The article focuses on the multifaceted evolution of regulatory and institutional mechanisms employed by the states of Greater Eurasia – specifically, the countries of the EAEU, Central Asia, and ASEAN – with the aim of ensuring sustainable economic and technological sovereignty in the context of significantly increasing external dependence. The analysis covers a broad range of regulatory tools, including investment filters, localization requirement regimes, restrictions on cross-border access to strategic assets, and monitoring mechanisms for critical infrastructure. These measures are viewed as responses to the rapidly growing strategic presence of the People's Republic of China. The article particularly highlights the internal contradictions between the demand for Chinese investments and the need to mitigate the risks of "soft" takeover during the period of geopolitical turbulence in 2024–2025. The methodological framework of the study is built on a combination of a systematic approach and comparative legal analysis. The author conducts a thorough comparison of various legal response models. The reliability of the conclusions is ensured by the analysis of the latest statistical data on mutual trade for 2024 and the first half of 2025, as well as content analysis of new legislation in the fields of subsoil use and digital security. This article systematically presents the legal "architecture" of protecting national interests across the entirety of Greater Eurasia for the first time. It identifies the fragmentation of this architecture as a key vulnerability factor against the consolidated strategy of Beijing. It is argued that the existing national control mechanisms are often reactive in nature; moreover, they do not close the channels for "soft" takeover through debt instruments and technological standards. The author's contribution is reflected in the development of specific proposals for harmonizing protective measures – specifically, the implementation of "cross-cutting investment screening" and the unification of offset requirements. The article concludes that the long-term sustainability of the macroregion is only possible through a transition from jurisdictional competition to the creation of a unified legal security framework, within which the possibility of regulatory arbitrage by external actors is excluded.
Jiaxi Li (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: