Good afternoon, esteemed colleagues.

Every lawyer is accustomed to working within their own legal system. We know where to look for the law, how to find case law, whom we can ask a question, and which sources to trust. All of this becomes part of our professional thinking — we act almost automatically.
But the situation changes dramatically the moment we need to make sense of the law of another country. At first glance, the task seems fairly simple: today, in a matter of seconds, you can find an academic article, a textbook, or even the full text of a foreign statute.
Very quickly, however, it turns out that finding information and understanding it are far from the same thing. There is a great deal of information, but some of it is outdated, some does not reflect reality, and still other sources cannot be studied at all because of the language barrier.

As we worked on the concept of Legatorium, we fairly quickly ran into a question: just how accessible is foreign law to a student today in the first place?
You might think we live in an age of digital technology, when any information is utterly accessible. But that is a deceptive impression. The moment you try to make sense of a specific question of foreign law, this illusion of accessibility begins to fall apart.
Let's model a typical situation.
Imagine you need to understand the workings of a mechanism unfamiliar to your own legal system, in another country. What do you do?
You open a search engine. But the first thing you look for is not even the law itself — you look for the most general information. You go to Wikipedia or similar sources just to figure out what the relevant procedure is called, which branch of law it belongs to, and what you should even be asking about. In other words, at the outset your time goes not into analyzing the rule, but simply into getting your bearings in an unfamiliar system.
Then you find the law itself — without knowing whether it is the one that actually governs the relationship you care about — and a translation of it. Then a second translation, which differs from the first.
Then a commentary on it.
Then an academic article.
Then you try to check whether the version you found is even in force right now.
By this point you have already spent half an hour, maybe an hour, and you are still far from grasping the substance.
Next comes the following question: how is this rule actually applied in practice?
Where do you look for court decisions?
What official clarifications exist?
How accurately have the legal terms been translated?
What do local lawyers actually understand them to mean?
And at some point it becomes obvious that you are no longer studying the legal institution itself, but an endless body of sources surrounding it.
A paradoxical situation arises: the time goes not into analyzing the law, but into searching for it. Instead of working with the rule, the lawyer is forced to carry out long and painstaking research — and that research itself becomes a barrier. It is precisely this barrier that we want to remove.
And here it is important to emphasize: the problem is not a lack of information. On the contrary, today there is too much of it.
The problem is that this information is scattered, heterogeneous, and often requires serious verification before it can even be put to use in work or research.
It is precisely this gap — between the availability of information and the ability to use it effectively — that we want to close through our project.
And we look at this problem not from the outside.
We ourselves are students and young lawyers. We regularly run into difficulties like these in our studies, our academic work, and our professional activity. So for us this project is not an abstract idea, but an attempt to solve a problem we know well from our own experience.
So where do all these difficulties come from? Their root lies in the very nature of law.
Law is one of the most nationally rooted fields of knowledge.
The economy can be global. Technology can spread across the entire world in a matter of days. Scientific research stopped recognizing state borders long ago.
But law still remains closely tied to the history, culture, political structure, and legal traditions of a particular country.
That is exactly why understanding a foreign legal system often turns out to be far harder than it seems at first glance.
If you break this situation down into its parts, it becomes clear that we are dealing not with isolated inconveniences, but with a deeper, systemic problem of international legal education.
First: there is no systematic access to up-to-date knowledge about the national law of other countries. You cannot simply go and find out how a court works in China today, or how an attorney builds a defense in Brazil.
Second: the sources that do exist do not meet the demands of modern education. Translations of laws do not reflect how the rules are actually applied. It is like learning the alphabet and thinking you have mastered the language.
Third: students have no direct access to people who live within a given legal system. You cannot ask an Indian student: "And how is this case actually decided? What is your custom of business dealings? Where do you look for clarifications?" To talk to such a student, you have to go hunting for them in international social networks and topic-based groups.
All of this leads to comparative law remaining the preserve of narrow specialists, while the ordinary student often does not even try to get into it. And that is a bad thing — because the world is growing more crowded, economies are becoming intertwined, and lawyers still do not understand one another.
When we analyzed these problems, we arrived at a fairly simple conclusion.
If you need to explain the specifics of one country's legal system to a student from another — who is best able to do it most clearly?
A professor? Certainly.
A practicing lawyer? Also an obvious choice.
But there is one more participant in the educational process who is often underrated.
That is the student.
"A student understands perfectly well what questions other students have. They know which topics cause difficulty, where misunderstandings arise, and what really matters for a first acquaintance with a legal system."
This is precisely why Legatorium is built on the principle of "students for students."
At the same time, this is not about lowering the academic level. On the contrary, the model is based on combining clear student explanation with rigorous academic moderation.
"This does not mean giving up academic quality. Quite the opposite — we aim to bring together lively student language and academic moderation. The material stays accessible, yet keeps its scholarly and educational value."

This is exactly why we decided to test our observations through a survey — to find out whether other participants in the educational process share this problem.
The survey was conducted among students, instructors, and young lawyers. Its results are presented below.
The overwhelming majority of respondents are people who study law or work with it directly. The rest come from related fields. Those with no connection to law are a mere handful. The survey therefore reflects the opinion of exactly the audience for whom the platform is being created.
The largest group among those surveyed is undergraduate students. Master's students, doctoral candidates, and instructors are represented as well — together they make up almost a third of the total. There are practicing lawyers too. Importantly, the instructors themselves showed interest: this means the platform may be useful not only to students, but also to those who teach.
The first question concerned basic readiness for international communication in the legal sphere.
We asked: would you like to communicate with foreign law students for academic purposes?
The answer turned out to be quite unambiguous. The overwhelming majority of respondents took a positive stance; negative answers were isolated.
In other words, the demand for international professional interaction already exists. At the same time, as additional data show, in practice such experience remains, for now, the exception rather than the rule.

So we saw that the demand for international communication is there. But it was important to go further and understand whether the "student-to-student" model itself is perceived as relevant.
We asked, more precisely: do you consider the idea of a "student for student" platform relevant in the educational environment?
The result was comparable: most respondents rate this format as in demand and modern.
Importantly, this is no longer just about interest in communication, but about recognition of the interaction model itself as potentially significant for legal education.

The next question concerned the practical value of such a tool.
Respondents were asked to judge whether such a platform is not merely an interesting idea, but a genuinely workable educational solution.
And here, too, the gap between positive and negative answers held. Most participants view the project precisely as a functional tool, rather than an abstract concept.

We saw that the idea is perceived as practically useful. But how do participants feel about the very principle of horizontal learning — where a student teaches a student, "peer to peer"? This is an important question, and we tested it separately.
An important clarification is needed here: this is not about replacing traditional teaching. It is about supplementing it.
Most respondents believe that interaction between students can strengthen the educational process. A substantial share of respondents already use such forms of learning in informal practice.
Together, these groups form a solid majority. A skeptical position remains the exception.
Thus, the very logic of horizontal knowledge exchange is confirmed at the empirical level.

Next we moved from assessing the idea to personal readiness to take part.
The question was simple: would you register on a platform like this?
More than half answered an unambiguous yes. If you include the "probably yes" option, the potential audience becomes overwhelming.
Negative answers and doubts remain in the minority.

The next indicator is readiness to recommend the platform to others.
Here the positive response turned out to be even higher than for the previous question.
This is an important marker: it is not only about potential participation, but about readiness to act as a kind of "point of dissemination" within the academic community.

Next we looked at participants' motivation and the existing constraints.
When it comes to motivation, first place goes to gaining new knowledge and practical skills. Next comes expanding professional and academic contacts. Then comes the chance to publish material and to have one's participation formally acknowledged.
It is worth noting separately: for a significant share of students, what matters is not only the substantive side of participation but also the formal one — recognition of the result. That is exactly why Legatorium includes a system of points and non-material incentives.
As for the constraints, the most significant factor remains a lack of time. Second in importance is the language barrier.
The remaining difficulties are rather secondary in nature: technical issues, doubts about the quality of the content, and uncertainty about its practical usefulness.
These constraints are addressed directly in the project's architecture: a short lecture format, structured material, timecodes, summaries, and multilingual support with subtitles and dubbing.

So, the survey confirmed our assumptions: the problem is real, the "student-to-student" format is in demand, and the students themselves are ready to take part in it. This means the project is not merely interesting — it is genuinely needed. It is precisely in order to solve the problems we spoke about at the beginning that we are building Legatorium.

What is Legatorium? It is an international educational platform on which law students from different countries create video lectures about the national law of their own states.
Let's picture a situation. A student from one country wants to understand the specifics of another country's legal system. Instead of digging through dozens of scattered sources, they open the platform and get the chance to watch a short, structured lecture from someone who is directly studying that legal system. Not from a textbook, not from a random retelling, but from a representative of the legal environment itself.
The format involves short video lectures of 10–15 minutes. After watching, you can obtain additional materials, summaries, assignments, and the opportunity for further communication. In this way, what takes shape is not just a library of lectures, but an educational ecosystem.

To ensure quality and transparency, Legatorium has a multi-level system of roles with clear areas of responsibility. We do not leave everything to chance.
The first level is the ordinary user. This is any student or instructor who has registered. Their functions: to watch lectures, give ratings, write comments, save materials, and send links to colleagues.
The second level is the trainee lecturer. The user submits an application made up of three parts: a brief résumé (country, university, education), a detailed lecture plan with topic, structure, and sources, and the sample video lecture itself. Once approved, they gain the right to create and publish lectures, but each one goes through mandatory moderation.
The third level is the academic moderator from a university. This is a person with confirmed qualifications, most often a senior student or a young instructor. The moderator reviews trainees' lectures against established criteria and makes a decision: approve, reject with a stated reason, or send back for revision.
The fourth level is the academic curator. These people set the standards: they approve the quality criteria, define the mandatory topics for each country, and establish the platform's rules. Curators are publicly associated with the project, but do not interfere in day-to-day moderation — only if something needs to be blocked for gross violations. All of this is free: no paid subscriptions for the basic level.

Step one. An interested person visits the project's website.
Step two. They submit an application — through the website, by email, or via the Telegram channel. The application states: who they are, where they are from, and which topic they would like to present.
Step three. We give feedback and agree on the topic. You record a 10–15 minute lecture — it can be on a phone, but with good sound. The main thing is that you can be heard and understood.
Step four. The lecture goes to moderation. If everything is fine, we publish it. If there are notes, we send it back for revision with clear comments.
Step five. You receive full access to all of the platform's features: lectures, the messenger, group chats, communication, and events. And you can record your next lectures more quickly.

The quality of lectures is ensured by a single set of requirements.
Each lecture is limited in length — 10–15 minutes.
"Structure matters just as much: an introduction presenting the author and the plan; a main part with historical context, the regulatory framework, a comparison of the formal and the real, and a concrete example; and a conclusion with references to verified sources."
Particular attention is paid to the verifiability of information: all sources must be cited and available for checking.
Since the project is international, multilingual support is provided — an original version and subtitles in at least one additional language.
Each lecture is also accompanied by timecodes and a brief, structured summary.

Beyond the general requirements, a mandatory thematic framework is established for each country.
It includes six basic blocks: a general overview of the legal system; sources of law and the resolution of conflicts; constitutional foundations; the system of government bodies and the legislative process; the judicial system and access to justice; and human rights and the mechanisms for their protection.
This framework ensures the comparability of materials across different jurisdictions.
"A student from India, opening a lecture on Brazil's judicial system, already understands the points around which the material is built, and can compare directly. The platform becomes a tool for systematic learning, rather than just a repository of scattered recordings."

Legatorium is not only a library of video lectures.
From the very start, we proceeded from the idea that consuming content on its own does not solve the key problem. Understanding of law arises not only at the moment of watching, but at the moment of clarifying, discussing, and comparing.
That is why the platform includes elements of live interaction between participants.
After registering, a user can turn directly to the author of a lecture with follow-up questions, take part in discussions, and form topic-based debates around particular legal problems.
"In essence, Legatorium also works as a messenger for lawyers from different countries."
Group spaces by area are also provided: comparative law, anti-corruption law, the legal regulation of business activity, and other research interests.
Within the platform, you can discuss lectures, launch debates, propose topics, and ask the community for help in finding sources or experts on a specific question.
Imagine: you have watched a lecture on South Africa's judicial system, and a question comes up — how a particular mechanism would work in Russian practice. You write to the author and get an answer not in a week, but within a day. This changes the quality of learning.
"A lecture is a point of entry, not the final goal. Real understanding is born in dialogue. When you can immediately ask a colleague from another country: 'And if we had this situation in Russia — would your mechanism work?' — and get an answer within half an hour rather than within a week."
As an engagement element, a points system is provided: points are awarded for publications, moderation, activity in discussions, and helping other participants. In the future, points may be exchanged for participation in events, educational opportunities, and elements of the project's internal ecosystem.

When it comes to the current stage, the project has already moved beyond the concept.
As of today:
• the basic architecture of the platform has been developed, including the system of roles and moderation;
• the project's information structure has been put in place;
• a presentation and communication infrastructure has been created;
• the first demonstration lecture has been recorded;
• the first responses and expressions of interest have been received from educational partners.
So this is not an abstract idea, but a project in the stage of practical implementation.

The project's development is planned in three consecutive stages.
The first stage is the launch of the MVP. This is the technical implementation of the basic functionality: registration, uploading lectures, the moderation system, comments, ratings, and basic messaging. In parallel, the first materials begin to be published together with partner platforms.
The second stage is expanding the network of participants. Bringing on board universities and student communities from the BRICS+, SCO, CIS, and EAEU countries, building a stable base of authors, moderators, and academic curators, and developing internal communication.
The third stage is scaling. Geographic expansion, the launch of regular online events, and the creation of international student research groups for comparative legal projects. Further ahead — a series of interviews with practicing lawyers, judges, and legislative drafters.

Legal education has traditionally remained one of the most nationally oriented fields. We study the law of our own country, grow used to its terms, its structure, its logic, and its way of thinking. Within this system we feel confident. But the moment you step beyond your own jurisdiction, the familiar categories stop working quite so self-evidently.
Today this is becoming a serious problem. The economy, science, technology, and student communication have long been developing in an international environment. Future lawyers increasingly run into foreign legal systems, international projects, and the need to understand not only the text of the law, but the context in which it is applied.
Yet there is still practically no common legal language between students from different countries. There are textbooks, articles, lectures — but what is often missing is a living explanation: simple, direct, human. What is missing is the chance to ask: "And how does this work where you are?", "Why exactly this way?", "How is it different from our system?"
Legatorium is an attempt to create such a space. Not through the unification of laws and not through the search for a single correct model, but through the mutual explanation of legal cultures. A student from China talks about their system, a student from Russia listens, asks questions, compares, and discusses. Without intermediaries, without hierarchy, and without formal mentorship.
"The main value of Legatorium is that it turns the study of foreign law from abstract reading into a living dialogue. Here, law becomes not only national knowledge, but also a language of communication between students from different countries."

In closing, we want to return to the main idea. Legatorium is not just a website. Not just a set of video lectures. Not just an educational platform. It is an attempt to make legal education more open, more comprehensible, and more international.
We are convinced that law cannot be fully studied in isolation. To understand your own legal system, you need to see others as well. To grow as a lawyer, you need to communicate with colleagues from different countries. To build the future of legal scholarship, you need to learn to listen to one another today.
That is exactly what we are building Legatorium for.
While there is still a little time left, we would like to debate the following question with you:
Should comparative law become a mandatory part of training for the modern lawyer — or remain a narrow specialization?
In other words: is the ability to understand other legal systems a new mandatory skill for the 21st-century lawyer?
This is an important question, and we invite you to speak up.
What is your opinion? Should the modern lawyer understand the logic of other legal systems — or is that the preserve of narrow specialists?
If comparative law remains a narrow specialization, then for those who are interested in it, Legatorium will still be useful as a tool for that audience. Perhaps someone who initially showed no interest will visit the platform, watch the lectures, and be inspired.
But if we conclude that this should be a mandatory element of a lawyer's training, then Legatorium becomes even more relevant: we are offering a ready-made, working tool for solving exactly this task.