Blockchain Papers

Mehdi El Harrak

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.

F.C. Villata

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

V.I. Lehenko

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.

Eleonora Rosati

Eleonora Rosati is a Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Stockholm University (Sweden) and Of Counsel at Bird & Bird in Milan (Italy). The present contribution is a re-publication of a study prepared at the request of the World Intellectual Property Organization and published under the same title on 1 September 2023. Over time, technological advancements have resulted in novel ways both to exploit content and to infringe rights—including intellectual property rights (IPRs)—vesting in them. Legislative instruments have consistently clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply to new media, ie, means to disseminate intangible assets, including in digital and online contexts. In terms of rights enforcement, however, the progressive dematerialization of content and dissemination modalities has given rise to challenges, including when it comes to determining where an alleged IPR infringement has been committed. This study seeks to answer the following questions: (1) Can the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other dissemination media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the metaverse? (2) Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications for the localization of IPR infringements? The first question is answered in the affirmative. In relation to the second question, it is submitted that the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses—while of substantial relevance to the determination of enforcement options—may not have significant implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is concerned. Over time, technological advancements have resulted in novel ways both to exploit content and to infringe rights—including intellectual property rights (IPRs)—vesting in them. Legislative instruments have consistently clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply to new media, ie, means to disseminate intangible assets, including in digital and online contexts. In terms of rights enforcement, however, the progressive dematerialization of content and dissemination modalities has given rise to challenges, including when it comes to determining where an alleged IPR infringement has been committed. The importance of such an exercise cannot be overstated: it is inter alia key to determining (i) whether the right at issue (eg, a registered IPR) is enforceable at the outset, (ii) which law applies to the dispute at hand as well as—in accordance with certain jurisdictional criteria—(iii) which courts are competent to adjudicate it. For example, determining that the relevant infringement has been committed in country A serves in turn to determine (i) if the right at issue is enforceable at all, given that IPRs are territorial in nature. So, if the IPR in question is a national trade mark, the infringement needs to be localized in the territory of the country where the right is registered; (ii) whether, eg, country A’s law is applicable to the dispute at hand and (iii) if, eg, the courts in country A have jurisdiction to adjudicate the resulting dispute. This said, questions of applicable law and jurisdiction should not be conflated. Answering the former serves to ensure that a court does not have to apply more than one law, but rather on the of infringement to the law applicable to the such a to ensure that one law is applicable does not in the context of jurisdiction which for more than one The localization exercise has to be when the is committed in a digital online For infringements in courts the have developed to the the where (i) the the (ii) the content be and (iii) the is of criteria are of has in the of on a of including of relevant of an in a national is to is a substantial with a given is it is the the of to the and more of not is that such a be the rise of and for digital In the progressive of the be the of has for it has been to the of the new it is that the be and the of the and In metaverses have been developed which centralized and The distinction is on whether the at issue is and a eg, a whether it is a and decentralized eg, a decentralized as it to the of as the to has the to new to the and application of the criteria The present study is with the of such a study seeks to answer the following questions: the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other dissemination media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is The IPRs are trade and The is to infringements committed of and an and on are and as such an it is that a is through which the questions at the of the present study be answered in terms that are as and as to of relevance to the question of of IPRs online and in the is the of the be and in the alleged IPR infringement that not but the of other than the including are to The study is as and the to the present as well as relevant and of the relevant for the localization of IPR infringements in to and as well as national This a distinction between and registered on digital and online and and on localization for the of determining applicable law where A of the criteria on and of infringement be and the of resulting is with the of and whether the of the find application in relation to new at in as the questions are the one whether the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the metaverses is answered in the affirmative. is submitted that the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses—while of substantial relevance to the determination of enforcement options—may not have significant implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is concerned. study as a as the courts in in relation to to for the localization of IPR including committed through the are the that substantial in terms of that to a with a given for the of both determining applicable law and the of and enforcement the question whether the has for a more of both at the a of the is a means of a on a to a is a is a between the and of the on the one hand and the rights and to online on the are to to the through to the territorial of the relevant that it more to online in that at the of of the in a for a on the of under law for the of The has which is the second of the that with the of and media and an more than be is to in the and not the more of have not and the application and enforcement of IPRs to inter alia the the of an IPR infringement is The importance of such a which be means of the infringement of both and registered IPRs in cannot be overstated: it is inter alia key to determining (i) whether the right at issue (eg, a registered IPR) is enforceable at the outset, (ii) which law applies to the dispute at hand as well as—in accordance with certain jurisdiction criteria—(iii) which courts are competent to adjudicate it. answer it be to a the answer to the following the the the the and the have in it has been are media in the of the are means to disseminate not in a new media have new ways to exploit content and with infringe relevant rights has not relevant and to be and the have to be not to new and have been the to both the and of In terms of and and courts have consistently IPRs applicable to the of through new as an example, the World Intellectual Property Organization and and at to and of on the other digital other the and clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply in the digital not In courts have consistently rights enforceable in digital and online contexts. So, in which the the the has both the relevant rights to the and and applicable in and The same is for that not the rights the for example, not law to to when it the through the of the the under the right has been to be in the context of digital through of the The apply to other IPRs So, the of of a trade for the of infringement has been to courts have not the of rights to in that the to and the as a new of dissemination of content and other in infringement of the IPRs A first in the novel the has been relevant to at of for a Over the of the has been has been technological including the of and the of for digital the to and of the of which is the for and to more than has been the The is to be and the of the and have to the as to the and with and the of advancements and to with the digital the of and with the of such a however, to be For the present it is to that the of does not to a metaverses have been developed which centralized and The distinction is on whether the at issue is and a eg, a whether it is a and decentralized eg, a centralized metaverses content is and to the in accordance with the terms of in decentralized metaverses is to the in relation to such content with the relevant content the that of a as a is and of to be between the of a and that of with the that the of of a to that of a the application of IPRs to media is determining the of an issue that has given rise to when the of such rights in is the one to the localization of alleged infringements as a of In the localization of the infringement to the in which the is to as a of the law applicable to the The localization of the infringement in is relevant to the of the of within the territorial of the and to the jurisdiction of the court the of within the territorial jurisdiction of the In however, questions of applicable law and jurisdiction should not be conflated. Answering the former serves to ensure that a court does not have to apply more than one law, but rather on the of infringement to the law applicable to the such a to ensure that one law is applicable does not in the context of jurisdiction which for more than one be in in online the between centralized and decentralized has given rise to and have been time, present an in terms of In and as an example, has as a to jurisdiction in with to both registered and The localization of the alleged infringement has the of the of the court in accordance with relevant criteria under and national For example, under law, the of the rise to the the where the one of the criteria to jurisdiction under The same is under of the with to between of the both and the courts of the in which the of infringement has been committed inter alia have jurisdiction in relation to the alleged infringement an trade right that the present study seeks to answer the following questions: the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is The IPRs are trade and The is to infringements committed of and an and on be and as such an it is that a is through which the questions at the of the present study be answered in terms that are as and as to of relevance to the question of of IPRs online and in the is the of the be and in the alleged IPR infringement that not but the of other than the including as are to The study is as of in it the relevant for the localization of IPR infringements in to and as well as national a distinction between and registered on digital and online and and on localization for the of determining the territorial of where A of the criteria on the and of infringement be and the of resulting This be relevant to the of the of in the online IPR enforcement with in relation to infringements committed in the including where the and localization of is with the of and whether the of the find application in relation to new at in In for and as a as the courts in in relation to to to the localization of IPR infringements committed through the are the that substantial in terms of that to a with a given for the of both determining applicable law and the of and enforcement the question whether the has for a more of both at the A of which is the of of rights under is territorial nature. In the in given territory on the law of that with to both and This said, the rather and and (eg, in the context of trade a of have the of the between national IPR has not through the of of but in the of IPR enforcement have been on a the a is to the other on enforcement of The in of the are a of following the of the has been a the it and as a IPR enforcement enforcement, have been at the In the the enforcement of in the that it does not that are more to the IPRs with which the present study is and relevant on the localization of a distinction to is that between trade and and registered trade and The present the for infringements of a on the same apply to other the relevant of and national with and enforcement at the the not instruments to a enforcement are the and the in and in the is on the of national and of for of of of the and of first is not that of the a of the of to the localization of The at to and of on the other digital the which with 1 to of the and the as key to and the on and rights the and the to to in and in the both instruments clarified that rights continue to apply in the digital and new online to a certain in to rights in the digital the of on IPRs has in relation to both law for and of and of law determining jurisdiction and applicable law in infringement The former have been through both and The have been through In terms of determination of the law applicable to the infringement of IPRs in in the is in a to determine the applicable law in infringements of the of the of the under The under is relevant to law, the localization of the to The relevant for IPRs and registered national IPRs are in and The in of the is that in a be in the courts of that The in as an that in a be in in to in the courts for the where the The of law in is not to the of the but rather to determine which court has jurisdiction in and in between and to the enforcement of Over time, has a and at it is that the where the be the where the the of the rise to that the be the of the the courts for of is in the law of the and where it is not to a of the should be on the at the rather than that at the of the have in in which the is an localization be that of the country where the relevant has said, the of where to has inter alia implications for the that be the has clarified that if one in an other than the one of of the ie, the where the content is the court is competent to adjudicate on the on that A in with the be in other including law In questions of applicable law are answered in the same as in the given the in in instruments the jurisdiction in be in accordance with a jurisdiction which determining if the is to the where the court is (eg, that the resulting not be under the law of the country where the court is be them. a does not to in the jurisdiction in inter alia needs to be in a which to the of a court to in a on the of the in such a of with inter alia said, the of to jurisdiction with court on of and eg, to the of and where the and the applicable to the to infringement under the in which the alleged infringement an is courts whether to the when determining jurisdiction when the of the are whether the not within the territory to determine law and This said, courts have that it is an under the to content a and the content to the eg, such content for the for registered the to in the of law is a in with the territorial of under law, the localization of the to The relevant for IPRs and registered national IPRs are in and registered the and of the to be in accordance with the law of the country where a national trade is that trade one to to in eg, through application for national in of the concerned. A of the territorial of infringement is not of relevance to it is to that the of for the registered IPRs in the present contribution is to the relevant and and within the and as trade are the under the not eg, the In for a trade to be in relation to and it to the to of the and to with and The of the at the of has the digital in In be the one it not be that for to the other courts in and the of the for to the digital including in the context of and of law developed in that have not a on the localization of IPR infringements and the of the in relation to inter alia national trade for that infringement the of for a of of an be the courts of the in which the of infringement has been committed In the courts of the in which the of infringement is committed have jurisdiction in of of infringement committed within the territory of that with the that the of the territorial jurisdiction of the court is to the that be than if in accordance with where the is The question that is whether, the of of the to infringement the of of infringement within has the same as where the within the In the answered in the that the for jurisdiction to are than within jurisdiction to the courts in the where the to the not in the where such that the in in the such to trade law, it is that the that and of the are not and to where the in is advancements and the of content and the and of have the dissemination and of both and in has a in the in which not content is and but are to the has of in digital have a rights have to a on and the and of content to the with to a has both the between and and and and have in and at both national and In has given rise to insofar as IPR enforcement is including questions of localization of the relevant time, courts have to and and in relation to new and infringement including in the context of eg, infringement In the to of has not resulted in significant of in infringement has more in have criteria to determine (i) the court is competent if it is in a country which the content is (ii) with the courts in the territory where the the and (iii) courts in the territory at which the content is have criteria are in should be that in has as a to determine applicable law and jurisdiction in and in of it be in In relation to both registered and in the of a in to alleged infringements in for of jurisdiction and applicable law has been the of the a certain In the for example, has been the to the infringement of the right and trade is a inter alia the in to the of application of that to of that are not in the A is well under the law of the with the of courts have a in relation to but not to in determining the of the infringement as such when the of the A more of the and is with the in and the the of in which the of infringement the intellectual property right at as to the law of the country where the of at the of the committed have been committed. In the context of online that of the of the of online the for of the said, on in the including to and other the has such a and for a This has been as in relation to (i) the in and in to determine whether the committed for and through a of in a an infringement under the (ii) and the right under of in and and (iii) the right of under of the in of of the in a be eg, the of a certain the content and of the and with in a certain other law and which be it is clarified in the that of the territory be on the at that of one more be on including of a a in that the of the of a relevant an be the of an in the relevant national the of in a in that the of such as in a in that The same that of a the on that be as a substantial to the has been as a to the relevant with the jurisdiction of the court in other For example, courts in the and a that be to the In the courts have consistently the question of whether a is to a country is a which on relevant where a to the the territory of the is territory and is at that be as within the in the of and the of that the of an online be for of to the a and to to the not to in the courts have in other of including trade For example, in the of of and to the in and and and the that to as to the court an for of a trade to of the trade in the territory the registered trade and within the right that if, to the it be that the is at in that the of the the a has been in in relation to the the of of and clarified that of the territory be the to a trade mark, and of the relevant and of the that the localization of the of the alleged IPR infringement be as a jurisdiction This is with to both registered and the has an to the of where the in relation to on a of in the for the of rise to the the has to that such a cannot be as jurisdiction to courts in a in which the alleged has not In the that the rise to the is where the of the for the of the content is In a the one at issue the to such an infringement be localized at the where the that is where the and carried out the to the online on a an been with to national trade in the that the where the rise to the be the where the alleged is This is such a be the where the relevant of infringement relevant be and be a is in with the of in the same in and such an is the of on a to to that present to an enforcement of and rights the jurisdiction the of of the to an to the jurisdiction in The of jurisdiction to the courts in the of the have been both and and the in with the such an In with to online infringement determination of the not be a This is it is more to a under as the has with to jurisdiction within the of infringement for in A has been to the and jurisdiction within insofar as are concerned. that the of is the same as that of for apply with to as the clarified that jurisdiction within is than under of the courts in the where the alleged infringement has been committed have to adjudicate the relevant dispute. of the not be to the of the trade an for on an online that in to be within the of trade law, in an of the application of said, the in and does not and the question of jurisdiction to the of the rise to the it is to the more in and a In the that an for infringement be the courts of the where the the are of whether the for the of the at issue of the to which the rise to the is where the alleged and the of and for not be it jurisdiction of the courts where the is and the jurisdiction of The for of be as in the at which such is of whether a has a is the that courts in that are to whether the alleged infringement does in the clarified the to to and determine the of the court For an of to be at a certain it is not that such are and for to be to other insofar as to with the in which the court of the infringement is is for the court to the of the that of infringement have been committed on the territory of a is it in and be given to the in to of the the of the of a a other than the in the in which the is of with an of on an in to to the that of in other of a other than that of the in which the is of an of in in in as the it is not to determine the of of the at a be the that the the of the of an to A distinction that is relevant to for the of the present is that between of and be not but are to infringe as the are an distinction is The first the of of and as a of In for of in relation to a in the but not the and the that of a of certain of a in an be to not in relation to should the be but at the The second distinction the of of on a does in the be in as are relevant to the of IPRs in the including in in which are to and be the localization of the In the in in with in the context of in and is to to the of For example, if one an of and that terms of a answer insofar as is out of developed through in with the of of for is when on enforcement including are not the A of the on the and localization to and to an and more of the in the enforcement to the of IPRs and the that such a has given rise be in with to IPR localization and enforcement to the In the second of the of of and the for a of the that carried out of The as including has been including in relation to For example, in the which in and insofar as certain are are not for infringements committed of In the the at a and online means of the and of online and the in the have been the of the a example, in law for in relation to including a be that the of has certain as a of the of and relevant For example, the in to with that with the example, in the the a of the it a of law in inter alia a in on the and as the are In the of an in for the in accordance with the as the in a where the content is if it is on the out eg, if the content is on a and is to the The in in which the that such a not been the in and that it is not in application to certain (eg, In however, it should be that other law has the in the but not For example, the application of the in a the of certain as a published on the The that of the the and for a that the of an to determine not have a within the of the In the the has the of the the that the at issue does not an which is such as to it of the In where the relevant is of the be on a In the of means that it be a for to said, in the for the first that the of an that the of content be on a for The clarified that the of of a under on the of which to that the of the is both and to the of whether the (i) technological that be a in the at issue to infringements on and (ii) in content to the (iii) for the of content such which be the that the has a that of to content to the that The that a has that content be is and is the that it on a in the to a if a has a and the has to to that In the the of under trade law with to an online that for

Federico Ast, William R. George, Jamilya Kamalova, Abeer Sharma · 5 authors

Decentralized justice is a novel approach to online dispute resolution based on blockchain, crowdsourcing and game theory for adjudicating claims in a neutral and efficient way. Since the launch of the first decentralized justice platform in 2018, the field has attracted wide interest both from practitioners and academics in Web3 and dispute resolution. The decentralized justice approach is based on the ideas of decentralization, economic incentives and a claim to fairness in its decisions. At the current stage of development, decentralized justice is facing a number of technical, market, legal and ethical challenges for further development. This paper provides a review of the short history of decentralized justice, addresses a number of recurrent topics and lays down a path for future exploration.

Joseph Lee, Zoe Ejiofor

The Web3 Governance: Law and Policy Conference, convened by Dr Joseph Lee and Professor Jyh-An Lee was truly an international affair. There were academics from The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), University of Manchester, China University of Political Science and Law, Monash University (Australia), University of Padova (Italy), Newcastle University and Capital Normal University (China). Each of the academics gave an insightful view on the burning questions within this field of law.

Olivier Moréteau, Luis Muñiz Argûelles

Multiculturalism has been a substantial part of the U.S. experience and a continued source of tension throughout the country’s existence. From a legal point of view, however, the Anglo-American common law is everywhere the driving force, seemingly leaving limited room for the legal systems of the native populations,1 and even less for the forcefully transported African population, though history proves that these populations had at all times legal awareness and agency.2 While it might seem difficult to describe the U.S. legal system as mixed, its day-to-day, decentralized, bottom-up dynamic interacts with, and draws on, a diversity of endogenous and exogenous cultures. If legal and normative phenomena are considered from the perspective of critical3 or radical pluralism,4 there may be more diversity in the United States than one might expect. The present Report, however, focuses on the State of Louisiana and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, both of which qualify as mixed jurisdictions according to mainstream definitions.5 Louisiana is a state in the continental United States. It constitutes the southern portion of a large territory purchased from France in 1803, which, after a short territorial period, became in 1812 the eighteenth state of the Union. The State of Louisiana shares much of its history and culture with other southern states, and its 4.5 million people speak the English language. A Spanish colony for over 400 years, Puerto Rico is a Caribbean island acquired by the United States in 1898. It has a Spanish speaking population of 3.2 million people. Today, the Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico (Associated Free State of Puerto Rico, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) is in a decades long debate as to whether it should become a state of the United States, remain an autonomous territory or become an independent nation. What Louisiana and Puerto Rico have in common is that both have their private law anchored in the civil law tradition, each having a civil code. Louisiana codified its civil law after the Purchase of 1803 (Digest of 1808, Civil Code of 1825, and revised Civil Code of 1870) and engaged in a piecemeal civil-code revision starting in the 1970s. Puerto Rico received the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, which it revised in 1902 and again in 1930, replacing it with a new code in 2020. Regarding their multicultural populations and mixed legal systems, these two jurisdictions have many singularities that justifies that they be discussed in different sections. Louisiana is better known for its Creole culture than for its law.6 As the cradle of jazz, blues, and zydeco music, it is a land of linguistic and cultural diversity resisting the steamroller of a North American model that tends towards uniformity. In this respect, gumbo is an emblematic metaphor of multiculturalism and legal pluralism in Louisiana. It is a beloved local dish that combines a mixture of African, North American, Caribbean, Spanish, and French flavors, where ingredients contribute a unique flavor, while most of them keep their physical identity. A roux is prepared by heating canola oil and flour over medium heat and mixing it well until it reaches a chocolate color. Onions, peppers, and celery are added during the heating process, without burning the roux. Slices of sausage, called “andouille” in Louisiana, find their way into the pot. Chicken broth is then slowly poured in, while the pot is brought to a boil. The mix is seasoned with salt, garlic, and cayenne pepper. Pieces of chicken previously sautéed in olive oil are added, alongside okra, a plant found in West Africa, where it is known as (ki)ngombo in the Bantu language, hence the name “gumbo.”7 The mixture must simmer for a good hour. Duck is a common ingredient, though gumbo can also be cooked with seafood, especially shrimp, abundant in Louisiana, without removing the head. There is no need for a mixer or a blender. Gumbo is served over white rice. The solid ingredients remain perceptible to both the eye and the palate, while the mixture has a unique flavor that varies according to the ingredients, with chunks swimming in the dark soup, which remains quite liquid. Gumbo thus comes from West Africa, which, against its will, provided Louisiana with a large portion of its population, who were beaten with a whip that is not used in the kitchen and brutally enslaved by unscrupulous masters eager to enrich themselves from the production of sugar and cotton. Whether cooked by descendants of settlers from Canada, France, or Spain, of African slaves or Acadian deportees, of sauvages créoles,8 or Yankees, or by boat people from Vietnam, the recipe is a symbol of diversity and It the for in and the of until the Louisiana law is to gumbo in the that it combines chunks of the civil law codified in a civil with a and law which are of common law the of this of the to the ingredients of the legal gumbo a of that the civil law a flavor in a common law the culture the civil law of code while the code remains a It be and to that the process, of common law a blender. It the civil law and its a unique Louisiana, state law is of to and legal different legal civil law from and which the and on the one and the common law from which the by the in a on the each other and then to a mixed, or at the of the of and or whether the of for in Acadian The the of French law by the of name to of the a in the of the colony to and the of as It is that the Civil Code of Louisiana, in after the of the colony by the United States, more or less a of the the of French law more than French in North on the were the where the French culture one has the civil while the of the French the has the the civil and one has to keep both the civil law and the French language. The one is the of the territory of Louisiana purchased by the United States from France in 1803, which became the State of Louisiana in Civil Code and have been in English the Civil comes and then to in and French settlers were by the English in The who to became the of for French is the common law has been it can be both in English and in and is in the French at the de Canada, which became the of by in to remain and has had a Civil Code Code of in Code of tends to the Louisiana Civil Code as a of the of France the it may be as an of a gumbo while its with the that the French from of by de by the to of the of Louisiana to by the of The territory from the of to the by the to the and the to the It should be however, that the in the on in the State of by in The French until the of in in and in and in As a to the and in the system Civil and by a as a of the of of the of The Spanish with the of of the not become until the of in in The and by the and the of by the de the of also the of Louisiana to be by the as the other Spanish The Spanish were more and than the of and the French the the that the legal less than the were during the Spanish period, which a good of Spanish by the population as the colony French the of on Louisiana to France, its The had to remain of that of the Louisiana, which the of the Spanish until the of the of Louisiana by France to the United States in who on 1803, to a system the one that in the other French to or to French on 1803, to the population of the to the United States to to a on 1803, of Louisiana in the name of the United States, received from France a territory Spanish the of Louisiana, the United States the of the and need not be were the of and the hence the of a of with a a and a by the with the to a The of Louisiana the territory of the United a of Louisiana, which to be and and into that become In 1803, the population of the at of which in the of them people of In there were and slaves in Louisiana. The population in of which were in The of the for the territory to for to the as a thus The of and new from and brought and the of the law became the of culture and The Creole in for the of the civil law and the of which in its While the from French to Spanish law in both systems their from and an to Anglo-American common law not be without In to the at it is to point that the the two are not the of the The civil law is a of law in the from the of the of the of the of the which the civil of the and is as a of in in the is to be by the of on the other is a of not on a in the that the The is on the of than on the It is difficult to the their is to the of the of the civil law is in the common law is to a that be without to the of the In the civil law tradition, the is more not the in the of the the who has to the its by the and in with the common law A in the civil law in to in a common law for that a radical in Louisiana not have been or by the legal this is in Louisiana, as an system in after the by the also the of the While both systems the on the civil law the of a by the of the this at common a a The civil law the of of from law with law in after the which the to become the by of the on the of the The common on the other the the of the and the from of the on which It is that in the United States, and the system of of which to a the of the common law other While Louisiana, France and Spain, from law a of the common law on the with from American law in a that on the of In Louisiana the common law the of the civil law that are by the common and a that is limited by a can the of or two after their the by the against In the of common law had the of to the way were and which the of the people that the in at the of the Louisiana Purchase should be to or by the territorial In however, this a The of Louisiana into the United States not without The of the linguistic and legal the other were and of common a that and from the a in of the common law the by to on a to the common a which in a to as the most a of the the of civil law in the The A by the of the the in the two an of the to the of a legal of the civil law is by all and this law is the one which of the population of Louisiana and are to from of which they not themselves without into The to the of the common had no to in to an for legal diversity in a where each state its of to with the U.S. The not a it that it become one in the The of a civil code for the new territory to two both in of an from of French and had received legal in from had to after the their in less than two has it that they the French Civil which had been on the of the of the are that the Code in in Louisiana even while it in at the of the The is that not Louisiana after the also that the Louisiana is not a of the The is not the of to from the Code The Louisiana Code is and and to French law of Spanish as the which a to one of the in Whether the Louisiana Civil Code is French or Spanish remains a in legal It is that the Code its and from many from the French as has it is also that French law and Spanish law were in of the common of and that the Louisiana code on Spanish from the French Code the two were and Spanish that were the Louisiana Civil Code as Spanish in French has the with that on the French to the Spanish which proves that the of the that they in and law the who became an the of the until the of the the French Civil from the as as the of a which by the Louisiana as more to the local of the Louisiana are the of the Louisiana which many more than its French Louisiana at the not and the civil law had to be to and in the common who were of the of the civil law that one of the of were from French legal during the as a part of the population an English hence the The Code into English and in both and its both linguistic on an to the the Louisiana the of the French as the source in the of a the English and the French which to the law by the law that in the of France and the law that in the the of the not to the law of Louisiana to the of the civil law and the of the the of a the law in all by the as the French of the Civil Code had The of the Louisiana Code the law where the new not with the this it at the of to the name than the though the by the French Civil as a radical of and a of civil in to this its to become an of of the without with the The of the of a than a code were the new a to the Spanish for a more and the had to whether or not this by the In the of the had the law as they in the where it that an a not in the a that had not in of the of the of the of law the of to in France, in the of in the civil one to it by for the in Louisiana, and the their and their with the which a source of debate in the less than it had been to The found no better than to in became known as the Civil Code of Louisiana, that of The law for a in the were to that two had to be which were with The Code revised after the Civil in to to and other It in English who were and not to the of the The that one is with a than a code remains an of The Civil Code is a of the legal with other from the common law and other is by from the common The mix or both the Code and the While to the of the common in the to a system to that of the other The a common law also by France during the it into a system with is used in both civil and A by in the and the Spanish Civil codified in of an of civil and common law The in 1812 from the common law flavor, and the civil law by the of the common law system by In Louisiana, the Civil Code to the common law with legal in the Code of Civil The of the Civil Code are and in common law are in in the Louisiana to is found in other Civil which a the civil law and common law the of the with French and Spanish in the of the other endogenous and exogenous should not be even they are to of radical who not at the law from the perspective of the of from the point of of each to a of whether legal or not in the There must be of African the gumbo without themselves The of in or in not their may the way their and their of There is also of the and the who have their and The history of Louisiana law as and by the is to be more of the of the as the and The boat people from who as the of Louisiana contribute to the of while legal It may seem to for legal pluralism in the Civil Code as this is the of the civil law of the Code is to that of law are law and the two of the law in the civil law should be limited to of it not the of Louisiana not seem to a it is that the of the Civil Code room to law by the their their and in that the of and may multiculturalism to the of the legal The of are and the of on by radical though this is in a The Louisiana Code draws from The of the by known as the the of the from Spanish as well as from the French and who much of the French Civil It has been that the of the Code in to the of and the the of and from a mixture of Spanish, and English on the of in and were on as a source everywhere in the United and also in Louisiana. In the Louisiana the Louisiana State with a to the Civil it prepared a piecemeal revision of the by The revision of each is prepared by a of and While most of them the people and their local a have brought to the mix ingredients from the In to the to French and Spanish from the of and or from law can be found in the revision of the law of the of the from and can be in the revision of the law of the of the common law ingredients have also been into the Louisiana common law though of portion and in of remain in the The added on the of or is a more common law its common law the it is of a of the law of the common law are from the of states, in of is in and with which is the of of the French Civil the the of the in the of is in a Civil as the of it that the of a The added are of common law and Louisiana law in with the law of the Civil Code in and in much to the of who to keep the Louisiana for a civil law system in the English language, a civil law than the of the common The Louisiana of the civil code in though the of of the French Civil Code were by the of common law as were the of American in the United States in the alongside other mixed as Africa, and Louisiana has a to the civil law tradition, from the of the common law and its legal this Louisiana also English of of French legal as civil law by and and of and of the French legal in the Louisiana also a in the Louisiana Civil and the Civil Code Louisiana has been the of the French civil law in for two The French to that the American codified their civil law by the model of the As as the French one should not that the Louisiana Civil Code of has been more than a of The Louisiana Civil Code is the of the Spanish civil long in much of and it much in in the not its civil code until 1889, also with an of the Louisiana Civil The of the Louisiana Civil Code as well as the French Civil Code in the in French by and in Spanish by these that other of the as the of the and the Civil Code of The of the Louisiana civil even one in the and even It even the of the civil law tradition, the Code the by of a civil code for the state of civil by the in served as a model for the Civil Louisiana, the United States also received a civil law by way of in the and of the which of the United on of with legal while to In and to be The Civil Code of Louisiana, in English the is again in and in in its The Louisiana not though French remains by over of the state population and is in of While from to a of the cultural and linguistic The French of the Civil Code is on a of the and of the civil law of Louisiana, the to be are of French the the code on two A also and the of Civil is a Spanish which may the Louisiana in as or are and the they the of this legal the of its multicultural Whether it is to the of this Report, though it and in mixed and not mixed The Puerto legal system is a mixed, mixed system with other mixed legal systems the The mixture is to one in and as private Anglo-American as and law and legal and as the of the legal The for the mixture and in history and which to a short of Spanish and U.S. in the Puerto Rico as a Spanish colony in during to the It by and mixture is one and to Puerto Rico as part of the in the of Louisiana and the southern United States, these slaves were and brought to not from a from African were not from their native they were also from their The and especially the and legal from which they not transported to their and in the Caribbean, the or even the of legal as can in the with with and with a long history of legal they were over by As as the local population there are of the native or population, this though and The to local and by as de were and they have an it more in where the population more than in the The legal mixture one in of and is the of the or of and cultural In the Caribbean, until the of and North American and the to a land where they there a The two at times they to local the new were an and not into The into of legal and cultural that in more local not in the Puerto Rico, a a Spanish colony after the of the of its and North American in the decades of the than African which Spanish until the the Puerto Rico, and were the of had a Civil in 1889, to the in and had in a a a land and continental and the of the Puerto Rico a Spanish for a American and in the to a in the United States and in and Puerto the times called in became a U.S. for years, the to in local the to the more over local the United States over has become the U.S. in the of the where are Puerto Rico to the United States by the of of The where a of continued to be a and after from the United States. American in the Caribbean the of the of the which two decades from at the of its A in by the United States, its from and to of as of to become a and its land that continued until the The a debate in the United States the legal of the In the many of the Spanish were into in the United States had to to with Puerto Rico, a speaking territory with legal and The to that not with and of the new A of called the Puerto Rico an one that to had in the of the United States, not have to become a state the nation. The which in the to keep the private in at the of the Spanish U.S. of it in and in to the U.S. the of the new that of and which and the American not have to the legal long in on the a system had and with during as a private in The Spanish Civil and the the and other of private from the Spanish were with to with of from the Louisiana for to the 1902 and American the of and a U.S. which a with then and the as U.S. and and law were from from and and on U.S. Puerto Rico a of and that had been in the American law became that in the United States and in the all two of the American Code had been with English the and law were also as were American were in law which by the had the American model of legal with in the of the American and the American of however, after the Spanish Civil as is by the of Spanish and French and American in were in the a new Civil Code into law in 2020. new code a more from and the new Civil and than from the American one the and of and both on the or of the are by the new code a by the that the of Puerto Rico into the United States as a state in the which the of codified private to the legal were for by the who on called Puerto than tradition, and who American over local which called the As has been it is to the than to describe the be that as it it that as long as Puerto Rico Spanish as its common and American private law in other than with an American and especially as most also and The have been a source of for the of American States, which has a model for and for two have not American have found a source of in that for a more of to be and to keep on they have to for Puerto have to with the legal mixture they have and at in both the Spanish, and the American legal and much as they at is other of the debate are cultural and Spanish language, legal and American to the United States and its on to in and there in which in and land the system and people and and and the in not in a mixed with a mixed even at times it its cultural and legal an and who that should not of the from the that were not The and for their with to and The that and slaves were of the most of law and a in legal on to and their to their and were not of that their or had they were of of by and of them to their and legal awareness to the of and to the of are descendants of the at the of the of the are of or or descendants of the of of or physical are of of their or their at the of the of the is the a A may be by a or should have known that the the other to on it to and the other in may be limited to the or the as a of the on the on a without is not of that to by it to may of and and be by the of who have had a of for of an not for or of or are to a physical or or by the on the or of the

A. V. Chaykina

The article examines the institutions of civil procedural law, in which, according to the author, it is possible and necessary to use distributed ledger technology (blockchain technology). The author argues that the technology is applicable not only for private legal purposes, but can signifi -cantly change a number of familiar rules of legal proceedings. In particular, the technology of distributed registers can change the procedural guarantees of the independence of state judges, more often involve active citizens in the administration of justice, change the system for reviewing court decisions, contribute to the unification of judicial practice, and reduce the judicial burden on judges. The author also sees the possible benefits of the technology for cases, the making of decisions on which in the future can be implemented using artificial intelligence and machine data analysis. Thus, subject to the correct use of blockchain technology, the state will be able to ensure the modification of those guarantees of justice that are currently considered poorly implemented or unreliable, including due to the development of digital technologies.

Zeenat Beebeejaun, Alessio Faccia

Abstract The intrinsic complex nature of Contracts in the Energy sector leads to frequent international disputes. The complexity is generated by (i) the involvement of multiple stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests (Multinational Companies, State-Owned Companies, Host States and their citizens); (ii) transnational jurisdictions divergence (local laws, investor’s country laws, international practices and regulations); and (iii) changes in the laws and regulations over time (long-term nature of Energy contracts). Therefore, not surprisingly, traditional litigation in the Energy sector is often replaced with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) through the recurrent application of Arbitration clauses. This article aims to improve dispute management in the Energy sector by encouraging best ADR practices. Modelling and Conceptual research approaches are adopted to encourage the introduction of the smart contract. The analyses triggered the drafting of a model for contractual automation. Recurring top clauses are mapped and associated with Equity solutions. Moreover, a comprehensive, efficient and feasible ‘Electronic ADR’ framework is shaped to prevent (or automatically settle) disputes in the Energy sector.

Іryna Davydova

-

Amy J. Schmitz

No abstract is available for this record.

Christof Koolen

No abstract is available for this record.

Amy J. Schmitz

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) built in the blockchain are quietly revolutionizing ideas around digital assets despite their questionable status under current law. Furthermore, the smart contracts that control many NFTs are disrupting the way deals are done. At the same time, disputes regarding NFTs and smart contracts are inevitable, and parties will need means for dealing with these highly technical issues. This chapter tackles this challenge and proposes that parties turn to online dispute resolution (“ODR”) to efficiently and fairly resolve NFT and smart contract disputes. Furthermore, the chapter acknowledges the benefits and challenges of current means for addressing blockchain issues and proposes ideas for how designers could address those challenges and incorporate ODR to provide efficient and fair resolutions.

Michael Davar, Ioana Bratu

No abstract is available for this record.

Florence Guillaume, Sven Riva

For the past twenty years, the use of the Internet has facilitated international commercial relations between people who do not know each other and who are geographically distant. Disputes resulting from e-commerce have undermined the supremacy of state courts, which have proved unable to provide an appropriate response to small claims arising in an international context and raising delicate questions as to jurisdiction and applicable law. The length, cost and complexity of the procedure, as well as the risk associated with the international enforcement of the judgment are deterrent factors that led e-commerce platforms to develop online dispute resolution (ODR). Thanks in part to the removal of intermediaries, the transfer of cryptocurrencies and other crypto assets using blockchain technology has further facilitated international commercial relations. The decentralised and distributed characteristics of blockchain technology and the pseudonymity of its transactions has led to a new economy growing independently from nation states. This technology has brought an additional degree of complication in the application of Private International Law (PIL) rules by removing the illusion that online transactions can be linked to the territory of a state. Smart contracts also allow the creation of digital entities that can enter into commercial relations. The first Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) was the source of a resounding dispute between parties with diverging interests, which had to be urgently resolved without any access to state courts or a dispute resolution mechanism. This case revealed the risk of disputes in the blockchain environment and the resulting legal uncertainty, and led to the emergence of various models of blockchain dispute resolution (BDR) mechanisms inspired by the solutions developed in e-commerce. This chapter deals with the application of PIL rules to the resolution of disputes involving DAOs. The authors first analyse what is a DAO and whether DAOs legally qualify as companies. What is at stake is the legal personality of DAOs and their capacity to conduct legal proceedings. The authors then examine whether disputes involving DAOs may be brought before state courts. This analysis highlights the problems related to the location, pseudonymity, and uncertainty regarding the legal personality of the participants of the blockchain environment, which challenge the jurisdiction of state courts in case of a dispute. The authors then draw on the experience acquired in the field of e-commerce to examine the advisability of setting up alternative dispute resolution mechanisms available to the actors of the blockchain environment. Based on an analysis of existing BDR mechanisms, the authors examine whether and how BDRs are likely to avoid a denial of justice and bring legal certainty to disputes related to contractual relationships with DAOs formalised through smart contracts as well as disputes related to the governance of DAOs. The authors find that a BDR decision which can be directly enforced through smart contracts confers effective justice to the actors of the blockchain environment. Finally, the authors address the more delicate issue of the enforcement of a BDR decision on non-crypto assets. This approach shows that a type of justice based on crypto-economic incentives challenges the concept of fair justice. This could be an impediment to obtaining the assistance of state authorities for the enforcement of a BDR decision outside of the blockchain environment as this type of decision could be considered contrary to public policy. The analysis is mostly based on Swiss PIL and major PIL conventions. In this chapter, the authors outline the contours of a new private justice system designed to provide decentralised autonomous justice to the actors of the crypto economy.

Lakshmana Kumar Ramasamy, Seifedine Kadry

A smart contract is a technology that allows the creation of a negotiation process capable of running independently, without human intervention. This chapter intends to frame the figure of the “smart contract” from a legal point of view. It shows that the smart contract is an advanced tool in the context of a contractual relationship. The possibility of making a smart contract “the contract” in a legal meaning opens up scenarios which have hitherto been unexplored for contract law. It is still difficult to determine to what extent current rules are adequate to govern this phenomenon. The chapter will therefore conclude with a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the smart contract technology and with some suggestions for a future smart contract law.

Carla Reyes

A contract generally only binds its parties. Security agreements, which create a security interest in specific personal property, stand out as a glaring exception to this rule. Under certain conditions, security interests not only bind the creditor and debtor, but also third-party creditors seeking to lend against the same collateral. To receive this extraordinary benefit, creditors must put the world on notice, usually by filing a financing statement with the state in which the debtor is located. Unfortunately, the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Article 9 filing system fails to provide actual notice to interested parties and introduces risk of heavy financial losses. To solve this problem, this Article introduces a smart-contract-based U.C.C.-1 form built using Lexon, an innovative new programming language that enables the development of smart contracts in English. The proposed “Lexon U.C.C. Financing Statement” does much more than merely replicate the financing statement in digital form; it also performs several U.C.C. rules so that, for the first time, the filing system works as intended. In demonstrating that such a system remains compatible with existing law, the Lexon U.C.C. Financing Statement also reveals important lessons about the interaction of technology and commercial law. This Article brings cryptolaw to the U.C.C. in three parts. Part I examines the failure of the U.C.C. Article 9 filing system to achieve actual notice and argues that blockchain technology and smart contracts can help the system function as intended. Part II introduces the Lexon U.C.C. Financing Statement, demonstrating how the computer code implements U.C.C. provisions. Part II also examines the goals that influenced the design of the Lexon U.C.C. Financing Statement, discusses the new programming language used to build it, and argues that the prototype could be used now, under existing law. Part III proposes five innovations for the Article 9 filing system enabled by the Lexon U.C.C. Financing Statement. Part III then considers the broader implications of the project for commercial law, legal research around smart contracts, and the interplay between technology-neutral law and a lawyer’s increasingly important duty of technological competence. Ultimately, by providing the computer code needed to build the Lexon U.C.C. Financing Statement, this Article demonstrates not only that crypto-legal structures are possible, but that they can simplify the law and make it more accessible.

Catherine Martin Christopher

Explores the implications of transactional scripts used in situations where there is less than total trust between the parties. In particular, this Article asks the question of how parties to these next generation transactional scripts can seek redress and remedies in the event that the transactional script does not perform according to the parties' intent. Until parties feel safe that any errors can be corrected, large-scale implementation of transactional scripts will be hobbled. Part II of this Article articulates why the term "transactional scripts" is preferable to "smart contracts" and describes the utility and potential of transactional scripts. Part III identifies several factors that hinder greater expansion of the use of transactional scripts. It goes on to identify uncertainty of enforcement as the most important barrier to transactional script innovation, finding that parties will be reluctant to entrust bigger and more complex transactions to transactional scripts until the parties are comfortable that an external mechanism is capable of correcting errors in the execution of the transaction. This lack of reliable enforcement mechanisms is a problem exacerbated by the characteristic of distributed ledger technology, which is to move only forward, preventing revisions or reversals of preexisting entries. Part IV explores and critiques possible mechanisms that may be able to provide error correction, including statutory law, private law, online dispute resolution, public/private regulatory partnership, and common law. Part V concludes the Article, noting that the expansion of transactional scripts' utility will be tethered to the security provided by available error-correction mechanisms. Only as contracting parties become assured that the integrity of their transactional intent will be effectuated will transactional scripts be adopted for use.

Hugo García Larriva, Carla Cepeda Altamirano

No es extraño escuchar sobre la posibilidad de que los abogados, jueces y árbitros sean reemplazados por máquinas o robots en el futuro. No es extraño escuchar acerca de la tecnología blockchain y como esta se utiliza con más frecuencia en transacciones comerciales. Es innegable que la tecnología avanza a pasos desmedidos para revolucionar la práctica jurídica, dejando atrás la regulación y el ejercicio profesional “tradicional”. Sin embargo, en Ecuador, sentimos que esta realidad es ajena a nuestro entorno, quizá porque tenemos una industria con reducido desarrollo tecnológico, porque culturalmente nos cuesta salir de tradiciones y ritualismos –especialmente respecto a la administración de justicia– o quizá porque los abogados tenemos fama de ser adversos al cambio y huir de conceptos técnicos que van más allá del Derecho. Este artículo busca traer algunas de las discusiones que se encuentran en auge en el foro arbitral internacional sobre la interacción de la tecnología y el arbitraje y aterrizarlas a la realidad actual del Ecuador.

Pietro Ortolani

No abstract is available for this record.

A. A. Volos

No abstract is available for this record.

Mimi Zou

While technology is playing an increasingly important role in courtrooms around the world, Chinese courts are adopting and experimenting with deep technologies at a much faster pace and on a greater scale than their counterparts in most other countries. In recent years, Chinese courts have seen major developments in online dispute resolution platforms, specialized Internet courts, and the wide use of AI tools across case management, dispute resolution and adjudication processes in personal injury claims. Other novel technologies such as distributed ledgers, blockchain and smart contracts solutions are currently being developed and rolled out in several local and specialised courts. The Chinese leadership has established a policy framework of “Smart Courts” with the aims of enhancing judicial efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness. This article provides an overview of how Chinese courts have swiftly embraced the adoption of new technologies under this framework over the past few years, with consideration of how Smart Courts may handle personal injury claims.

Han Jong Kyu

No abstract is available for this record.

Shaanan Cohney, David A. Hoffman

No abstract is available for this record.