Abstract: The subject of the research is the influence of artificial intelligence on the liability of the launching state in international space law. The main focus is on the situation where a space object operates with a high degree of autonomy, and the reasons for its decisions cannot be easily explained after an incident. This issue is known as the "black box" of artificial intelligence. The article examines how this opacity affects the establishment of causation, proof of fault, and the distribution of evidentiary risk. The responsibility for harm caused in space, where a fault-based liability regime applies, is analyzed separately. The research also addresses issues of human control, auditing, logging, data verification, and national licensing of AI-enabled space systems. The work demonstrates that the autonomy of the algorithm does not eliminate the connection between the space object, the operator, and the launching state. The methodological framework of the research incorporates legal formalism, systemic analysis, comparative law, and teleological methods. These are employed to analyze the norms of space law, liability regimes, and contemporary approaches to regulating artificial intelligence. The scientific novelty lies in examining the "black box" problem not as a technical justification for exemption from liability but as a legally significant factor in proving cases. The article proposes the use of a standard of due algorithmic diligence. This includes risk assessment, model verification, establishing limits of autonomy, data retention, decision logging, and the possibility of subsequent auditing. It concludes that artificial intelligence should not be recognized as an independent subject of international liability. Fault should be assessed through the actions and omissions of the state, the operator, and other participants in space activities. If the state or the operator has not ensured the verifiability of the system, the risk of non-proving should not be shifted to the injured party. In such cases, a relaxation of the burden of proof or the application of a rebuttable presumption of fault is possible. At the same time, the liability of the launching state should have reasonable limits and take into account the predictability of risk, the nature of the damage, and the distribution of functions among mission participants.

Keywords: international space law, artificial intelligence, black box, launching State, space object, autonomous systems, causal link, evidentiary risk, algorithmic due diligence, algorithmic transparency

Abstract: The subject of the research is the functional capabilities and organizational‑legal architecture of the "Three Country–Trusted Broker" (TCTB) model as a non‑governmental intermediary mechanism enabling states to coordinate active debris removal missions under low political trust and existing international legal constraints. The object is the institutional barriers impeding the practical implementation of active debris removal, primarily the collision between the jurisdiction of the state of registry and the need for cooperative action. The author examines the impact of Articles VI, VIII and IX of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1972 Liability Convention on the formation of a legal‑initiative deadlock, and the ways to overcome it through the architectural solutions of the TCTB. Special attention is paid to a functional comparative analysis of the TCTB with other international structures, including the Inter‑Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, relevant NGOs and national programs. The methodology combines a formal‑legal analysis of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention with a case study of the TCTB model and content analysis of verified ESA and LeoLabs reports. The main conclusions are: the TCTB model constitutes a complementary operational mechanism capable of filling the institutional vacuum in active debris removal without creating new international obligations. The author’s special contribution is the interpretation of the TCTB not as a norm‑making instrument, but as an operational “bridge” that functions strictly within existing international space law, enabling coordination practices without revising fundamental treaties. The novelty lies in a functional approach to assessing non‑state intermediary mechanisms: unlike traditional comparative legal analysis, the comparison uses criteria such as mandate, speed of response, ability to overcome institutional barriers, and the need to create new obligations. This methodology can be applied to other non‑state models in international law.

Keywords: Kessler Syndrome, space debris, active removal, space law, polycentric governance, trusted broker, TCTB, massive derelicts, UNCOPUOS, international law

Abstract: The subject of the research is the international legal justification for the differentiation of insurance rates by types of social risks in mandatory pension insurance systems. Special attention is given to the study of the principle of equivalence of insurance contributions as a fundamental requirement of the insurance model and its correlation with various forms of tariff differentiation: by professional risk, age, income, region, and the intended purpose of contributions. The Russian mandatory pension insurance system is examined separately, where a unified rate is applied, and the maximum limit of the contribution base breaks the connection between the paid contributions and the accrued pension rights. The subject of the research also covers gender aspects of ILO Convention No. 102 and a critical analysis of two draft laws (from 2022 and 2026) aimed at eliminating the inconsistencies of the Russian system with international standards. The methodology of the research includes a comparative legal method, supplemented by a formal legal analysis of regulatory acts, actuarial assessments of insurance risks, and a systemic approach to studying tariff models in their relation to the principle of equivalence. The scientific novelty lies in the systemic justification for the necessity to transition from a unified tariff to risk-oriented differentiation based on three types of pension risks (old age, disability, loss of breadwinner) according to international standards, as well as in identifying a unique mechanism in Russian practice for collecting contributions exceeding the maximum base without forming pension rights, which is qualified as a quasi-tax. Additionally, a critique is presented on the gender model of ILO Convention No. 102 as outdated, acknowledged by the ILO itself, while still maintaining its role as a benchmark for minimum standards. Conclusions: the principle of equivalence is not only a theoretical construct but also a practical criterion for the effectiveness of the pension system; its restoration in Russia requires the differentiation of tariffs based on three grounds for assigning insurance pensions, establishing actuarially justified rates, and restoring the direct connection between paid contributions and future pension rights. The implementation of such an approach will achieve a replacement ratio of no less than 40% and ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the system.

Keywords: types of social risks, insurance rate differentiation, replacement rate, international standards, international legal justification, mandatory pension insurance, contribution base ceiling, principle of equivalence, risk‑based approach, comparative legal analysis

Abstract: This article concludes the author's series on the sanctions regime in cross-border dispute resolution. It addresses the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under sanctions and counter-sanctions. The author labels this stage situation B, distinct from situation A, the unenforceability of the arbitration agreement. The purpose is to design a mechanism that preserves the enforcement title where performance is blocked by sanctions or counter-sanctions prescriptions. The methodology combines formal-legal, comparative-legal, and systemic approaches. The empirical basis covers the Russian Supreme Court's Thematic Review No. 8/2026, Russian court practice, rulings of the Higher Regional Courts of Stuttgart, Cologne, and Frankfurt am Main, a US District Court (D.C.) judgment, and Council Regulations (EU) No 833/2014 and No 269/2014, which together reveal a mirror pattern of exequatur refusals across the sanctions perimeter. The novelty lies in four propositions. First, the author substantiates the concept of sanctions incompatibility of exequatur as a self-standing obstacle. It is not a defect of the agreement or of the award, but lies in the legal regime of the awarded performance. Second, the author formulates the principle of separation between the enforcement title and the asset transfer: recognition does not constitute a prohibited performance; only the method of performance may be prohibited. Third, the author proposes the model of modal exequatur and a four-criteria test with three modes of judicial response, whereby the court recognizes the award and specifies a sanctions-neutral method of performance through type "C" and "O" special accounts. Fourth, the author distinguishes the anti-suit injunction from the anti-enforcement injunction. The practical significance lies in proposed amendments to Articles 245 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code.

Keywords: exequatur, public policy, international commercial arbitration, sanctions regime, overlapping mandatory regimes, actual feasibility, incompatibility of exequatur, modal exequatur, enforcement title, anti-enforcement injunction