China’s experience in implementing an updated legal system for the protection of new plant varieties is particularly interesting, as China is the largest agricultural producer in the world and a global leader in terms of government support for agriculture. Russia-China trade relations and agricultural production cooperation projects are currently developing. China has recognized the importance of strengthening the top-level development of plant variety protection and promoting a higher level of modern seed industry development. The Russian approach to the protection of breeding achievements, in turn, involves the systematization of relevant legislation within the framework of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and is of interest, including to Chinese partners and contractors, as Russia holds a significant position in global agricultural production, being one of the largest exporters of agricultural products.

As an institutional innovation emerging from the interplay between data protection and trust mechanisms, data trust demonstrates significant potential in the big data era while simultaneously challenging traditional fiduciary duty frameworks. There are two models of data trust: the U.S. “information fiduciary theory” model and the UK’s “data trust” model. China could adopt a hybrid operational model for data trust, where the trustor and trustee establish a data trust relationship through a trust agreement. The trust company acts as the trustee to fulfill fiduciary duties, while public regulatory authorities oversee data trust operations. Under this model, the trust company and data users are the primary entities responsible for fulfilling fiduciary duties.

In addition to duties of loyalty and care, fiduciary duties should also include the obligation to ensure the security of the trustor’s data while promoting the full circulation of data to realize its value as an asset. When a data trust institution breaches its fiduciary duties, the burden of proof shall shift to the trustee, and the doctrine of presumed liability shall apply. Additionally, a dedicated regulatory authority shall establish licensing requirements for data trust institutions.

In the construction of data infrastructure system, data registration assumes the basic function of improving the effectiveness of governance and promoting the circulation of elements. In the pilot and exploration of data registration system in different places, the rules of intellectual property registration are often directly applied, ignoring the non-homogeneity, dynamics and scene-dependence of data, which leads to insufficient adaptation of the system.

Taking the governance logic of the intellectual property registration system as reference, it is proposed that the data registration system should be reconstructed with the following core paths: clear scope of objects, hierarchical effectiveness, scenario differences, and dynamic updating.

The data collection is the only eligible object, and three types of effectiveness mechanisms are constructed, namely, deposit-type, defence-type and right-creation-type, which are adapted to the different stages of use and the purpose of the claim; at the same time, the governance system promotes the move from the decentralised local filing to the national unity of the right to realise the mutual recognition of the system and the interoperability of the platforms in response to the reality of the governance dilemma, and to achieve the efficient flow of data elements in the digital economy. At the same time, in terms of governance system, it promotes the transition from local decentralised filing to national unified right confirmation to achieve mutual recognition and platform interoperability, so as to respond to the real governance dilemma and achieve the efficient circulation and value release of data elements in the digital economy.

The article is devoted to the study of the constitutional powers of the federal executive authorities to create a unified legal framework for the healthcare system. There are no unified approaches to regulation at the federal and regional levels of government, and there remains a tendency to transfer regulation in the healthcare sector to the level of subordinate legislation. The heterogeneity of regulation undermines the authority of the law.

Solving waste problems on the basis of a comprehensive approach is not only a priority task of the national policies of Russia and China, but also one of the promising trends of Russian-Chinese cooperation based on positive experience and positive dynamics of legal regulation of relations in this area. In this context, the genesis and main stages of the formation and development of state policy, strategic planning, and legislation in the field of waste management are relevant and of practical interest. As a result of considering these stages, the article highlights the general principles and conceptual approaches, identifies the distinctive features of waste management in Russia and the People’s Republic of China, including solid waste, and outlines the prospects for promoting the transition to a circular economy and developing cooperation in this area.

The reasons for using the experience of Chinese TNCs in Russia are summarized. Their specificity has been revealed. Private law forms of state participation in the activities of TNCs are proposed.

Articles 584 and 591 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China and Article 60 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on General Provisions of the Contract Section for the first time explicitly establish the substitute transaction rule. They introduce a novel method of calculating damages for breach of contract by allowing the non-breaching party to engage in a substitute transaction and claim the difference between the contract price and the substitute transaction price as expectation damages. This rule provides institutional support for the non-breaching party’s duty to mitigate loss and the pursuit of full compensation, and it reflects a legislative policy that promotes transactional efficiency and risk control. Yet in judicial practice the boundaries of its application, the standards for determining its reasonableness, and its relationship to other remedial methods remain the subject of considerable controversy.

The articulation between the substitute transaction rule and the mechanisms of contract termination and reasonableness review is unclear; when the rule competes with the market price rule and the compensation of lost profits, there are overlaps in the scope of compensation, inconsistent calculation standards and issues of double recovery. Accordingly it is necessary to clarify the prerequisites for applying the substitute transaction rule, to determine its reasonableness through dual assessments of time and market conditions, and to distinguish it from other methods of compensation in order to delineate its scope of application. Building a unified and standardized adjudicatory standard will enhance the efficiency and fairness of the remedy system for breach of contract.

Fiduciary duty, as the core component of fiduciary obligations, essentially regulates conflicts of interest between companies and their directors, supervisors, and senior management, forming an inviolable bottom line in corporate governance. Despite ongoing regulatory enforcement efforts, violations of the fiduciary duty by directors, supervisors, and senior management remain a persistent governance challenge. At its core, this issue stems not only from inherent flaws such as the blurred distinction between fiduciary and duty of care obligations, and unclear definitions of related-party transactions and self-dealing, but also from the failure of accountability mechanisms due to the fragmentation of the legal system. This article focuses on the changes in the connotation of the duty of loyalty under the new Company Law. By deconstructing the current situation, analyzing legislative loopholes, proposing a systematic improvement path, and ultimately constructing an organic unified system of the duty of loyalty based on the substantive norms of the Company Law and the implementation link of procedural coordination.

The article analyzes a number of legal norms of the People’s Republic of China that determine the ability of public legal entities to protect their reputation from defamation (the dissemination of false and defamatory information). The object of the study was the phenomenon of social relations in China, with examples of their legislative regulation in cases of defamation; the procedure for resolving situations related to the dissemination of information that constitutes a controversial defamatory presentation of facts or opinions that negatively affect the reputation of public legal entities; the procedural issues that public legal entities affected by defamation face; and the procedures for initiating legal protection of their violated intangible benefits and rights from defamation.

It is concluded that, based on the equality of rights under Chinese law compared to other legal entities, public legal entities in China, along with other affected legal entities, have equal opportunities to use the methods of protecting their reputation from defamation provided for by the legislation of the People’s Republic of China, even in the context of the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.

This article presents a comparative-legal analysis of the development of judicial practice in civil matters in the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, situated within global trends that affect not only law but society more broadly at the current stage — notably digital transformation and increasing ideological influence, including within civil procedure. By identifying parallels between the two legal models, the article shows how both countries adapt judicial practice to strengthen “soft power” as an instrument of domestic stability and international influence.

Criminal severance of cases is a common and flexible procedural mechanism in judicial practice for handling joint criminal cases, which plays an important role in ensuring the quality of criminal prosecution, improving the efficiency of case handling, and safeguarding the rights of the prosecuted. However, many problems have arisen in the operation of judicial practice in the separate case handling. For example, the subject of the decision is unreasonable, the application standards are not unified, the supervision mechanism is insufficient, and the rights of the parties are not protected, etc., resulting in the application of Severance of cases is chaotic, the procedure is not standardized, all kinds of functional alienation phenomenon, has significantly deviated from the track of the rule of law. In response to these issues, it is necessary to adjust the initiation method of severance of cases, clarify the scope of severance of cases, and unify the applicable standards for severance of cases. In terms of supervision mechanisms, external and internal supervision mechanisms should be established and improved to provide parties with scientific and reasonable judicial remedies, effectively preventing the abuse of power. The ultimate goal is to unify the rights and responsibilities of the judicial practice of approving separate cases, reduce the abuse of the right to try separate cases in practice, and truly realize the value of the separate case trial system.