Legal regime for the development and implementation of quantum technologies: Russian and foreign experience

Objective: to identify patterns of regulation of relations associated with quantum technologies development in Russia, foreign countries, and the international regulatory system.

Methods: based on the shaped fragmentation of Russian regulation and integrated approaches in the EU and the USA, the author justifies the preferential use of the comparative legal method as it allows offsetting the national specifics of legal technology. The application of this method goes through the stages of comparison (identification of differences in the conceptual framework, institutional architecture and export control regimes) and the actual comparison, which is expressed in the identification of common patterns and differences in the national context. The author raises the question of the formation of “quantum law” as a specialized legal discourse, which also determines the use of a systematic approach and formal legal analysis.

Results: the comparative legal analysis allowed the author to formulate the following answers to the research questions. First, the fragmentation of Russian regulation was revealed, in contrast to the integrated approaches in the USA (NQIA law) and the EU (preparation of the European Quantum Act). The author proved that it is the law that performs an expressive function, publicly articulating the priority of the quantum sphere. Second, it was established that in all analyzed legal systems, quantum communications and post-quantum cryptography receive priority development. The author interpreted this as an existential threat of “harvest now – decrypt later” (HNDL). Third, the research confirmed the trend of combining government support measures with control tools (NIST/ANSSI standardization, export control). Fourth, the author identified the institutional pattern of reliance on “national champions”. Fifth, he established the increasing role of technical standards as a universal regulatory tool under technological uncertainty.

Scientific novelty: the author substantiated the study of “quantum law” not as a branch, but as a legal discourse – an institutionally organized communication that consolidates normative meanings and reproduces legitimate argumentation procedures in doctrine, rulemaking and law enforcement.

Practical significance: the results can be used by legislators developing comprehensive legislation and by regulators preparing post-quantum migration roadmaps (up to 2030-2035) and implementing experimental legal regimes.

1. Abelard, S., & Perret, L. (2025). Transition post-quantique: état des lieux 10 ans après l’annonce choc de la NSA. Annales Des Mines – Enjeux Numériques, 4(32), 37–44. (In French). https://doi.org/10.3917/ennu.032.0037

2. Baseri, Y., Chouhan, V., Ghorbani, A., & Chow, A. (2025). Evaluation framework for quantum security risk assessment: A comprehensive strategy for quantum-safe transition. Computers & Security, 150, 104272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2024.104272

3. Bloch, I., Dalibard, J., & Zwerger, W. (2008). Many-body physics with ultracold gases. Reviews of Modern Physics, 80(3), 885–964. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.80.885

4. Bourdieu, P. (1986). La force du droit: Éléments pour une sociologie du champ juridique. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 64, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.3406/arss.1986.2332

5. Comandè, G., & Varilek, M. (2024). The many features which make the eIDAS 2 Digital Wallet either risky or the ideal vehicle for the transition to post-quantum encryption. Computer Law & Security Review, 54, 106022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106022

6. Dalibard, J., & Gigan, S. (2022). A Nobel prize for Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger. Photoniques, 116, 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1051/photon/202211623

7. Dekker, T., & Martin-Bariteau, F. (2023). Regulating uncertain states: A risk-based policy agenda for quantum technologies. Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 20(2), 179–210.

8. Deutsch, I. H. (2020). Harnessing the power of the second quantum revolution. PRX Quantum, 1(2), 020101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020101

9. Dobrobaba, M. B., Channov, S. E., & Minbaleev, A. V. (2022). Quantum communications: Prospects for legal regulation. Courier of the Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 4, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2022.92.4.025-037

10. Dowling, J. P., & Milburn, G. J. (2003). Quantum technology: The second quantum revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 361(1809), 1655–1674. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2003.1227

11. Easterbrook, F. H. (1996). Cyberspace and the law of the horse. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1996(1), 207–216.

12. Evsikov, K. S. (2022). Information security of the digital state in the quantum era. Courier of the Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 4, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2022.92.4.046-058

13. Evsikov, K. S. (2024). Legal regime of free-space quantum communication lines. Courier of the Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 10, 117–125. https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2024.122.10.117-125

14. Fauseweh, B. (2024). Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges. Nature Communications, 15, 2123. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46402-9

15. Funk, P. (2007). Is there an expressive function of law? An empirical analysis of voting laws with symbolic fines. American Law and Economics Review, 9(1), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahm002

16. Gibney, E., & Castelvecchi, D. (2025). Groundbreaking quantum-tunnelling experiments win physics Nobel. Nature, 646, 523–524. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03194-2.

17. Herrero-Collantes, M., & García-Escartín, J. C. (2017). Quantum random number generators. Reviews of Modern Physics, 89(1), 015004. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015004

18. Khodaiemehr, H., Bagheri, K., & Feng, C. (2026). Navigating the quantum computing threat landscape for blockchains: A comprehensive survey. Computer Science Review, 59, 100846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2025.100846

19. Kholodnaya, E. V. (2022). Quantum technologies as an object of law. Courier of the Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 4, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2022.92.4.038-045

20. Kimble, H. J. (2008). The quantum internet. Nature, 453, 1023–1030.https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07127

21. Kop, M. (2025). Towards a European Quantum Act: A Two-Pillar Framework for Regulation and Innovation. Columbia Journal of European Law, 31(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5480630

22. Ludlow, A. D., Boyd, M. M., Ye, J., Peik, E., & Schmidt, P. O. (2015). Optical atomic clocks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 87(2), 637–701. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.637

23. Ma, X., Yuan, X., Cao, Z., Qi, B., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Quantum random number generation. NPJ Quantum Information, 2(1), 16021. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjqi.2016.21

24. Maurel, R. (2023). Droit des technologies quantiques: Entre enjeux géopolitiques et impératifs de sécurité. Revue Générale du Droit, 33, 1–15. (In French).

25. Mulder, L. B., Kurz, T., Prosser, A. M. B., & Fonseca, M. A. (2024). The presence of laws and mandates is associated with increased social norm enforcement. Journal of Economic Psychology, 101, 102703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2024.102703

26. Neuwirth, R. J. (2025). A future European Union ‘Quantum Act’? Critical lessons from the global AI governance debate. Macau Journal of Global Legal Studies, 2, 1–56.

27. Ozawa, M. (2001). Operations, disturbance, and simultaneous measurability. Physical Review A, 63, 032109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.63.032109

28. Paris, M. G. A. (2012). The modern tools of quantum mechanics: A tutorial on quantum states, measurements, and operations. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 203, 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2012-01535-1

29. Pirandola, S., Andersen, U. L., Banchi, L., Berta, M., Bunandar, D., Colbeck, R., Englund, D., Gehring, T., Lupo, C., Ottaviani, C., Pereira, J. L., Razavi, M., Shamsul Shaari, J., Tomamichel, M., Usenko, V. C., Vallone, G., Villoresi, P., & Wallden, P. (2020). Advances in quantum cryptography. Advances in Optics and Photonics, 12(4), 1012–1236. https://doi.org/10.1364/AOP.361502

30. Quinton, F. A., Myhr, P. A. S., Barani, M., Crespo del Granado, P., & Zhang, H. (2025). Quantum annealing applications, challenges and limitations for optimisation problems compared to classical solvers. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 12733. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96220-2

31. Riehle, F. (2015). Towards a redefinition of the second based on optical atomic clocks. Comptes Rendus Physique, 16(5), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2015.03.012

32. Scarani, V., Bechmann-Pasquinucci, H., Cerf, N. J., Dušek, M., Lütkenhaus, N., & Peev, M. (2009). The security of practical quantum key distribution. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(3), 1301–1350. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1301

33. Schlosshauer, M. (2019). Quantum decoherence. Physics Reports, 831, 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001

34. Schmitz, L., & Seidl, T. (2023). As open as possible, as autonomous as necessary: Understanding the rise of open strategic autonomy in EU trade policy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(3), 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13428

35. Shor, P. W. (1997). Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5), 1484–1509. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539795293172

36. Simon, C. (2017). Towards a global quantum network. Nature Photonics, 11, 678–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-017-0032-0

37. Vovrosh, J., Dragomir, A., Stray, B., & Boddice, D. (2023) Advances in Portable Atom Interferometry-Based Gravity Sensing. Sensors, 23(17), 7651. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23177651

38. Wehner, S., Elkouss, D., & Hanson, R. (2018). Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead. Science, 362(6412), eaam9288. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9288

39. Xu, M., Kendrick, L. H., Kale, A., Gang, Y., Feng, Ch., Zhang, Sh., Young, A. W., Lebrat, M., & Greiner, M. (2025). A neutralatom Hubbard quantum simulator in the cryogenic regime. Nature, 642, 909–915. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09112-w

40. Yi, H. (2023). A post-quantum blockchain notary scheme for cross-blockchain exchange. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 110, 108832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2023.108832