Legal-linguistic convergence of cybersecurity sovereignty in the legal regulation of Russia and China

The subject of the study is the legal-linguistic convergence of cyber sovereignty in the legal regulation of Russia and China. The focus is on the language of legal norms and official political-legal documents, through which state claims to power in cyberspace are formed and codified. The research analyzes not an abstract concept of sovereignty in the network, but the means of its legal-linguistic fixation: the choice of terms, stable phrases, security formulas, as well as the semantic structure of regulatory texts that define the notions of permissible limits of state intervention in the digital environment. The study assumes that control over information flows and network infrastructure is expressed not only through lawmaking but also through a specific legal language that sets the boundaries for interpreting cyber sovereignty and defines the limits of its normative application. The research draws on legal-linguistic, comparative-legal, and normative-dogmatic approaches, allowing for an analysis of the language of legal acts, their structural organization, and the differences in the normative fixation of cyber sovereignty. The scientific novelty of the study lies in identifying the legal-linguistic convergence of cyber sovereignty, manifested not in the identity of the legal regimes of Russia and China, but in the convergence of the ways they are linguistically framed. The work demonstrates that the normative texts and official rhetoric of both countries use similar semantic constructions linking cyberspace with the protection of sovereignty, national security, and control over data infrastructure. Formulas such as "sustainability of functioning," "countering threats," and "national sovereignty in the network" reinforce the priority of public authority over cross-border digital services and establish a model of state-centric regulation. As a result, a discourse is constructed in which cyber sovereignty is primarily represented as a mechanism of protection, while human rights are interpreted through the lens of permissible restrictions. The conclusion indicates that legal language becomes an independent factor in legal development, setting the boundaries of permissible Internet regulation and influencing the balance between freedom of communication and public interests.