Communities that stretch across international borders struggle to resolve their members’ disputes. It is not a trifling problem. Distributed protocols such as Ethereum, EOS, and Dash host hundreds of billions of dollars in assets and handle transactions worth millions daily. Their members likely number in the tens of millions, scattered in unknown locations across the globe. Even the most successful of these communities have fractured over questions of how to interpret, apply, and amend their rules. The resulting “governance by hardfork” has generated skepticism about all things crypto – from currencies, to economics, to governments. Distributed protocols need a comprehensive, trustworthy, independent set of rules for resolving disputes. Ulex, an open source legal system, offers a solution. Its substantive and procedural rules can resolve the disputes of communities stretching across international borders. Its flag-free rules, drawn from tested and trusted private and non-governmental sources, define a wide range of legal claims and the procedures to follow in resolving them. This paper explains how Ulex can upgrade the governance of distributed protocol communities, describes current efforts on that front, and paints an attractive future of open source, non-territorial law.
Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi, Ra’ed Fawzi Aburoub, Mohamad Rizal Abd Rahman, Faris Kamil Hasan Mihna · 5 authors
While smart contracts enhance efficiency and transparency, they raise legal and technical issues. Smart contracts do not involve face-to-face negotiation or discussion, which contributes to difficulty in confirming that both parties agreed to the terms. Moreover, while smart contracts that encode the intention of the parties show up on the blockchain as digital signatures or as preprogrammed actions, this begs the question as to precisely whether this reflects their intention and mutual consent in the first place. Furthermore, the execution of offer and acceptance in an automated manner poses a challenge to the traditional principles of contract law, as it may rely on adhesion contracts that limit the opportunities for negotiation. Moreover, the verification of legal capacity of the parties identified under a pseudonym is another challenge in a decentralized blockchain environment, especially for cross-border transactions that set varying legal standards. Through a mixed-methods approach of thematic analysis of interviews and literature review, the research responds to these challenges, across practical and theoretical domains. Proposed solutions include biometric identification, digital identity schemes, and AI-assisted consent verification. The study recommends aligning traditional legal principles with technological advancements and fostering international collaboration to create robust frameworks, ensuring fairness and enforceability in smart contracts. This study concludes that a twin-track approach—combining technological improvements with regulatory adjustments—is critical for ensuring the fairness, enforceability, and reliability of smart contracts.
Blockchain technology is reshaping a wide range of sectors, from finance and law to art. The rise of blockchain platforms offering "blockchain arbitration" suggests a shift toward faster, cheaper and decentralized dispute resolution. A key advantage often highlighted is the potential for automatic enforcement of decisions using smart contracts. However, since this is only a possibility, many decisions will be enforced through traditional means. Given the inherently global nature of blockchain arbitration disputes, an important consideration is whether their decisions can be recognized and enforced under the New York Convention. This paper explores whether blockchain arbitration decisions qualify as awards enforceable under the New York Convention and whether their decision-making process meets the Convention's enforcement criteria. The author recognizes that the procedural aspect of public policy may be undermined by the way decisions are rendered in blockchain arbitrations.
This case analysis examines three sequential English High Court decisions in the litigation between the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) and Dr Craig Wright. The trilogy comprising the Relief Judgment , the Contempt Judgment, and the General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) Judgment demonstrates the Court’s methodical progression from injunctive relief to contempt findings and ultimately to a civil restraint order. These judgments illustrate how English civil procedure addresses persistent and meritless litigation, particularly in the areas of digital assets, blockchain technology, and intellectual property. The Court focused on safeguarding judicial resources while protecting the interests of affected parties by balancing the need for access to justice with the necessity of deterring vexatious conduct.
The insurance claim process is quite cumbersome; it is time-consuming, with high personnel costs from manual review. It may even take several months to complete the entire process. Therefore, how implementing insurance claim settlement automation to reduce costs, improve efficiency, reduce claim processing time, and increase client satisfaction is a common issue the insurance industry must face. This study explores the application of smart contracts in the casualty insurance settlement process to achieve the effect of automatic claim settlement and double protection for special accidents. When the insurance industry conducts insurance claim reviews through the characteristics of blockchain and smart contracts, such as openness and transparency, anonymity, and automation, the review process can be curtailed, and the premium can be directly transferred to the bank account of the insured. Thus, the purpose of automating casualty insurance claims is achieved through smart contracts.
This paper examines the tension between code-based execution and legal enforceability in smart contracts used by cryptocurrency exchanges. As decentralized finance grows in prominence, there is an increasing need to balance the immutability and automation of blockchain-based agreements with traditional legal protections and dispute resolution mechanisms. We analyze current approaches to liability allocation and conflict resolution in major crypto exchanges, identifying key challenges in harmonizing algorithmic governance with existing contract law. Case studies of recent exchange hacks and failures are used to illustrate the limitations of purely code-based systems. We then propose a hybrid model that preserves the efficiency of automated execution while incorporating safeguards for human intervention in exceptional circumstances. This framework aims to enhance user protections, regulatory compliance, and overall trust in decentralized financial infrastructure. Our findings have implications for exchange operators, regulators, and contract law as it evolves to address blockchain-enabled agreements.
Although smart contracts have emerged as a key innovation for industries, siloed development and deployment of smart contracts pose numerous challenges to mass adoption and interoperability. This paper presents a comprehensive gap analysis of cur- rent standardisation efforts in smart contracts, focusing on common requirements, data formats, schema, and software templates. Through an examination of existing standards, best practices, and identified gaps, this paper proposes contributions to address these challenges. By advocating for cross-platform compatibility, scalability, and maintainability, it aims to advance the standardisation of smart contracts and foster their broader adoption in the industry.
El uso del comercio electrónico para celebrar relaciones de consumo cada vez toma más protagonismo en la sociedad de la información. El constante desarrollo de las tecnologías hace que las plataformas existentes puedan beneficiarse de sus características; sin embargo, también traen consigo diferentes cuestiones jurídicas que deben mitigarse a fin de proteger los intereses y derechos de los usuarios. La tecnología blockchain es una de las tecnologías que viene a revolucionar el ámbito de las relaciones electrónicas B2C gracias a su carácter transnacional, descentralización, garantía de confianza, inmutabilidad y a una de sus funcionalidades más características: los smart contracts. Este tipo de acuerdos se distinguen por su automatización y autoejecución, caracteres que a priori pueden poner en riesgo la legislación existente sobre consumidores y usuarios. Asimismo, las oportunidades que brinda blockchain de cara a que los usuarios puedan actuar de forma irreconocible puede poner en jaque la normativa encargada de determinar la competencia judicial internacional y la ley aplicable a las relaciones jurídicas de consumo B2C. Este trabajo analiza la aplicabilidad de los smart contracts en el ámbito del comercio electrónico, en especial en el de empresas con consumidores (B2C) y estudiar los posibles inconvenientes que generan sobre la normativa existente a fin de analizar si es necesario adaptar la legislación a estas tecnologías.
The Uniform Law Commission and American Law Institute have recognized the need for commercial law to govern digital transactions and responded with the proposed addition of a new article to the Uniform Commercial Code (the “Code” or “UCC”), Article 12. Article 12 will govern the transfer of property rights in a particular category of digital assets (controllable electronic records), which would include commonly known digital assets, such as bitcoin and non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”). Although the addition of Article 12 should provide more certainty in transactions involving current and emerging technologies, there is a fundamental problem with the article as it is currently drafted, which, left unresolved, will instead invite legal uncertainty and litigation. The problem is the drafters’ choice to cast the “qualifying purchaser” in the role of the dramatis personae of Article 12. Article 12’s “qualifying purchaser” benefits from a generous rule that allows them to take controllable electronic records free from competing claims. The drafters include a person who obtains a controllable electronic record from a thief or hacker as someone who could be a “qualifying purchaser.” However, in order to be a “purchaser” under the current definition in the UCC, a person must take through a transaction that creates an interest in property. Thieves and hackers obtain no property interest when they steal a controllable electronic record, so a person who takes a controllable electronic record from a hacker could not be participating in a transaction that creates an interest in property. Thus, they could not be a “qualifying purchaser,” as the drafters claim. Most of the uncertainty of the result could have been avoided had the drafters chosen a term other than “purchaser” to describe the beneficiary of Article 12’s liberal take-free rule and defined it in a manner that would effectuate the drafters’ statutory aim. However, despite making the drafters aware of this glaring issue, they have failed to remedy the mistake. This is unfortunate and will likely lead to legal uncertainty and, thus, needless litigation after the article’s enactment. Why rely on courts to tweak sections of the Code if ambiguities are recognized and can be eliminated by careful drafting? If inartful statutory drafting is a source of uncertainty that can easily be reduced without offsetting social costs, efforts should be made to do so.
Smart contracts are widely applied in financial delegation contracts to address contract fraud. The smart contract delegation contract signing mechanism (DCSM-SC) effectively tackles fraud risks arising from information and interest asymmetry. However, in dealing with financial contracts, a formalized analysis method is necessary.
Olawole Akomolafe, Babajide Oluwaseun Olaogun, Michael Olumuyiwa Adesuyi, Victor Ukara Ndukwe · 5 authors
The exponential growth of international trade and cross-border supplier transactions has created unprecedented challenges in dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly in terms of cost, time efficiency, and jurisdictional complexities. Traditional dispute resolution methods, including litigation and arbitration, often prove inadequate for addressing the dynamic nature of global supply chains, where transactions occur across multiple jurisdictions with varying legal frameworks. This research presents a comprehensive smart contract-based dispute resolution model specifically designed for international supplier transactions, leveraging blockchain technology's immutable and transparent characteristics to create automated, efficient, and enforceable resolution mechanisms. The proposed model integrates advanced algorithmic decision-making processes with established international commercial law principles, creating a hybrid system that maintains legal validity while significantly reducing resolution timeframes and costs. Through extensive analysis of existing dispute resolution frameworks and emerging blockchain technologies, this study develops a multi-layered architecture that accommodates various transaction types, dispute categories, and stakeholder requirements. The model incorporates automated evidence collection, intelligent contract interpretation, and graduated escalation procedures that ensure fair and equitable outcomes for all parties involved. Key findings demonstrate that smart contract-based dispute resolution can reduce average resolution times by 73% compared to traditional arbitration methods, while maintaining high satisfaction rates among participating parties. The model's effectiveness is particularly pronounced in standardized transaction disputes, where algorithmic decision-making can process cases within hours rather than months. Additionally, the integration of reputation systems and performance metrics creates incentive structures that promote compliance and reduce dispute frequency over time. The research contributes to the growing body of knowledge in legal technology by providing practical implementation guidelines, technical specifications, and regulatory compliance frameworks necessary for widespread adoption. The model addresses critical concerns regarding enforceability, jurisdictional recognition, and integration with existing legal systems, providing a roadmap for organizations seeking to modernize their dispute resolution capabilities. Furthermore, the study examines the socioeconomic implications of automated dispute resolution, including accessibility improvements for small and medium enterprises and potential impacts on traditional legal practice.
The advantages of publicly distributed, transparent, accountable, traceable, safe, and well organized database ledger has made the blockchain technology gained popularity and acceptance. As the world keeps growing in the knowledge and the adoption of the technology, it is very important to practically harness the opportunities in this technology in land administration system to combat the insecurity, poor database and copyright challenges facing land ownership transactions in the Cadastre System in developing countries. The aim of this paper is to examine the practicability of harnessing the Web3 Technology in Land Ownership Transactions with an objective to mint and transact a Registrable Instrument on a cryptographic blockchain. To achieve this, two Non- Fungible Token (NFT) accounts were created on Core blockchain, two templates of survey plans were also minted into an Art NFT on the same blockchain. The Minted NFTs were transacted (transferred and sold) between the two accounts on the YoungParrot NFT marketplace. These two transactions (sales and transfer) were completed, recorded and stored on the blockchain public ledger, with evidence that can be traced and viewed on the blockchain using the transaction hash/ID. The blockchain transaction was found to be fast, effortless, secured and organized on the blockchain transaction ledger, hence presenting the Web3 blockchain Technology as a possible solution to the challenges facing the Cadastre System. However, the acceptance of the technology in land administration, land ownership and transactions still face some other administrative challenges which this paper further addressed.
Blockchain technology, with its characteristics of decentralization, immutability, and transparency, has introduced an unprecedented trust mechanism to judicial record-keeping. Amid challenges faced by traditional methods, such as vulnerability to tampering and difficulties in tracing, blockchain ensures the authenticity and integrity of evidence through distributed ledgers, significantly enhancing the credibility of legal evidence and judicial efficiency. As blockchain applications in judicial record-keeping advance, issues including ambiguous review standards, lack of industry regulations, concerns over technology maturity and security, as well as inadequate public awareness, have emerged as areas that cannot be overlooked. Looking forward, blockchainbased judicial record-keeping will progress from isolated implementations towards integration across the entire judicial system chain. Efforts should be directed towards establishing review procedures and recognition standards tailored for blockchain records, fostering a unified deposition platform and standards, intensifying talent cultivation and education, refining evidence examination processes, and advocating for the development of new evidence rules that accommodate the unique attributes of blockchain, thereby promoting justice and efficiency in the judiciary.
The rapid advancement of digitization and decentralization is heralding a new era in social and economic organization. As nation-states grapple with the impact of (post-)globalization and technological innovation, increasing attention is being paid to blockchain technology's potential to enable the emergence of new governance structures, such as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and network states. This chapter analyzes whether DAOs could provide a viable framework for addressing the needs of future societies while maintaining fundamental principles such as democratic processes and the rule of law.
For international issues, Private International Law (PIL) experts traditionally apply the law of the country with the most significant connection. However, it is often claimed that DLT features, which are immersed in a digital world, cannot be localised or have any connection with a traditional legal order. Is it then possible to determine the law applicable to smart contracts? Before answering this question, this chapter characterises smart contracts in PIL. There are various types of smart contracts: they could be used either to perform a transaction between two parties or to serve as the backbone of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). It is then a prerequisite to analyse the different types of smart contracts before characterising them. This chapter seeks the most relevant connecting factors to determine the law applicable to smart contracts.
Technological features of cryptocurrencies have been raising a number of challenges for lawyers, in particular those practicing Private International Law (PIL), in that (i), cryptocurrencies are intangible, (ii) they exhibit a wide range of different features that, to add further complexity, evolve in parallel with technological developments, (iii) the identity of cryptocurrency users – i.e., everyone who is involved in the process of creation and transfer of cryptocurrencies – is, at minimum, not easy to trace, since it is protected through pseudonyms or, even, full anonymity, (iv) cryptocurrencies are set for more than one usage, i.e., both as a payment instrument and a form of investment (albeit a very risky one!). Even more relevant, (v) cryptocurrencies have an intrinsically cross-border reach, since they are based on decentralised distributed ledgers, potentially spanned all over the world, with no connections to any particular state, allowing value to be transferred between users across borders at a very high speed, not conditional on the location of the transferor and the transferee. Finally, (vi) it is extremely difficult to impose legal restrictions on their circulation, including territorial restrictions, not only because of the decentralised nature of said ledgers, but also because of their inherent autonomy vis-à-vis the law. The aforementioned characteristics of cryptocurrencies and, in particular, their intrinsic cross-border reach prompt the question of their PIL regime and, namely, (i) the need to identify, among the existing PIL rules, those which are applicable to transactions involving cryptocurrencies, both as payment instruments and as (possible) store of value, and to investigate whether those rules are suitable for framing them, either in terms of legal characterisation (“pure” cryptocurrencies neither represent nor give a claim against an issuer) or of connecting factors and other techniques to establish the applicable law. Following the partly negative answer to the first question, the chapter explores the many legislative options for differentiated PIL rules on cryptocurrencies, in comparison not only to traditional assets, but also to other crypto assets. Finally, the paper calls for a comprehensive conflict-of-laws regime for proprietary effects of transactions over cryptocurrencies, based on the elective situs and some requirements in terms of objective connection of the selected law, coupled with a fall-back rule, which should provide different sub-rules for permissioned and permissionless systems
The article is devoted to the study of the current legal regulation of virtual assets in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. The author analyses the advantages and disadvantages of the relevant legal framework, as well as the possibility and feasibility of implementing the most successful solutions into Ukrainian legislation.
 Due to the lack of in-depth studies that would combine the main regulatory norms and definitions and provide a general overview of this regulatory system, it became necessary to study in detail the current legal system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, which is characterised by high autonomy from the rest of the PRC, and to identify the institutions that perform the functions of a regulator of virtual assets.
 Next, the author provide a legislative definition of virtual assets and their classification. Unlike other jurisdictions, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC focuses on the key features inherent in this particular object of civil rights, and excludes from the definition other objects that have similar features but are already regulated separately.
 The common law system makes it possible to regulate certain aspects of the circulation of virtual assets through precedents, which helps to quickly adapt to changes in this market, where new concepts and civil law relations emerge every few years. For example, it was through precedent that it was determined that cryptocurrencies are property and can therefore be the subject of a trust.
 Currently, not all objects created on the basis of blockchain technology are subject to regulation, such as non-fungible tokens or central bank digital currencies, as the possibility of their circulation is still being investigated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.
 The article also examines the new nuances of licensing service providers related to the circulation of virtual assets, which require dual licensing under two regimes regulated by separate legal acts.
 The author concludes that Hong Kong has managed to regulate the circulation of virtual assets in one way or another, but has not managed to create a clear system for all market participants, so it is possible to introduce some solutions into Ukrainian legislation, but in general, this legal regulation system has many disadvantages and sometimes creates legal uncertainty.