Liberalism of Surrogacy Legislation in the Russian Federation: A Paradoxical Development in a Paternalistic Society

The year 1995 marked a new chapter in Russian family law. Following a chain of political events that shook the young Russian state’s legal landscape, the Family Code 1995 was enacted. The new progressive law codified certain aspects of assisted reproduction, more specifically, surrogacy. Despite the Soviet Union’s intrusiveness into private life, its successor state, Russia, seems to have attempted to shift ‘from paternalism to “rights-based” approach.’ (1) Russia (2) became one of the most liberal states as regards to procreation. Not only has the state proactively legalised surrogacy, its attitude towards the parties’ reproductive arrangements may be described as almost a laissez-faire. The Code explicitly allowed the intended parents to legally enter into a surrogacy arrangement, with minimum oversight from the government. This development was followed by further liberalisation in the area of surrogacy in 2012 when commercial surrogacy was legalised. Considered against the tendency of the state policies to interfere with private decision-making, these developments are at their best paradoxical. The research seeks to critically appraise the Russian surrogacy law and uncover the influences that could have shaped such a liberal approach considering the factors, such as increasing availability of assisted reproductive technology, the state’s biopolitical agenda and the view of the media

The Law of Facebook: Borders, Regulation and Global Social Media

This paper provides an outline of the talks presented at the webinar event “The Law of Facebook: Borders, Regulation and Global Social Media” on 15 May 2020, jointly hosted by the City Law School Jean Monnet Chair of Law & Transatlantic Relations, the Institute for the study of European Law (ISEL) and the International Law and Affairs Group (ILAG)

Contemporary Issues in Translantic Relations

This report summarises the interdisciplinary seminar hosted by the Jean Monnet Chair in Transatlantic Relations at City Law School and the Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL). The event consisted of three sessions: The Transatlantic Relationship; Transatlantic Defence, Security and Civil Liberties; Transatlantic and Global Trade. It examined topical issues in transatlantic relations across a range of subjects and issues, from trade, security and data, to defence. The seminar reflected upon the state of the art in transatlantic relations, with speakers from a broad variety of disciplines and practice. It considered inter alia: How should we understand the future of ‘American First’ at the end of the Trump Presidency? What is the current state of the US-Sino tech war and what are its implications for EU-US relations? How do UK-US relations impact upon this equation, in light of the Huawei 5G affair? What is the future of the EU-UK-US triangle in international security, where the EU loses the heft of one of its largest members? Will the UK increasingly align in sectoral fields to the US? What do the negotiation objectives of the EU-US and UK-US indicate to us about the future of the special partnerships? With the world’s largest sanctions regimes, the EU and US will pose a challenge for the UK to alignment purposes- will it inevitably be the EU first? What are its implications for a more significant FTA between the respective parties? How does the rise of the EU as a global data actor influence contemporary politics? Has the US succeeded in taming the global mobility of its social media giants through taxation threats? How does a multilateralist such as the EU deal with the future of American First after the next US election and the development of the uncertain path of Global Britain? Does Churchill’s call for a United States of Europe with the UK outside but closely aligned within the Commonwealth of Nations have any resonance going forward? In any field at all? What developments in the breakdown of the WTO DS system can occur with the aid of the EU, US and UK? Is the US sincere about its reform? Can Global Britain survive a shift outside of the EU without a WTO DS

The EU as a Good Global Actor

This paper outlines an exploratory workshop at City Law School, City, University of London funded by HEIF/ ‘EUTIP’ Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network (ITN) on understanding of the EU as a Good Global Actor.1 The EU has as its mission to be a good global governance actor yet is continuously challenged in the world. As a global actor, the EU is both a weak and strong actor in a divergent range of global governance areas. It is not comparable to study the EU as a global trade actor for example to its efforts in human rights, data, cyber or the environment. EU international relations constitutes arguably a booming field of law where the EU appears often to be a victim of its own success. The range of the subjects and objects of EU law continues to expand and the EU is arguably increasingly a victim of its own success, increasingly taking decisions with impacts on third countries or parties, subjecting more entities to sanctions regimes, being bound to consult more entities and have more third countries, parties and entities such as lobbyists interested in the directions of EU law. The assessment of the EU as a global actor includes broad checks on normative action ex ante and ex post facto- yet it is no less harsh. Ex ante metrics of EU global action include court-centred ones such as an opinion from the CJEU on legality of an international agreement, often precluded in most constitutional systems on account of its conflict with pacta sunt servanda. The contours of the principle of the autonomy of EU law have the capacity to put more stringent parameters on EU institutionalised evolutions as to international engagement. How can we assess the EU as a global actor given these realities? The aim of the event was to explore informally the nexus between trade and security, trade and economics and trade and human rights as a future research agenda with input from a variety of scholars It reflected upon four major themes: 1) The EU’s Contribution to the Democratisation of Global Governance 2) Deeper Trade Agreements and New Normative Foundations 3) The EU as a Global Actor in Trade and Fundamental Rights 4) EU’s Trade in the Era of Global Data Flows

Аbоut a theoretical yield of glucose from starch

Starch is the raw materials for production of crystal food glucose. With at enzyme conversion of the high purity starch, it is possible to receive glucosic syrups of a glucose equivalent (GE) 98%, where there is about 95% glucose and maltose and maltotriose – of about 5%. Starch hydrolysis is carried out with a gain of solids. Thus, 100 kg of amylum is possible to give up to 109.81 kg of glucose syrup on dry basis. Taking in account the losses at manufacture steps a yield can decrease to 105.61 kg. The purified glucose syrup is concentrated up to 73–75% of dry matters and goes to a crystallization step. Crystallization of glucose is carried out in a supersaturated solution within 56–70 hours at reduced temperature from 46–48 °C to 24–26 °C, resulting a mixture of glucose crystals and an intercrystal run-off syrup called a massecuite. The crystallization process is stopped when a 50% of crystals content in massecuite is reached. At the same time glucose yield will be 105.61/2 = 52.8%. Crystallization is carried out according to the single-stage scheme, with partial return of the end product – hydrol into the hydrolised syrup. Then the massecuite is sent to a centrifugation step for dividing glucose crystals and a run-off syrup, which is partially returned to the initial syrup to reduce in GE. The second part of the run-off syrup goes to realization. It must be kept in mind: the higher GE of the glucose syrup sent to a crystallization step, the more quantity of a hydrol is possible to be returned to hydrolysed syrup. Therefore, it is in a resulted a higher yield of glucose crystals. On the basis of the carried-out calculations the computer program was made with which it is possible to define a theoretical glucose and a hydrol yield, while changing values of a hydrolysed syrup. The higher GE values of a hydrolysed syrup are the higher yield of crystal glucose and the lower one of hydrol are. So, at 98% GE of a hydrolysed syrup it is possible to return about 64.66 kg of a hydrol to 105.61 kg of syrup the glucose yield will increase up to 85%, and at the same time a hydrol yield will be (105,61 – 85) i.e. 20.61%

GRANULOMETRIC COMPOSITION OF GRANULAR STARCH SWEETENERS

There was developed a technology to produce starch sweeteners in granular form, which allows to obtain ready product in dry freeflowing state, without separation of mother liquor with valuable nutritional components, for short period of time. During granulation dextrose is crystallized on the surface of seed granules and it increases their size up to determined value, after that granules are destroyed, forming new centers of granules formation. The sizes of granules are in the range of 3–7 mm. The analysis of experimental data shows, that density of granules is decrease with increase of size of granules. Increasing the load for crushing granules at increase of their size is connected with increase of strength due to its mass increase. However, with increase of granule size the specific load per unit of cross-sectional area (tensile strength) is decreased. With increase of moisture content of granules the load for destruction is decreased. The tensile strength is decreased with increase of granule size and moisture content. The value of the optimal average granule size is determined using experimental data on change of critical stress arising inside of granules of different size, from the action of load, determined experimentally for each granule, and specific load in granules of seed layer from external forces at mixing of granule layer. Substituting the known values corresponding to experimental installation, in equations, obtained based on experimental data, we find optimal average size of granule for existing boundary conditions, obtained in the experimental installation d = 3,78 mm. The size of granule at starch sweeteners production could be change in certain limits depending on the height of seed layer of granules in granulator. The greater height of seed layer, the smaller average size of granules obtained at granulation