Blockchain Papers

A.R. Mukhtarova, Natalya I. Lesnova

No abstract is available for this record.

Marcia Narine Weldon, Rachel S. Epstein

Although many people equate blockchain with bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and smart contracts, the technology also has the potential to transform the way companies look at governance and enterprise risk management, and to assist governments and businesses in mitigating human rights impacts. This Article will discuss how state and non-state actors use the technology outside of the realm of cryptocurrency. Part I will provide an overview of blockchain technology. Part II will briefly describe how public and private actors use blockchain today to track food, address land grabs, protect refugee identity rights, combat bribery and corruption, eliminate voter fraud, and facilitate financial transactions for those without access to banks. Part III will discuss key corporate governance, compliance, and social responsibility initiatives that currently utilize blockchain or are exploring the possibilities for shareholder communications, internal audit, and cyber security. Part IV will delve into the business and human rights landscape and examine how blockchain can facilitate compliance. Specifically, we will focus on one of the more promising uses of distributed ledger technology – eliminating barriers to transparency in the human rights arena thereby satisfying various mandatory disclosure regimes and shareholder requests. Part V will pose questions that board members should ask when considering adopting the technology and will recommend that governments, rating agencies, sustainable stock exchanges, and institutional investors provide incentives for companies to invest in the technology, when appropriate. Given the increasing widespread use of the technology by both state and non-state actors and the potential disruptive capabilities, we conclude that firms that do not explore blockchain’s impact risk obsolescence or increased regulation.

A. V. Syatchikhin

Abstract:at the beginning of 2018, considerable attention of lawyers attracted the case of a citizen’s bankruptcy with the decision to include cryptocurrency in the bankruptcy estate. This case exposed a number of problems associated with legal uncertainty regarding new technology products. What is cryptocurrency? To what objects of civil rights should it be attributed? What is the foreign practice and has the global tendency of regulating such relations formed? It is these issues that have become key to this article and determine its structure. The history of the issue, which has been going on for more than twenty years, is examined, foreign approaches of the legislator and law enforcer to regulate these relations are examined, the question of the economic nature of cryptocurrency is touched upon and, most importantly, questions are raised that law enforcers and legislators have yet to find answers.

Roberto Pardolesi, Antonio Davola

No abstract is available for this record.

M. A. Tokmakov

Development of digital technology opens up new opportunities for corporate governance. At the same time, modern law faces a difficult task – to find a balance between creating conditions for development of technologies including by means of non-interference, and providing the stakeholders in corporate governance with proper legal guarantees. This paper considers the impact of some of the most significant digital technologies on corporate governance, such as distributed ledger technology, smart contracts and artificial intelligence. There are certain legal trends and challenges arising from such innovations including the pursuance of sociability, peer-to-peer and decentralization of corporate governance which in many cases is associated with abolishing of bodies (of a part of bodies) for a corporation management, or transferring their powers (a part of powers) to the corporation members and/or to a computer program (artificial intelligence, algorithm, smart contract). Besides, the paper considers occurrences of new subject of corporate relations – crypto-assets (tokens) holders as well as the possibility for recognition of the legal personality of computer programs, in particular, decentralized autonomous organizations and artificial intelligence.

Andrés Guadamuz

No abstract is available for this record.

Pablo Sanz Bayón

The aim of this work is to delve into some key legal issues surrounding Smart Contract applications. In the first and second parts, this paper defines the concept of Smart Contract and how it applies within the blockchain ecosystem. In the third part, this work exposes the functioning of this digital technology and the main advantage that it implies for solving the crucial issues of execution and breach of contracts. In the fourth section, this paper analyzes a set of problematic aspects that arise around Smart Contracts such as the scope and delimitation of them or the validity and certification of blockchain transactions. It also analyzes different issues related to the design of a legislative policy that addresses the design of a supranational and harmonized legal framework.

Michèle Finck

Whereas Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) prohibits solely automated data processing, the precise scope of this qualified prohibition as well as related requirements remain untested and unclear. Examining Article 22 GDPR from the perspective of smart contracts sheds light on the resulting uncertainties and inconsistencies. Smart contracts indeed appear to qualify as a form of solely automated data processing under Article 22(1) GDPR. This implies that they can only be used where they meet the requirements of Article 22(2) and implement the safeguards of Article 22(3) GDPR. Under Article 22(2) GDPR, solely automated data processing can only be used where it (i) is necessary for a contract between the data subject and controller, (ii) authorized by EU or Member State law, or (iii) based on the data subject’s explicit consent. At first sight, these requirements can be met in the smart contract context just as in others. Yet, the research unveils that even where a smart contract is related to a legal contract, that contract may not be between the data subject and controller. Furthermore, consent may have limited value in this context as under EU data protection law, the data subject must be able to revoke consent, which is difficult where the data processing cannot be halted at the request of the data subject. Where the requirements of Article 22(2) GDPR are met, Article 22(3) requires that data controllers implement safeguarding measures including a right to human intervention by the controller. There are ongoing uncertainties and controversies regarding the scope of this obligation that also permeate the smart contract context. Yet, solutions are already being developed to create forms of smart contracts that may be responsive to these legal obligations, confirming the GDPR’s innovation-shaping function. In accordance with Article 22(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) a data subject has the right ‘not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects or or or At a where automated data processing is on the of the regarding the scope of this qualified prohibition and for the to subject to to the of the data of the Data Protection already that be as and that the of human intervention in indeed to a of human these the a prohibition of automated processing resulting in This by to in as Article of the Data Protection In the GDPR a and forms of solely automated processing, of they or In of for the data the precise of this remain as it in the prohibition of solely automated data processing has in law, in automated not solely forms of data are or are based on this which in data processing and has to be the as it and that are able to human from the perspective of and Smart which are the of the are form of automated data processing that to and Smart contracts can be as that it is these are in the context of the of automated is also being with in to and has already used in for a of In automated is smart value smart contract is a that on of a and this of the of a this form of automated as automated for the of Article 22(1) GDPR, the data protection be a the to which smart contracts can be used in the smart contracts have from the perspective of contract as the has to Whereas a smart contract only in be to a legal contract, they of automated data processing, the of GDPR In this to light on smart contracts qualify as a form of solely automated data processing under the GDPR. smart contracts as to the of Article 22 as well as to the of smart contracts in the legal with to the Article 22 GDPR and to smart with a of that smart solely automated processing and the GDPR’s qualified prohibition in Smart contracts are of the with have as on that are of on the of In a smart contract is that is of these to they are just with the on and legal Furthermore, smart contracts are in to are to smart contracts the of this to a smart contract as of in including which the on these in a that it difficult for to by the of contracts that be and by and of a the smart contracts are that value and only it are a smart contracts are that can be by a of the of a the have and In the the has and as has on smart contracts are also legal even of contract of smart contracts are to which in including that of to in and in that smart contracts for of they are in with legal to smart contract is that the of a and the of that on the of by the or from the smart contracts can indeed be used as a of that smart contracts are also legal smart contract is not smart a Smart contracts are not as they are to as or to are can be or or that the as a has or have Smart contracts also cannot be qualified as contracts in the legal they are a to for smart contract is a of that a in for they are as of and can that smart contracts are smart contracts that they are the is the At on where the is smart contract and cannot be halted this is the or a or the on automated in of human or and and smart contracts can of is smart value already that the are and of to a at has the intervention of a or the is by the automated Where smart contracts are used to the of obligations, is the the can be used for the of in the of or to are for smart contracts for Smart contracts can be on to to where are In this the smart contract is to and where these a a is to the Smart contracts may to This has not as the has to smart contracts in to Smart contracts the of a of also by smart contracts as a of of not only also Where can be This can be as a legal or to on as by cannot be can also be for as the of including and to for and to the in by on also has as indeed in of as or which cannot be smart contracts have in to smart contracts from the of the that automated smart contract it not cannot be halted the has also a that that smart contracts also be on that smart contracts are a it is that they have a this automated that with a is of a smart Under this smart contracts can be in be as of a smart contract, as well as a and of these and are as the are in in a to human intervention in the the of automated In this is not a the and of smart contracts contracts have for a smart used in a or legal for is that in smart contracts are to the automated of This a of automated data GDPR, a qualified prohibition of solely automated data Article 22(1) GDPR that data have the right not to be subject to decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects or or or smart contracts are by this it must be (i) a smart contract as a decision based solely on automated processing, and (ii) that decision produces legal effects for the data subject or or GDPR automated data automated processing a of or a indeed that automated processing not be as a the of the GDPR in the of it the and the on the with in the of the In the for a of the that automated processing of data not to to the scope of Article it that automated a scope and may with or from also a of solely automated as to by human decision is on automated processing where is human in the to and smart automated can be of as of value in which of the is by a human GDPR only solely automated data This the a smart contract can be qualified as a This is of the GDPR that may have it also in of as the precise to be to the at This is by the that Article 22 only to by solely automated data processing, that data have the right not to be subject to a which may a based on solely automated data of in the in the of the GDPR a of which to as the of the GDPR indeed only used the of in Article which only by the these to be be by the of have that a is or with legal a is or with this is indeed the in can be as Article 22 that can have legal effects or In the that that a can also be a that the to be of of the to a of GDPR as data or in to the and protection of data the At where a smart contract to that be a human in the be as a This be the where a smart contract is used in to on the of it is the of a smart contract to a or a appear that the that human is in where is by law, even of have the of under the of related of smart contracts may qualify as measures and be the of EU data protection has of by Article the of on the of as of solely automated human This smart contracts a that is by and by a This even be qualified as a smart contract a of the as or are to qualify as for GDPR it is to that smart contract the of a smart contract as a decision or may also the of may that the to the of the smart contract of a as a decision a or of a In with the of smart is human at the of that Article 22(1) to that the a and is of the that in the smart in be on the and of the smart a human as the the smart contract data to Furthermore, are also to human Where a smart contract is to a legal contract as a smart contract is used to of the be to Whereas this to to the of Article it is to be that Article 22(2) explicit from the Article 22(1) prohibition where a smart contract is used to a human in the of the contract to be for the of the first be for explicit to this in the the of Article 22 GDPR as a the that the for the of Article 22(1) is to be the of the which indeed human may that smart contracts are at in by Article 22(1) GDPR. a the qualified prohibition of automated data processing only where automated processing produces legal or effects on the data subject. This is the of the Article 22(1) that Under Article 22(1) GDPR, data are only not to be to based on automated processing the legal effects or is necessary to smart contracts can (i) legal or (ii) This is to be on a and be as the of where be effects on at smart contracts have for as they is are or for a or is has as a in legal or obligations, legal or under a a smart contract is used to a obligation a in legal and where a is or a or is the of and the of smart contracts have legal effects and as a be by Article where legal effects are a smart may a data subject. Under Article a can be or and where the of automated data processing are or to be of This is to effects on the or of the or a or on the In this to Article scope of as effects of from context and to automated decision to to a on a or may be in in as where a to a Whereas is on the of is to be from or it to that is as is and data protection by effects a is it is to that this be in at is that effects that are from to to legal is is a that Article 22(1) a in a where with legal effects be by the prohibition of automated processing, even where they are a of a from the of automated of or automated human which are in that must be is that of the necessary for forms of solely automated data processing to be by the GDPR. is for solely automated data processing of data is data or is by Article 22 or to be data that as data for this to be the This is not from the of Article 22(1) which of a decision being to data This the of data the a data subject. that is a for data to qualify as be the in of or automated where the data is indeed may can be where data is not data and the decision is that Article 22 GDPR that smart contracts are to at in the scope of the GDPR’s qualified prohibition of automated This prohibition is automated processing can be on the of Article 22(2) GDPR. of Article 22 GDPR in which automated data processing in and the to smart that only with that not as in for processing to Article 22(2) the prohibition of automated processing not the is necessary for or a contract between the data subject and a data is by or Member State to which the is subject and which also measures to the data and and or is based on the data explicit consent. to the prohibition of automated processing under Article 22(1) it that automated is where it is necessary for the or of a contract between the data subject and the controller. that the for smart contracts in the automated of legal Where the smart contract is to a automated processing in the form of can be that the legal contract is between the data subject and the data controller. the of the and the that automated must be of the of a the that that this contract must between the and the data which has in the of the In this not where a a smart contract to automated the is a to the contract, and at the the data in to the Where and that can be and used by are used to the smart contract, the that the contract be between the data subject and the data In a data may be in of the data to the be with the smart contracts may also be to be data for the of Article 22 GDPR where they a decision that is to the data subject where this in data that or to or the on also qualify as Under the GDPR, a data is the that or the and and of data has that a of this to be the in that of a are controllers with regarding of the data that the of a must be to the and protection of data a the of a on be as by of in on and the of and in the of the and of processing the data of the to that where a smart contract is the that is on also a data controller. Yet, and are not by a legal that be as the controller. these are by the of a of including and and as to as the from the perspective of the Data Protection that smart contract can also be data controllers in Whereas the precise of the data has to be in light of a it to that at the as well as at the smart are under the GDPR. is to be that the the to the smart contract also be a these a in to the of Article is is as of on this it to that the of a with at of controllers be to this it is the of as Article that solely automated data processing may where it necessary for or a contract between the data subject and a data the of this at this it be to that solely automated processing only be used where are Yet, is can be on the of the of solely automated data processing in the that of a and automated the of be indeed as and are well in the of the the has that is not where and to the this that to be the by the by the it the in to processing that where of of for a this of may automated necessary as a first in the this is is a to be as the be even it of There regarding the scope of and can that is necessary in the of or Article GDPR Member or the EU to create to the prohibition of automated processing that data subject and are At this has at EU or Member State to solely automated data processing in to smart At the Member to related to may on Article GDPR for these of this in the that the requirements under Article 22(3) GDPR, not Article GDPR automated data processing where it is based on the data subject’s explicit consent. Where is the smart contract this can be in a as explicit consent be on the as the contract is can be in as forms of where is legal contract to the smart at in the it also be to consent in are in this the of consent, which is not in the has by the in on consent as necessary in that data protection that of data is consent a or on of the data subject. Where consent is in of the of data processing, the data subject of which the form of a or the in of form or Data controllers are to of of consent is a Article GDPR requires that the data subject has right to or consent at this may not the of processing based on consent that to this in the of automated data processing this is it may be difficult for a data subject to to the data processing in consent. In and in the of that data processing as data be by the controller, which to the of or data in that data controllers to on consent as a for data processing Article 22(2) a of to smart contracts under EU Where this is the requirements must be on automated processing under Article or safeguarding measures in the form of a right to human intervention Article 22(3) and a right to be and has that where automated processing a a Data Protection may be Article 22(3) that where automated processing is authorized on the of the first or of Article the data implement measures to the data and and at the right to human intervention on the of the controller, to or of and to the EU data protection only automated data processing where it is in is indeed based on a Article 22(1) only where processing solely automated the of human by of Article 22(3) processing can be solely automated Article 22(3) obligation that automated data processing can only under Article or where is of human intervention on of the and the data subject’s and are Whereas the precise of the are subject to the of human intervention is Data are of to not on the of human for solely automated data processing under the GDPR. this to smart is human at must it be and is the data in a to it is to human intervention must to the of the data protection has that human intervention must not just be the form of a by the and to the a of the including by the data that human intervention not just be is has that to by and even where is that it is even where a is as a human as a it may be used as the where the human or the the must the in human intervention There is to this that it is that human intervention the decision has in the of the as a of In the smart contract that the of the smart contract it has a this is as a is for the it to the for of human smart contracts are to with the GDPR to of automated as In to the of human intervention for the of Article 22(3) may be for smart contracts to a smart contract to human intervention in a as in or can be as the smart contract is a by In as to be from human this is for the of a smart contract a even a for human intervention are to as these may be with the to human must be to Article that the data human the of the data in of and and is to be that be a of controllers at and qualify as a controller. of human intervention must be by these or only of the is that Article GDPR and requires that controllers that the of that the data subject can This that controllers are to with the of human it that the is that data controllers have that the of be with to the of the Where solely automated processing the data subject is to this of data Where automated processing the data subject has a right to be this subject to Article GDPR requires that the data with and the processing of this to be in to automated data processing on the between and as well as GDPR. Article GDPR that a data subject is to be the of automated including profiling, to in Article 22(1) and at in the as well as the and the of processing for the data subject. Article GDPR the in where data not from the data is also by Article that of be to the data subject. the (i) of automated (ii) the and (iii) the and the of the to a to the right to as it is with in these that in of solely automated processing, a data subject from including the right of the decision and to the Whereas the can be difficult to as it is not by the of the GDPR and this by the may be as that to of the precise in which a decision is is to be by the data controller, that the of also in this context. There has as to the of the of in the and of in is in the of a is that of a are not are to the of the and can with the that they cannot be used for a of the the GDPR a of for in the have the of the of just they uncertainties have to as to are under the GDPR. may the GDPR a to that may protection to data the a has regarding the of the GDPR’s right to In a first and that the GDPR a to in of a a to of not in the General Data Protection that is only a right to in only as right for be the of right to be automated decision that the between and Article 22 from the that a right to for Article 22 this in the of from the a in with by and that and 22 be that they for Whereas protection may a data subject’s right to they that the of protection be to data protection and a to and that the on the right be a right to by or a right to used in that a data to be and the of right to as a where they have by the have the as to these to be In the the has on these that is of data controllers is that they (i) the data subject that they are in solely automated processing, (ii) the (iii) and the and to these the of data these data are as are the is for the and it is used to a decision the data appear to to in of the that is used is as to the data subject the or the on in the is is ‘not a of the used or of the the to the data subject be to the for the these are a in the is a of the to be that of or of the that in it is not In the to to the data subject the or the on in the This the of which the or measures a for the and the of these requirements in a smart contract context be that these on the data the as the of the obligation be Smart contracts in the form of data and the in processing is a that can be and is the between the right to and the to automated processing explicit consent under Article may of is in to for consent to be Where the of automated processing are not it may be consent cannot be This may in a where is under Article as a of the obligation to the data subject of of data This is of as ongoing as have as to can a of a that may have data and may or There is a regarding and automated can be and which is is the of In data controllers that on smart contracts also be subject to a to a Data Protection In on automated processing obligation to a Data Protection are of the of the processing on data that to be by data controllers where the the context and of processing are of to the and of which can be the in where are Under Article GDPR are in where processing (i) a and of of based on automated (ii) data and data related to and or (iii) where the of a on is Where a that processing in a for data and measures to the can be the is to the At first the that a must the of a smart are where automated processing that Article to not automated as Article this is only the where processing a and of of it cannot be that as a the context and of processing are of to the and of be that in smart contracts are a a that smart contracts as a be of smart contracts has on in as in or automated and where a smart contract is on a of a and are to a as this a that a from a data protection it on a where and is from in to of the of as and of on these be as a for data a is in that a to be to the precise for the data subject as they from the and can also be as in with the data protection by Article GDPR requires the of the data protection of data protection by and data protection by data processing Article GDPR requires that controllers implement and measures to meet the GDPR’s at the of processing as well as the of In this the of the the of and the context and of processing as well as the of and for and of by the to be In the GDPR a for the to implement and measures that the requirements not just to the processing also to the as to that only the data for of the are these requirements is that may be a of to the of it is that to the of the of and it to has in the of the Data Protection that and measures to be in to processing and also is a of by as it is that in are measures that data processing, the of a data subject to data processing and and by the controller. have for smart Article GDPR obligation for to this as well as the they on in a with the GDPR not just Article the requirements of data protection by and data protection by smart contract on a This is are in a that with of the GDPR it is difficult for to meet the data they are a of or to implement data subject as they to and they are to human In light of these on Article GDPR, which the of as to with the data protection by and data protection by requirements have to are the scope of Article GDPR as the has not on the and the is in a with these is as it is a the of for of the has that the GDPR’s prohibition of solely automated processing to smart Whereas on automated smart contracts can be where it is necessary in a is authorized by law, or where the data subject to the processing, and must be in a data protection This the of human the of regarding the of processing in a in smart contract must also be in a that for the data protection by and by with these requirements at in be with as This is in the context. these that they can be in of or this human intervention in the and of the data Smart contracts can be used as a to that Yet, as smart contracts are to to and legal these and they may also GDPR in to by including the a these not in from have and it is that on for and to the smart contracts on these There is ongoing to smart contracts in of with of the that can as a in the or that the automated that smart contracts not be the automated and the of is ongoing of with that the of smart contracts and automated in this are ongoing research and to smart contracts a in to to be used in This may to have effects on GDPR as they of human the of the to the with it can In a is human which is by the data subject and smart contracts of to a a of a the to a that is based on that of the and that of the of the and the and the Where a to the to the Where a that cannot be by the the to as these the requirements of Article 22(3) GDPR which to human Furthermore, are ongoing of to be smart At it of automated with where the smart contract forms of a that be is a of a related contract in the smart contract and the smart contracts or has a the contract, as by to of this smart be used to the smart in the of a or to legal contract be with and the smart contract that to and the and which the smart contract with human of are smart contract that can be used in are on

Morgan N. Temte

The blockchain cannot be described just as a revolution.It is a tsunami-like phenomenon, slowly advancing and gradually envel oping everything along its way by the force of its progression. 1* J.D. Candidate, University of Wyoming College of Law, Class of 2020.I would like to thank the hard-

Mateja Đurović, Franciszek Lech

The development of new technologies has different effects on the existing law. Smart contracts are one of the forms of the new technologies that questions the application of the traditional contract law on commercial transactions using smart contracts. In that context, the enforceability of contractual transactions concluded in the form of smart contracts represent one of the major legal questions. Moreover, the question is whether the existing English contract law needs to be modified in order to secure the enforceability of smart contracts. These issues will be, accordingly examined in this paper with the aim to understand better the relationship of the traditional contract law, on the one side, and, smart contracts, on the other side.

Eliza Mik

No abstract is available for this record.

Irina Y. Glazkova, Dorota Kozioł-Kaczorek, Sergey Shmatko

Digital technologies have a number of advantages that contribute to the development of the economy and make it more transparent. Some of the main features of modern digital technologies are speeding up business processes, reducing costs, eliminating the possibility of fraud, ensuring the transparency of the system and the ability to check and analyze the system. Regardless of whether a commercial or government organization uses the technology, in any case, there is a wide range of possibilities of its application. One of these technologies is blockchain. A blockchain is a distributed database in which storage devices are not connected to a shared server. This database stores an ever-growing list of ordered records called blocks. Each block contains a timestamp and a link to the previous block. The article defines a smart contract, describes the main areas of its application and provides processes similar to smart contracts, but working outside the blockchain. We also consider some of the risks that arise when working with smart contracts.

Jeroen Naves, Benedetta Audia, Marjolein Busstra, Koen Lukas Hartog · 7 authors

In the first half of 2018, the United Nations Office for Project Services and Blockchainpilots.nl, the Dutch government's pilot Blockchain program, brought together a group of legal and Blockchain experts from The Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States to produce a research volume offering an introduction to the legal aspects of Blockchain.

Qiuyun Shang, Allison Price

The challenge for countries without adequate land management is not simply to build a land registry system but to create a system that is trustworthy, efficient, and free of corruption. According to Transparency International, 20 percent of land service users worldwide admitted that they have paid a bribe in order to register their property or verify land ownership information. 4 . This reduces the efficiency of service delivery and undermines public trust in the

M. M. Dolgieva

, , -

Irina Mitrofanova

Introduction: currently, the whole world is experiencing tremendous changes in connection with the transition to the information society. This work is devoted to the challenges faced by contract law. The aim of this work is to study the theoretical and practical problems of the legal regulation of "smart" contracts. Methods: the methodological framework for the study is the dialectical method of cognition, which assumes the comprehensiveness, objectivity and interconnectedness of the studied phenomena; the general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, hypothesis, analogy, etc.); the comparative law and functional methods. As a result of the study, the main problems arising in the legislative regulation of "smart" contracts were grouped. The technical ones include: the problem of describing the conditions in the artificial language, obtaining the data from the real world by the system, the reliability of the input data, the system errors, the speed of transaction processing, the inability to maintain the complete confidentiality of the operations. The legal problems include: the complexity of the contract verification by a lawyer, the lack of control of transactions by the state and tax authorities, the possibility of illegal transactions, the complexity of proving the fact of the contract, the definition of the applicable law, remedies. The legislation of some foreign countries, which is also under development, is analyzed. The analysis of the draft law "On Digital Financial Assets" shows that the document does not satisfy the requests for the legal regulation of the digital economy. In the definition, there is no indication that a "smart" contract is written in the artificial language, the turnover of the crypto currency is significantly limited. It is concluded that a "smart" contract is now rational to use as part of a paper contract for simple transactions with the measurable conditions. The draft law "On Digital Financial Assets" needs the significant improvement to simplify the turnover of digital assets and the development of the institution of "smart" contracts.

Cristina Poncibò, Larry A. DiMatteo

Abstract: Smart contracts provide a quandary for contract law remedies. The self-enforcing nature of smart contracts implies that there is little possibility for breach and thus, little need or opportunity to apply contract law remedies. This article explores if this is really the case. It concludes that contract law remains applicable to smart contracts relating to the enforceability of its terms based on legality, public policy, and contracts policing doctrines. In such cases, post hoc judicial or arbitral claims remain likely and the dispute resolution bodies would seek to apply contract remedies. In order to diminish instances of litigation or arbitration the smart contract should include self-remedying or internal measures (remedies). The article divides internal measures into proactive and reactive measures. These measures should be considered in the drafting of a smart contract in order to diminish resort to contract remedies. In the end, contract law and contract remedies will remain important as default law. In addition, like smart contracts, some of contract law rules are immutable and cannot be made obsolete by blockchain technology.

Oscar Borgogno

Abstract: The success of smart contracts based on distributed ledger technology (DLT) springs from their potential to secure contract performance when traditional legal enforcement remedies are not practical or too costly. EU policymakers and regulators have struggled for years to facilitate the enforcement of consumer rights while reducing transaction costs for businesses. The article argues that smart contracts can be a viable tool to address such a challenge. By virtue of their self-executing and tamper-proof character, smart contracts are suited to substantially reduce transaction costs in B2C relationships. So far, several legal scholars have raised concerns regarding both smart contracts inability to reflect relational aspects of contract governance and the augmented complexity generated by the translation of an agreement into computer code. Building upon the extant literature on the topic, the article explains why these problems can be overcome when it comes to consumer rights that are standardized and easily verifiable. Thus, smart contracts will likely prove suitable for specific industries, such as the transport sector. The article concludes that policy makers and regulators shall take the lead by testing, with a sector-specific approach, smart contracts ability to improve the consumer protection toolbox.

André Janssen, Mateja Djurovic

Abstract: This contribution examines the formation of (blockchain-based) smart contracts. The term smart contract is used to refer to software programmes which are often, but not necessarily, built on blockchain technology as a set of promises, specified in digital form, including protocols within which the parties perform on these promises. It is regularly said that smart contracts are neither legal contracts in the traditional sense nor they are smart and that the term is therefore a misnomer. The crucial question this article is trying to answer is whether the traditional common law concept of contract formation is seriously challenged by the rise of smart contracts. As such, are smart contracts marking the end of contract formation as we know it or is it just much ado about nothing? Résumé: Cette contribution examine la formation de contrats intelligents (basés sur la blockchain). Le terme de contrat intelligent est utilisé pour faire référence aux programmes de software qui sont souvent, mais pas nécessairement, conçus sur la technologie de la blockchain comme un ensemble de promesses, spécifiées sous forme digitale, comprenant des protocoles au sein desquels les parties accomplissent ces promesses.On a souvent dit que les contrats intelligents ne sont ni des contrats juridiques au sens traditionnel ni intelligents et que le terme est donc inapproprié. La question cruciale à laquelle le présent article tente de répondre est de savoir si le concept traditionnel dans la common law de la formation du contrat est sérieusement mis au défi par l’arrivée des contrats intelligents. Comme tels, les contrats intelligents marquent-ils la fin de la formation des contrats telle que nous la connaissons ou ne s’agit-il finalement que de ‘beaucoup de bruit pour rien’?

E. L. Sidorenko

The paper focuses on the definition of the legal status of the cryptocurrency in the framework of the current Russian legislation. The subject of the research is the principal scientific and practical approaches to determining the object of civil rights and the object of acquisitive crimes in terms of their adaptability to cryptocurrencies. The purposes of the work were the search for a universal algorithm for resolving civil disputes related to the turnover of the crypto currency, and the qualification of the virtual currency theft (fraud). By using historical, comparative legal and dialectical methods as well as the content analysis method parallels between cryptocurrencies and individual objects of civil rights (a thing, property rights, other property) were drawn, and a number of options for qualifying the actions related to the non-repayable withdrawal of the cryptocurrency were proposed. Finally, the paper analyzes the draft laws prepared by the RF Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and presents the author’s vision of the prospects for legalizing the cryptocurrency as an object of civil rights.

Yahaya Saidu, Shuaibu Yau, Daniel Tonye Oyefidein, Aliyu Garba · 5 authors

As cities become more digitally governed, centralized infrastructures face growing risks across identity, safety, and data domains. This chapter reframes blockchain as a foundational trust protocol for urban resilience, emphasizing its core features: immutability, decentralization, transparency, and consensus, as tools to address systemic privacy and security challenges. It explores blockchain's role in securing digital identities, logging infrastructure events, and enabling auditable governance. Real-world deployments in land registries, voting, procurement, and incident response, especially in Asia and Europe are analyzed. Privacy-preserving techniques like zero-knowledge proofs and decentralized identity are also examined. The chapter highlights integration hurdles such as interoperability, regulatory gaps, and ethical tensions, while outlining emerging trends like Blockchain 4.0, quantum-safe cryptography, and DAO-led civic participation. It offers a roadmap for decentralized citizen-centric governance in smart cities.

T.V. Shatkovskaya, A. B. Shumilina, Gennady Nebratenko, Ju.I. Isakova · 5 authors

The article is dedicated to investigate the problem of influence of cutting edge digital technology on the virtual and real legal relations, related to the movement and the turnover of intellectual property.Using the method of analyzing modern definitions of blockchain, and relying on the political-economic theory of social redistribution of wealth, authors define the term blockchain and its principles as a technological paradigm.Authors conclude the fact that blockchain can be used to guarantee intellectual property rights and it should be accepted at the national level.As a mechanism of a trusted environment, blockchain allows to reduce transaction costs and increase the level of commercialization of intellectual property.

김이수

No abstract is available for this record.

Andrii Martyn

The key features of the blockchain databases, such as decentralization, distribution, security, and record of the history of all transactions, create significant prospects for their application in the field of cadastre and real estate registration activities, including creation of the global real estate cadastre infrastructure, which will be able to go beyond national legal systems and jurisdictions. The conceptual approach to registration of land plots as spatial objects using blockchain technology is proposed. The land plot should be considered as a combination of smart contracts between landowners, surveyors, appraisers, notaries and other persons. The subject of such contracts will be the description and establishment of spatial (plot boundaries, territorial zones, etc.) and other (property rights and encumbrances, monetary valuation, soil bonitet, etc.) characteristics of land plots. The classification of such smart contracts reliability is also presented.