largest communities on the issue of refugees, the author also identified a number of significant differences on this topic, which is sensitive for all Estonians. The paper concludes that the refugee crisis and anti-immigrant Eurosceptic worldview have largely united ethnic Russians and Estonians living in Estonia in the face of a “common threat”. It is also justified that the present warm and hospitable attitude of ethnic Estonians towards Ukrainian refugees in the medium term may be replaced by “fatigue” and apathy towards them.