Kolobov Roman Yurievich Kolobov Roman Yurievich

The role of technological innovation in the development of economic systems is shown. The author states the strengthening of the discourse of technological sovereignty in Russia and the European Union, as well as the corresponding changes in strategic planning documents aimed at ensuring it. The main conclusions of Mario Draghi's report on the state of innovation development in Europe are shown. Systemic problems in ensuring European technological development, which are found in a significant number of economic sectors, are stated. Among the most acute of them are the growing dependence on the People's Republic of China for the supply of rare earth metals, low level of technology transfer from scientific and educational institutions to production, and the presence of administrative barriers. The reasons for the existing obstacles to technological sovereignty in the European Union are identified, and the main approaches to its achievement are analysed. In the final part of the article a comparative analysis of Russian and European approaches to innovative development in terms of ensuring technological sovereignty is carried out. The article states the similarity of some of the solutions used in terms of corporate regulation, as well as the recognition of the risky nature of innovation activities. The paper identifies shared regulatory approaches in corporate governance and acknowledges the inherently high-risk nature of innovation. It underscores the critical importance of enshrining the "right to justifiable risk" within the revised Russian technological policy framework. Furthermore, the analysis delineates common structural characteristics shared by contemporary Russian innovation support mechanisms and ARPA-style (Advanced Research Projects Agency) organizations. Finally, the study advocates for pioneering models of international cooperation in the innovation sphere, specifically through the establishment of special administrative districts dedicated to technological collaboration

technological sovereignty, risk, innovative companies, technology policy, critical technologies.

Kolobov Roman Yurievich – Candidate of Juridical Sciences, Leading Researcher, A. E. Favorsky Irkutsk Institute of Chemistry SB RAS (1, Favorsky st., Irkutsk, 664033, Russian Federation); Associate Professor, Department of International and Comparative Law, Irkutsk State University (1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation), ORCID: 0000-0003-1488-7530, Researcher ID: H-4644-2016, e-mail: roman.kolobov@gmail.com

Kolobov R.Yu. Tekhnologicheskij suverenitet kak pravovaya i politicheskaya kategoriya v Rossii i Evropejskom soyuze [Technological sovereignty as a legal and political category in Russia and the European Union] Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald]. 2026, no 1 (112), pp. 124–132. – DOI 10.26516/2071-8136.2026.1.124 (in Russian).

327.7

1. Bauder H., Mueller R. Westphalian Vs. Indigenous Sovereignty: Challenging Colonial Territorial Governance. Geopolitics, 2023, vol. 28, no. 1. pp. 156-173.

2. Bellanger P. De la souveraineté numérique. Le Débat, 2020, vol. 170, no. 3, pp. 149-159.

3. Chalaby J.K. Beyond the Prison-House of Language: Discourse as a Sociological Concept. The British Journal of Sociology, 1996, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 684-698.

4. Danet D., Desforges A. Souveraineté numérique et autonomie stratégique en Europe : du concept aux réalités géopolitiques. Hérodote, 2020, vol. 178, no. 2, pp. 179-195.

5. Des Places S.B. Taking the Language of "European Sovereignty" Seriously. European Papers, 2020, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 287-297.

6. Badia L., Plaut J. M., von Fischer J.C., Volckens J., Muhs J. Envisioning ARPA-C: A transdisciplinary institution for radical climate research and intervention. Earth's Future, 2021, vol. 9, no. 6, art. E2021EF002115.

7. Frank A.B., Brown R.A. How Advanced Research Project Agencies Pick Their Programs. The Benefits and Limits of Goldilocks Problems. Research Report. 2024. Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2400/RRA2471–1/RAND_RRA2471-1.pdf (date of access: 25.01.2025).

8. Glatter R. From Overdependence to Independence: European Policy Frameworks for Semiconductor Supply Chain Resilience. International Policy Review, 2025, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 88-108.

9. Gross L. The Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948. The American Journal of International Law, 1948, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 20-41.

10. Ivancic S.R. Body Sovereignty and Body Liability in the Wake of an "Obesity Epidemic": A Poststructural Analysis of the Soda Ban. Health Communication, 2018, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1243-1256.

11. Molnar A., Harnos E.A. From Quasi-Sovereignty to Full Sovereignty? The Interpretations of Strategic Autonomy and Sovereignty in the European Union. Annals of the Croatian Political Science Association, 2024, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 95-116.

12. Sicilia B.D. Steam Power and the Progress of Industry in the Late Nineteenth Century. Theory and Society, 1986, vol. 15, no. 1/ 2, pp. 287-299.

13. Somani S. ARPA-H: Risky or Revolutionary? The Challenges and Opportunities of Biden's New Biomedical Research Agency. Journal of Science Policy & Governance, 2022, vol. 21, no. 1, DOI: 10.38126/JSPG210107.

14. Staab P., Pirogan M., Piétron D. Technological sovereignty in Germany: techno-industrial policy as a form of economic statecraft? Global Political Economy, 2025, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 51-70.

15. Strand J.R., Mueller T.F., McArthur J.A. The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization. Politics and Ethics Review, 2005, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 45-59.

16. Dieaconescu R.I., Gheorghe M., Petrariu I.R., Hurduzeu G. The Role of Critical Raw Material Imports in Shaping Economic Competitiveness within the European Union. The Romanian Economic Journal, 2024, no. 89, pp. 24-34.