Development of Theoretical Approaches to Regulation of Digital Ecosystems and Platforms in Foreign Legal Science

In article, the author examined the trends in the development of legal theory in foreign studies on digital ecosystems and platforms. These are relatively new objects of legal regulation. The author focused on the comparison of the realistic and sociological concepts of legal understanding. In particular, they differ in the order of formation of legal regulators in the digital environment. As a result, the author notes a fragmentary understanding of these terms due to their complexity and technological diversity, built on elements of self-regulation. The main methods of scientific research were comparative and formallogical methods. The author also used some methodological directions of the sociological school of law in civilistics (instrumentalism, anthropological approach, praxeological theory). Together, these methods contributed to the identification of the features of the development of foreign scientific thought. The author believes that the conclusion that the initial emphasis on self-regulation of the digital environment has been replaced by an increasing role of corporate and state regulation in achieving only socially useful results is justified. This is confirmed by the evolution of the theory of legal instrumentalism, legalpraxeological and legal-anthropological approaches.

1. Аламова С.М. Цифровые технологии и правовой ландшафт в сфере интеллектуальной собственности // Юридическая наука. 2024. № 11. С. 121–128.

2. Yan D. Virtual Reality: Can We Ride Trademark Law to Surf Cyberspace // Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ. 1999. Vol. 10. Р. 769–785.

3. Bertol D. Designing digital space: an architect's guide to virtual reality. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 1996. 356 p.

4. Rothchild J. Protecting the digital consumer: The limits of cyberspace utopianism // Ind. LJ. 1998. Vol. 74. Р. 893–998.

5. Elkin-Koren N. Cyberlaw and social change: A democratic approach to copyright law in cyberspace // Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ. 1996. Vol. 14. Р. 215–231.

6. Lacey N. Normative reconstruction in socio-legal theory // Social & Legal Studies. 1996. Vol. 5. № 2. Р. 131–157.

7. Howes D. E-legislation: Law-making in the digital age // McGill LJ. 2001. Vol. 47. Р. 39–57.

8. Wall D. S., Johnstone J. The industrialization of legal practice and the rise of the new electric lawyer: The impact of information technology upon legal practice in the UK [1] // International Journal of the Sociology of Law. 1997. Vol. 25. № 2. Р. 95–116.

9. Benkler Y. The battle over the institutional ecosystem in the digital environment // Communications of the ACM. 2001. Vol. 44. № 2. Р. 84–90.

10. Selwyn N. Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide // New media & society. 2004. Vol. 6. № 3. Р. 341–362.

11. Naik P. A., Raman K. Understanding the impact of synergy in multimedia communications // Journal of marketing research. 2003. Vol. 40. № 4. Р. 375–388.

12. Benkler Y. The battle over the institutional ecosystem in the digital environment // Communications of the ACM. 2001. Vol. 44. № 2. Р. 84–90.

13. Martin A. Digital literacy and the “digital society” // Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. 2008. Vol. 30. № 151. Р. 1029–1055.

14. Loveluck B. The many shades of digital vigilantism. A typology of online self-justice // Global Crime. 2020. Vol. 21. № 3-4. Р. 213–241.

15. Marsden C., Meyer T., Brown I. Platform values and democratic elections: How can the law regulate digital disinformation? // Computer law & security review. 2020. Vol. 36. Р. 105–373.

16. Rim A. Obligations in the Digital Environment: Legal Doctrine // Legal Issues in the digital Age. 2024. № 3. Р. 4–30.

17. Tsindeliani I. A. et al. Digital transformation of the banking system in the context of sustainable development // Journal of Money Laundering Control. 2022. Vol. 25. № 1. Р. 165–180.