Hot Springs Research Institute of Kanagawa Prefecture
21st Century New Jurisprudence A System of Institutional Evolution Chapter I: The Essence of Law and the Definition of True Jurisprudence Chapter II: Foundations of Jurisprudence — The Co-Evolutionary Theory of Procedural and Substantive Justice Chapter III: Mechanisms for Integrating Jurisprudence with Social Governance Chapter IV: How Legal Rules Transform the National Economy Chapter V: Unifying the Art of Reform with Legal Provisions This system proposes that law is fundamentally a teleological order whose legitimacy derives not from procedural completeness but from its capacity to realize substantive justice — the protection of life, liberty, and human flourishing. It diagnoses contemporary institutions through the "diagnosis-treatment-construction" triad, identifying structural violence embedded in healthcare monopolies, cryptocurrency markets, and sports governance as pathologies that invert means into ends. Procedural justice, left uncoupled from substantive purpose, self-accelerates into illegitimacy through cumulative distortion, feedback failure, and legitimacy erosion — a pattern confirmed by comparative history from Qin to Rome to modern America. The remedy is institutional self-calibration: sunset review, independent fact-finding, audit-based compensation, and rapid correction channels that keep law tethered to its teleological anchor. Reform proceeds through a four-phase roadmap balancing synchronicity (preventing regulatory arbitrage) with sequential constraint (avoiding systemic overload), guided by 31 diagnostic conditions that tie every provision to a specific pathology and cure. The underlying logic unifies healthcare's five therapeutic mechanisms, cryptocurrency's six-dimensional governance framework, and cross-border regulatory alignment under the "shared loss principle" — ensuring risk-creators bear costs, not society. Law's ultimate aim is not to protect capital's freedom but to expand individuals' substantive freedom, making the economy serve comprehensive human development. In an era of AI adjudication, digital assets, and ecological crisis, this jurisprudence demonstrates that institutional evolution — the continuous rebuilding of the causal chain between rules and their purposes — is the only reliable path to steering civilization toward life, liberty, and prosperity.
Abstract With rapid urbanization and expanding infrastructure, construction contract disputes are increasing in volume and complexity, challenging traditional adjudication. This study proposes a domain-specific legal artificial intelligence (AI) system for construction contract disputes via hybrid knowledge integration based on the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) paradigm, integrating five core legal texts and 500 adjudication cases within a dual-engine architecture. The knowledge base encodes legal concepts, relations, and rules to enable structured semantic inference. The DeepSeek-R1 reasoning engine analyzes case facts and legal logic via constrained generation, while the BGE-M3 retrieval module matches legal provisions and precedents using multivector indexing. A tripartite evaluation framework—semantic similarity, legal provision citation accuracy, and issue prediction F1 score—validates system performance. The hybrid knowledge model outperforms single-source models, achieving scores of 0.736, 0.952, and 0.937, respectively, while significantly reducing judicial document generation time. This study offers a theoretical and empirical basis for legal AI in Chinese construction disputes, demonstrating how integrating diverse legal knowledge enhances intelligent judicial assistance within China’s jurisdiction. It also provides a scalable methodological reference for the advancement of smart justice, with explicit recognition of its current jurisdictional limitations.
Electoral conflicts continue to pose a danger to the consolidation of democracy in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Efforts to resolve conflicts is often criticised as the use of conventional dispute resolution procedures are proving to be cumbersome, expensive, opaque and logistically challenging, all of which erode public confidence in election results. The study seeks to design and validate an integrated e-technology framework that enhances the speed, accessibility and credibility of electoral dispute resolution in SADC by aligning legal reforms with digital tools for filing, evidence management and adjudication. Six SADC member states were purposively selected: Zimbabwe, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique and Mauritius. Selection was based on, firstly, electoral dispute history: all six have experienced post-election litigation 2018-2025, ensuring relevance; secondly, digital variance: South Africa and Mauritius represent high digital readiness per ITU ICT Development Index 2024, while Malawi and Mozambique represent low infrastructure contexts, strengthening transferability; and finally legal diversity in all six. This study used primary data collected through 150 structured surveys of IT experts and officials across the six countries, 75 key informant interviews (KIIs) with judges and national elections commissions (NECs)/electoral management bodies (EMBs) legal officers. Secondary data included electoral court judgments 2018-2025, observer reports, SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections 2021 and national electoral acts to map legal gaps. The results also show that an integrated e-technology framework can minimise the cost of pursuing electoral justice by 42% on average, improve access for rural litigants by enabling mobile filing, promote transparency through real-time case tracking and reduce median case resolution time from 112 days to 38 days in pilot simulations. The proposed framework integrates four interlocking components, namely blockchain[1]based evidence preservation, e-filing and case management portals, virtual hearings, online mediation platforms, and open data dashboards. The study concludes that while digitalising electoral fairness in SADC is both essential and feasible, institutional and political shortcomings cannot be addressed by technology alone.
As the world is witnessing the emergence of Metaverse, which is an immersive decentralised digital environment, there has been a sudden rise in unprecedented cross border economic and social activities which has facilitated transactions through the medium of virtual goods, NFTs, digital avatars and user generated content. This shift deviates from the conventional definition of Intellectual property and hence presents a notable threat in the territorial and national legal systems that is built on the roots of these grundnorm leading to substantial jurisdictional and enforcement gaps. This paper adopts a systemic literature review method by blending academic research, legal precedents, and policy documents to put forward how the core concepts of metaverse like user anonymity, decentralized blockchain structures, instantaneous duplication of digital assets, and borderless virtual economies unsettle the framework of traditional frameworks of intellectual property. With the help of comparative analysis of landmark case like Hermès International v. Rothschild, Nike v. Stock X, and Juventus F.C. v. Blockeras, the study puts forward the different challenges that the modern-day courts are facing in tackling with emerging virtual disputes while implementing the copyright and trademark doctrines. The paper further delves into the efficiency of international agreements like TRIPS and the Berne Convention in underlining the dispersion in global regulatory services. Alongside problem identification, this paper also proposes a hybrid framework that would bring together blockchain verification, cryptographic rights management, AI-based monitoring, legal harmonization with the help of model treaties and statutory reforms accompanying decentralised arbitration mechanisms. The study concludes that effective, equitable, and sustainable IP enforcement in the metaverse requires coordinated international cooperation, collaborative multi-stakeholder governance models balancing robust IP pr...
Open access
2 source records
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
Legal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 Challenges
This article examines whether the procedural framework of the Federal Tax Ombudsman (“FTO”) in Pakistan, established under the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, to adjudicate complaints of maladministration arising under federal fiscal statutes, may be strengthened through the integration of Kleros, a blockchain-based crowdsourced dispute resolution mechanism. Drawing upon an original empirical dataset of one hundred and twenty-four cases registered between January 2023 and February 2025, the article finds that the average resolution period of cases before the FTO is approximately 191.3 days, rising to 503.3 days for complex matters that traverse review, representation, and remand, whereas the Kleros mechanism resolves disputes in an average of 13.23 days across 2,111 adjudicated cases. The article also situates its findings within institutional economics, identifying the FTO as a hierarchical governance structure and the Kleros mechanism as a market-based alternative. It views the difference in resolution times as a measure of transaction costs for taxpayers and administration. By measuring these costs, the article depicts that a market-based adjudicatory system significantly reduces them, enhancing institutional efficiency. It provides empirical evidence, illustrating the welfare gains from institutional substitution in transaction cost economics and institutional change. Against this benchmark, three integration models are proposed, namely a hybrid concurrent fact-finding model, a delegated crowdsourcing model with conditional executive review, and an amicus curiae model for technically complex matters such as the taxation of digital assets, each anchored in the updates introduced under Kleros V2, including Soulbound Tokens that enable expert-gated juror selection. The article identifies two structural gaps that necessitate reform, namely the revolving-door capture within the FTO secretariat and the jurisprudential bottleneck created at the Presidential secretariat following the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It concludes that phased, pilot-based integration, commencing with the amicus curiae model in respect of complex subject-matter complaints, is jurisprudentially defensible, economically efficient, and operationally feasible within the legal framework of Pakistan.
Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs) raise fundamental questions for private law. While scholarly and regulatory attention has primarily focused on the legal status and governance of DAOs, comparatively little consideration has been given to how disputes involving these organisations should be resolved. This article examines the suitability of dispute resolution mechanisms for DAO-related disputes. Analysing the principal categories of disputes that have emerged in practice, the article critically evaluates blockchain-based dispute resolution mechanisms alongside traditional arbitration, in light of due process, enforceability, party autonomy, and the unique features of decentralised governance. It argues that neither purely code-based dispute resolution nor conventional litigation provides a satisfactory response to the complexity of DAO disputes. It concludes that arbitration, appropriately adapted to the technological and organisational realities of DAOs, offers the most promising framework for balancing decentralisation, legal certainty, and procedural fairness within the evolving Web3 ecosystem.
The emergence of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) as a novel digital asset class has precipitated significant legal uncertainty across multiple jurisdictions. Unlike fungible cryptocurrencies, NFTs encode uniqueness and provenance on distributed ledger technology, yet existing legal frameworks — conceived for tangible property, intellectual creations, and financial instruments — have proven inadequate in determining their precise legal character. This article engages in a rigorous comparative legal analysis of the legal status of NFTs in Uzbekistan, the European Union, and the United States of America, examining how each jurisdiction has — or has failed to — accommodate NFTs within property law, intellectual property law, securities regulation, and consumer protection frameworks. A central concern of the article is the application of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms — including arbitration, mediation, and online dispute resolution (ODR) — to NFT-related conflicts. The article identifies critical lacunae in domestic and international legal frameworks and proposes concrete legislative reforms tailored to the Uzbek legal context, while drawing on best practices from comparator jurisdictions. The study concludes that regulatory clarity, combined with adaptable ADR infrastructure, is essential to foster a secure and equitable digital economy in the Republic of Uzbekistan and beyond.
The emergence of blockchain technology has fundamentally transformed the architecture of trust, transparency, and enforcement in legal transactions. By enabling decentralized, immutable, and cryptographically verifiable records, blockchain challenges traditional legal institutions that have historically relied on intermediaries such as courts, financial institutions, and regulatory authorities to establish trust and validate transactions. In this evolving digital ecosystem, smart contracts—self-executing agreements embedded in blockchain code—further redefine contractual relationships by automating performance, reducing transaction costs, and minimizing the need for human intervention. This article critically examines the legal implications of blockchain and smart contracts, with particular emphasis on their impact on foundational principles of contract law, mechanisms of dispute resolution, regulatory compliance, and evidentiary standards. It interrogates whether algorithmic execution can adequately substitute for legal interpretation and equitable considerations traditionally exercised by courts. Additionally, the article explores persistent challenges, including issues of enforceability, jurisdictional ambiguity in cross-border transactions, technological vulnerabilities, and the rigidity of coded agreements. While blockchain technology promises increased efficiency, transparency, and security in legal transactions, it simultaneously raises complex questions regarding legal accountability, allocation of liability, and the adaptability of existing legal frameworks. The analysis underscores that uncritical reliance on technological solutions may undermine core legal values such as fairness and justice. Accordingly, the article concludes that a hybrid legal approach—integrating technological innovation with established doctrinal safeguards and regulatory oversight—is essential for responsibly shaping the future of legal transactions in an increasingly digital society.
Caio Vinícius Sousa e Souza, Paulo Sérgio Velten Pereira
A Justiça brasileira encontra-se sobrecarregada, ineficiente e incapaz de lidar com a crescente litigiosidade, especialmente frente aos desafios impostos pela era digital. A emergência de disputas oriundas de relações tokenizadas, contratos inteligentes e transações em blockchain exige uma reformulação nos meios tradicionais de resolução de conflitos. Nesse contexto, o presente artigo analisa a viabilidade e os limites das cortes descentralizadas em redes blockchain como um novo modelo de acesso à justiça. Parte-se da constatação da crise do modelo estatal centralizado e da necessidade de um sistema de justiça multiportas, no qual se integram mecanismos extrajudiciais, plataformas ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) e, mais recentemente, estruturas decisórias distribuídas em DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations). A partir da análise de experiências internacionais, como a legislação mexicana de 2024, e de fundamentos técnicos da tecnologia blockchain, sustenta-se que as cortes descentralizadas podem funcionar como vias eficazes para resolução de conflitos de baixa complexidade. Ainda que limitadas quanto à tutela de direitos subjetivos densos, essas plataformas podem aliviar significativamente o sistema estatal, tornando-o mais célere e eficiente. O estudo propõe, assim, uma reflexão sobre a reconfiguração da jurisdição no século XXI e o papel do Estado na regulação dessa nova arquitetura da justiça.
In a world where traditional governance structures creak beneath the pressure of borderless digital trade, the advent of stateless virtual economies-driven by blockchain and made real through Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) has set in motion a seismic change in the way that disputes form and are resolved. This essay breaks free of traditional paradigms to rethink Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in a world governed not by states, but by a virtual world where everything is connected one way or another. Looking to the future of justice in decentralized systems, this paper explores the legal black hole DAOS inhabit today where no court has jurisdiction, no one country has authority. We look at how post-quantum cryptography and AI-informed legal design may be able to protect justice in a world where reality is fluid, and identities are cryptographically concealed. This is not just an academic treatise it is a roadmap for Decentralized Autonomous Justice (DAJ): a future where conflicts are settled by smart contracts, overseen by international consensus, and shielded from the quantum unknowable. It reimagines the standards of fairness, due process, and enforcement for a generation that grew up not in courthouses, but in source code.
The rapid digitalization of wealth in the form of cryptocurrency and virtual assets has dramatically transformed the results of the matrimonial conflicts and alimony payments. With the gr owing adoption of decentralized and pseudonymous digital assets as constituents of individual financial portfolios, family courts face new issues in their classification, disclosure, valuation, and enforcement. The legal issues discussed in this paper include the legal complications of cryptocurrency as marital property, the risk of concealing assets through blockchain anonymity, and challenges of valuation, associated with the excessive price volatility, tax exposure, enforcement challenges linked to the control of private keys, and jurisdictional challenges across borders. It also examines new legal and forensic systems and contractual protection mechanisms that are intended to manage these issues. The paper claims that although the classical tenets of equitable allocation and full disclosure are still underpinning, the concept of clarity in the law and judicial flexibility is needed to provide equal justice, openness, and enforceability of the divorce process concerning cryptocurrency and virtual possessions.
The rapid evolution of digital technologies has fundamentally disrupted traditional arbitration processes, introducing new complexities and opportunities at the intersection of blockchain technology, smart contracts, and online arbitration. This study examines the legal and practical challenges arising from the integration of blockchain technology, smart contracts, and online arbitration. The research addresses the problem of adapting traditional dispute resolution frameworks to decentralized automated agreements that transcend national borders. Using doctrinal analysis and comparative review of legal sources, case studies, and real-world platforms, the study identifies key types of smart contracts and evaluates on-chain and off-chain arbitration models. Findings highlight both the efficiency and transparency offered by blockchain-based dispute resolution, as well as persistent issues such as jurisdictional uncertainty, enforceability, technical vulnerabilities, and privacy risks. The results underscore the need for clear legal standards, technical safeguards, and the adoption of advanced technologies. The study recommends promoting interoperability, specifying governing law in smart contracts, and leveraging AI and off-chain execution systems to enhance the robustness and adaptability of digital dispute resolution.
When a smart contract executes exactly as programmed, it can still fail to do what the parties actually agreed to. This paper examines a structural gap between legal contracts, written in ordinary language that tolerates ambiguity by design, and executable code, which cannot process ambiguity at all. Drawing on Accord Project's own teaching documentation, the paper shows that even the most influential open-source framework for smart legal contracts treats deliberately open legal standards, such as "in the receiver's opinion" or "force majeure," as simple binary variables, embedding legal indeterminacy into code without resolving it. This gap acquires particular urgency in South Korea, where a February 2027 deadline requires tokenized securities platforms to register under a new distributed ledger framework, amid technological fragmentation across at least five competing architectures and a "digital native" model in which the ledger itself, without a parallel central registry, becomes the sole legal record. The paper argues that closing this gap does not require new technology, but a governance requirement modeled on a well-established regulatory pattern found in civil aviation and other fields: certifying verifiable outcomes without prescribing the specific technique used to achieve them. It concludes with a concrete recommendation for Korea's forthcoming distributed ledger standard requirements guideline.
The displacement of traditionally negotiated contracts by technological substitutes-smart contracts, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), platform-governed gig arrangements, and AI-generated agreements-poses foundational challenges to U.S. contract law that existing doctrine is ill-equipped to resolve. This article examines how code-and algorithm-based governance restructures contractual relationships, analyzing fragmented legal responses at both the federal and state levels. It further distinguishes between complements (mechanisms that enhance contractual efficiency and enforceability) and substitutes (instruments that displace contractual governance functions altogether). The article argues that U.S. federalism generates a characteristic problem: the same jurisdictional competition that enables rapid regulatory experimentation simultaneously produces temporal fragmentation, interpretive divergence, and compliance asymmetries, imposing disproportionate costs on smaller commercial actors. The staggered state adoption of the 2022 U.C.C. amendments exemplifies this structural tension. The analysis contends that distinctive features of the U.S. civil litigation system-including broad discovery, the American Rule on attorney fees, and opt-out class actions-create an enforcement gap that drives endogenous market demand for self-executing substitutes and automated complements as alternatives to costly formal adjudication. Critically, this litigation-driven technological innovation is not normatively neutral: while it enhances efficiency and reduces transaction costs, it simultaneously erodes public accountability and renders large portions of state-made law practically ineffective. Unresolved questions of worker classification, platform accountability, and AI-generated intellectual property ownership reveal the outer limits of a legal order confronting technologies indifferent to territorial boundaries, necessitating a deeper reassessment of assent, unconscionability, fairness, and accountability in modern U.S. contract law.
Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) is considered to be used in processing crypto assets, constructing smart contracts and data governance. As the evidence shows that application of this technology has become beneficial, number of business models created by this technology is increasingly large. However, in Myanmar, not all of business models attributed to this technology are legally allowed yet. This fact made the research to explore why there was a ban on minting crypto currency in Myanmar. However, other opportunities to use the cryptographic and block-chain concepts have not been blocked. Based on the guidance and pro and con articulations relating to this cutting-edge technology, this research offers the view that the Central Bank of Myanmar is responsible in opening up more business models. The bank requires revisiting its order or issuing the supplemental manual not to abuse the advanced technology
The emergence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) represents a paradigm shift in organizational governance, replacing traditional corporate structures with algorithmically governed models on blockchain networks. This article provides an analysis of the private international law (PIL) challenges posed by the BRICS Pay Consortium, a proposed decentralized payment messaging system for BRICS member states, modeled on DAO principles. The BRICS Pay Consortium DAO highlights a fundamental tension between the transnational and often decentralized nature of blockchain and conventional territorial legal frameworks. The Consortium is designed to operate without a central headquarters or legal personality, thus undermining traditional PIL connecting factors-such as domicile, registered office, and principal place of business-used to determine jurisdiction and applicable law. The article examines divergent global framework for the regulation of DAOs. By evaluating current responses-including statutory legal wrappers and on-chain dispute resolution-this article demonstrates that existing doctrines are inadequate for decentralized entities. It concludes that existing frameworks on jurisdiction and choice of law are currently inadequate for the complexities of the BRICS Pay Consortium DAO. Ultimately, the article argues that resolving these challenges requires a transition from traditional territorial models toward regulatory innovation, contractual best practices, and cross-border cooperation.
The emergence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) represents a paradigm shift in organizational governance, replacing traditional corporate structures with algorithmically governed models on blockchain networks. This article provides an analysis of the private international law (PIL) challenges posed by the BRICS Pay Consortium, a proposed decentralized payment messaging system for BRICS member states, modeled on DAO principles. The BRICS Pay Consortium DAO highlights a fundamental tension between the transnational and often decentralized nature of blockchain and conventional territorial legal frameworks. The Consortium is designed to operate without a central headquarters or legal personality, thus undermining traditional PIL connecting factors—such as domicile, registered office, and principal place of business—used to determine jurisdiction and applicable law. The article examines divergent global framework for the regulation of DAOs. By evaluating current responses—including statutory legal wrappers and on-chain dispute resolution—this article demonstrates that existing doctrines are inadequate for decentralized entities. It concludes that existing frameworks on jurisdiction and choice of law are currently inadequate for the complexities of the BRICS Pay Consortium DAO. Ultimately, the article argues that resolving these challenges requires a transition from traditional territorial models toward regulatory innovation, contractual best practices, and cross border cooperation.
This paper explores how Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) could inform and shape participatory procedures in democratic governance. We apply DAO decision-making, such as rule-based input aggregation, transparent participation, and programmable decision-making, to a real-world case: the legislative development of the Swiss E-ID law, a proposal to establish a digital identity system for secure online authentication for Swiss residents. Using data from the official legislative consultation, we simulate how DAO-inspired mechanisms could have altered the aggregation of input and policy outcomes. Our analysis contributes conceptually and empirically to debates on digital democratic innovations, showing how programmable governance can be used not only to design new institutional forms, but also to critically assess the procedural dynamics of existing ones.
Probate stands as a bastion of legal formalism, seemingly resistant to the transformative currents of digital innovation that have swept through other domains of American law. While financial transactions, real property conveyances, and contract execution have increasingly begun exploring the use of Web3 technologies such as blockchain and smart contracts, estate and probate law remain tethered to paper-based procedures and rigid execution requirements. Nevada was the first state to provide legal support for Web3 technology, amending its Uniform Electronic Transactions Act statutes in 2017 to recognize blockchain-based transactions as valid and judicially enforceable. Yet despite this progressive legislative framework, the state’s estate and probate laws remain unchanged. What reforms are required to extend this legal recognition of blockchain to testamentary instruments and probate administration? To explore this, I begin in Part I by examining Nevada’s existing statutory framework for traditional paper wills, electronic wills, and probate administration, identifying where these laws diverge from the state’s more progressive legislation governing blockchain-based transactions. In Part II, I introduce the concept of a blockchain will, explain its technical functionality, and discuss how such instruments can be amended, revoked, or rendered obsolete. I then propose specific legislative reforms that could allow blockchain wills to serve as legally recognized alternatives to traditional paper wills, including the creation of a state-managed blockchain will registry that would provide the procedural infrastructure for securely filing, validating, and preserving blockchain wills. To illustrate how these proposals might operate in practice, hypothetical examples modeling blockchain-based testamentary execution and probate are included. Finally, I analyze the policy considerations both for and against reform, examining the legal barriers that must be addressed and the potential benefits this technology could bring to probate courts.
Based on distributed ledger technology, a new type of arbitration courts has been emerging in the world for the last five years. Their task is to resolve disputes using blockchain and smart contracts. Did the creators of the idea of “distributed justice” really invent a new way to effectively and fairly resolve disputes in the 21st century? Blockchain arbitration involves resolving disputes using the theory of multi-person games, the concept of Schelling point, the idea of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO), tokens and crowdsourcing. The article attempts to answer the question of whether arbitration decisions made on the basis of economic incentives can be considered to meet the criteria of Aristotelian rectificatory justice. The article is analytical in nature, addressing a topic that has only become relevant in the world a few years ago. The analysis uses theses from cryptoeconomics and game theory. The work initially outlines the problems. Due to the small number of experiences of digital arbitration in the world, the theses and hypotheses of the text, written from the perspective of theory and philosophy of law, require further in-depth analyses.
This article addresses the complex issues of choosing legal principles in international commercial contracts in the context of globalization and the rapid development of digital commerce. It analyzes the fundamental principle of party autonomy, in particular its explicit (expressly stated in the contract) and implied (determined based on the circumstances) forms. The paper considers the adaptation of traditional legal approaches to modern challenges such as smart contracts, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and jurisdictional uncertainty. The immutability of smart contracts, while providing commercial certainty, simultaneously gives rise to legal paradoxes and regulatory gaps, as demonstrated in the case of Van Loon v. US Treasury. The need to obtain legal entity status for DAOs creates a market of “legal shells” offered by various jurisdictions (e.g., Wyoming, Switzerland). The emergence of innovative mechanisms such as multi-signature arbitration in dispute resolution leads to the privatization of enforcement proceedings. The aim of the study is to examine the adaptation of traditional legal approaches to modern challenges such as smart contracts, decentralized autonomous organizations, and jurisdictional uncertainty. The paper uses legal analysis and case study methods. The results show that the immutability of smart contracts creates legal paradoxes, while mandatory public law rules limit the voluntary autonomy of the parties.
The profound digital transformations currently shaping the world—particularly in the field of contracting—have given rise to a new type of legal relationship known as self-executing smart contracts. These contracts are characterized by their autonomous conclusion and execution through blockchain technology, without the need for continuous human intervention. This poses a significant challenge to traditional legal frameworks, foremost among them the conflict-of-law rules in private international law. These rules presume the existence of certain criteria that allow for the determination of the law applicable to the legal relationship in dispute, whether based on the place of contract formation, the place of performance, or the nature of the contested relationship. However, the decentralized technical nature of self-executing contracts undermines these assumptions and weakens the ability of the adjudicator to apply traditional legal tools in understanding the relationship and attributing it to the appropriate legal system.