Although the blockchain is widely acknowledged as one of the most disruptive technologies emerged in the last decades, many implementation hurdles at the technical, regulatory and governance level still prevent a widespread adoption of services based on open networks. This research discusses the role Trust Service Providers may play in permissioned blockchains, providing a reliable ecosystem in which services can be safely developed and preserved in the long run. As case study, the paper outlines the main features of TrustedChainÂŽ, the first blockchain network of European Trust Service Providers specifically designed for highly sensitive sectors, with cutting-edge applications for public administration, e-government, banking, e-health and industry. Emphasis is thus placed on systemic trust, law compliance, adequate technical performance, confidentiality of transactions and long term preservation of data as essential conditions for blockchain networks to thrive and accomplish complex tasks in an effective and reliable way.
The cryptocurrencies are digital currencies that were initially designated to replace the old ones. However, they act as investment assets and many treat them like stocks. The market for cryptocurrencies counts more than 1600 types and the Bitcoin is the first and foremost of all of them. In one year the price of Bitcoin grew staggering 2000 percent. Other currencies have not seen this type of rising. This study investigates the period of over 4 years of data for 5 cryptocurrencies, the three years before and the last year of hyper-growth of the Bitcoin. We used GARCH model to see if two periods of data may offer some incites for patterns. The findings of this paper show that the Bitcoin in the period of high volatility is more diverged from its counterparts. According to results in the period of high volatility, the factors that influence the price formation of cryptocurrencies may not be the same for all of them. Using the price of the Bitcoin of one day earlier and the price of altcoins today we find spillover effect. Spillover effect is less prominent in the second period of high volatility. It may indicate of relatively independent nature of altcoins during the periods of high volatility.
It gives me great pleasure to invite you to contribute to the inaugural edition of the JBBA - Journal of the British Blockchain Association. The JBBA is Europeâs first peer reviewed, academic journal devoted to Blockchain & other Distributed Ledger Technologies and Cryptocurrencies. Peer-review is a critical part of the functioning of the scientific community, of quality control, and the self-corrective nature of science, and our aim is to provide a journal which only publishes rigorously reviewed articles which enhance the body of knowledge growing around the Blockchain. The JBBA is an online, open access journal offering a wide ranging and comprehensive coverage of all facets of DLT/ Blockchain Technology and Cryptocurrencies. The JBBA attempts to cover the state-of-the-art advances in all aspects of Blockchain technology. The international and multidisciplinary nature of this field enables us to cover both theoretical research and technological developments. A high-quality peer-reviewed journal will enable authors to showcase their work, and at the same time, allow policy makers to build on an evidence-based framework. This will enable stakeholders to provide government with sound academic support for experimentation, proofs of concept and knowledge transfer. We aim to become the âGold Standardâ for the highest quality, evidence based, peer-reviewed resource on blockchain technology. We will publish: Original research (PhD thesis, Dissertations, Scientific Trials) Interviews with key influencers, Thought Leaders and Experts DLT/ Blockchain Start-ups/ ICO White Papers Case studies & Expert opinions Book reviews Critical reviews, Commentary and Analysis Editorial covering the latest important issues and trends
This article describes how after the concept of anonymous credential systems was introduced in 1985, a number of similar systems have been proposed. However, these systems use zero-knowledge protocols to authenticate users, resulting in inefficient authentication during the stage of proving credential possession. To overcome this drawback, this article presents a signature scheme that uses partially blind signatures and chameleon hash functions such that both the prover and verifier achieve efficient authentication. In addition to providing a computational cost comparison table showing that the proposed signature scheme achieves a more efficient credential possession proving compared to other schemes, concrete security proofs are provided under a random oracle model to demonstrate that the proposed scheme satisfies the properties of anonymous credentials.
The present work deals with the inter relationships of blockchain technology and the new European General Data Protection Regulation, that will be intact after May 28th, 2018. The regulation harmonises personal data protection across the European Union and aims to return the ownership of personal data to the individual. This thesis, therefore, addresses the question how this new technology that is characterised by decentralisation, immutability and truly digitised values will be affected by the strict privacy regulation and vice versa. The aim of this work is to clarify whether blockchains can comply with the new regulation on the one hand and to identify how blockchain could support its compliance, on the other hand. The questions are validated through an extensive literature review and are further investigated by using a Delphi study that asks a panel of 25 renowned experts to find opportunities, limitations and general suggestions about both topics. In addition, a framework is proposed to support the assessment of privacy and related risks of blockchains. As a result, it becomes apparent that blockchains can become more privacy friendly and comply with the regulation if an active dialogue between blockchain developers and regulatory authorities helps to strengthen their mutual understanding and work. With the support of this work and the blockchain Privacy Impact Assessment canvas a foundation for the necessary next steps is laid to overcome the challenges of defining a data controller or deleting personal data within a blockchain.
The blockchain is the enigmatic technology that gave birth to Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency movement. By fate or by good fortune, carbon markets and cryptocurrencies face common problems: a need to find consensus on data, and a need to trade value between distrustful strangers. Could the blockchain ledger enable a consensus on carbon budgets, and deliver value for carbon mitigation services? Could blockchain technologies help to resolve the climate crisis? To answer these questions we need to examine the opportunities for decentralized ledgers in carbon and energy markets. Here we show that the blockchain offers a unique opportunity to improve accountability in carbÂŹon markets and to develop renewable energy micro-grids, but for the blockchain to reach its full potentialâto be the game changerâit should be combined with macro-economic policies and macro-prudential regulatory frameworks that can finance a multi-trillion dollar transition.
Internet-of-Things (IoT) and Supply Chain monitoring applications rely on messaging protocols for exchanging data. Contemporary IoT deployments widely use the publish-subscribe messaging model because of its resource-efficiency. However, the systems with publish-subscribe messaging model employ a centralized architecture, wherein the data from all the devices in the application network flows via a central broker to the subscribers. Such a centralized architecture make publish-subscribe messaging model susceptible to a central point of failure. Besides, it provides an opportunity for the organization that owns the broker to tamper with the data. In this work, we contribute Trinity, a novel distributed publish-subscribe broker with blockchain-based immutability. Trinity distributes the data published to one of the brokers in the network to all the brokers in the network. The distributed data is stored in an immutable ledger through the use of the blockchain technology. Furthermore, Trinity executes smart contracts to validate the data before saving the data on the blockchain. Through the use of a blockchain network, Trinity can guarantee persistence, ordering, and immutability across trust boundaries. Our evaluation results show that Trinity consumes minimal resources, and the use of smart contracts enable the stakeholders to automate the data management processes. To the best of our knowledge, Trinity is the first framework that combines the components of the blockchain technology with the publish-subscribe messaging model.
In response to food contamination scandals worldwide, retail giant Walmart is tackling food safety in the supply chain using blockchain technology. In 2016, it established the Walmart Food Safety Collaboration Center in Beijing and plans to invest $25 million over five years to research global food safety (Yiannas and Liu, 2017). Using IBMâs blockchain solution based on Hyperledger Fabric, Walmart has successfully completed two blockchain pilots: pork in China and mangoes in the Americas (IBM, 2017). With a farm-to-table approach, Walmartâs blockchain solution reduced time for tracking mango origins from seven days to 2.2 seconds and promoted greater transparency across Walmartâs food supply chain (Yiannas, 2017). IBM called it âcomplete end-to-end traceabilityâ (McDermott, 2017). The case highlights the challenges of implementing blockchain technology in the food supply chain and the opportunities for deploying blockchain solutions throughout the global food ecosystem to increase safety and reduce waste.
Murat Yasin Kubilay, Mehmet Sabir Kiraz, Haci Ali Mantar
In conventional PKI, CAs are assumed to be fully trusted. However, in practice, CAs' absolute responsibility for providing trustworthiness caused major security and privacy issues. To prevent such issues, Google introduced the concept of Certificate Transparency (CT) in 2013. Later, several new PKI models (e.g., AKI, ARPKI, and DTKI) are proposed to reduce the level of trust to the CAs. However, all of these proposals are still vulnerable to split-world attacks if the adversary is capable of showing different views of the log to the targeted victims. In this paper, we propose a new PKI architecture with certificate transparency based on blockchain, what we called CertLedger, to eliminate the split-world attacks and to provide an ideal certificate/revocation transparency. All TLS certificates, their revocation status, entire revocation process, and trusted CA management are conducted in the CertLedger. CertLedger provides a unique, efficient, and trustworthy certificate validation process eliminating the conventional inadequate and incompatible certificate validation processes implemented by different software vendors. TLS clients in the CertLedger also do not require to make certificate validation and store the trusted CA certificates anymore. We analyze the security and performance of the CertLedger and provide a comparison with the previous proposals.
A forum selection clause is a form of contractual waiver. By this device, a contract party waives its rights to raise jurisdictional or venue objections if a lawsuit is initiated against it in the chosen court. (If the forum selection is exclusive, then that party also promises not to initiate litigation anywhere other than in the chosen forum.) The use of such a clause in a particular case may therefore raise a set of questions under contract law: Is the waiver valid? Was it procured by fraud, duress, or other unconscionable means? What is its scope? And so on. Unlike most contractual waivers, however, a forum selection clause affects not only the private rights and obligations of the parties, but something of more public concern: the jurisdiction of a court to resolve a dispute. The enforcement of such a clause therefore raises an additional set of questions under procedural law. For instance, if the parties designate a court in a forum that is otherwise unconnected to the dispute, must (or should) that court hear a case initiated there? If one of the parties initiates litigation in a non-designated forum that is connected to the dispute, must (or should) that court decline to hear the case? This Report analyzes the approach to these questions in the United States.1 Part I provides a brief background on the general attitude toward forum selection clauses. Part II surveys current state law on their use, in consumer as well as commercial contracts. Part III addresses the interpretation of forum selection clauses as either permissive or exclusive. Part IV analyzes the effect of permissive clauses in state and federal courts. Finally, Part V turns to choice of law problems, particularly as they arise in the course of litigation in federal courts. Historically, forum selection clauses were viewed as contrary to public policy and therefore invalid.2 The most frequently invoked justification for this rule, relevant only in connection with exclusive clauses, was that parties should not be able to deprive a court of jurisdiction it would otherwise have over a dispute.3 However, other explanations for the traditional approachârelevant in connection with permissive as well as exclusive clausesâappear in the case law as well. Some courts rejected forum selection clauses out of suspicion that the partiesâ intent in selecting a particular forum was to circumvent otherwise applicable substantive policies. Others worried that permitting parties to choose their forum would âbring the administration of justice into disreputeâ by highlighting considerations such as the relative intelligence or impartiality of particular judges.4 Overall, the sense was that â[t]he jurisdiction of our courts is established by law, and is not to be diminished, any more than it is to be increased, by the convention of the parties.â5 Over time, and given increasing recognition of the need for certainty and predictability in interstate and international commerce, adherence to the traditional view diminished. This shift manifested itself in the case law6 and elsewhere. For example, in 1968, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted a Model Choice of Forum Act7 based on the Hague Conferenceâs 1964 Convention on the Choice of Court. Although the model law gave courts considerably more discretion than the Convention did in enforcing forum selection clauses, its starting point was that the use of such clauses was desirable.8 And the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, adopted in 1971, included a section stating that a forum selection clause will be given effect âunless it is unfair or unreasonable.9 The real turning point in U.S. doctrine was the Supreme Courtâs 1972 decision in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore, Co.10 The case involved a forum selection clause included in a contract for towage negotiated by the U.S. owner of a drilling rig and a German towing company. The agreement designated the London Court of Justice as the exclusive forum for litigation; however, when its rig was damaged, the U.S. company brought suit in the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida. The to or the on the of the forum selection that such were the court this and its decision was The U.S. Supreme Court then and that the forum selection clause was to a of the that as as I to of the Courtâs that have frequently in and the rejected the that contractual of jurisdiction and venue were as against public Court did that the of a particular forum selection clause be on the of in contract such as or or of by the the a of of exclusive forum selection as a general the parties that any litigation would in the designated any other court should to hear the the on a court other than the designated court to an otherwise and exclusive forum selection if enforcement would be under the the Court that the forum would be so that the would be of in or if enforcement would a public policy of the forum in suit was The Bremen decision have effect for it involved an international its of a of the Court to the of international the have to the international the case involved the of and the decision was therefore on federal courts of jurisdiction on state the Bremen these courts jurisdiction in adopted the Bremen it in contracts. State courts to the Bremen in as well as international the decision the U.S. approach to forum selection clauses. The of the Bremen the of forum selection clauses only to exclusive forum selection clauses, and so this Report only in The of the Courtâs to the general of private as to forum to permissive clauses. The Part addresses the of such under current law. the of U.S. forum selection clauses, permissive and exclusive, viewed with A have the of such based on the Model Choice of Forum most however, the and of forum selection clauses by law. that law the Bremen it the of that case into that the for example, courts have adopted a that analyzes the forum selection clause was to the it should be as exclusive or it the parties and the in and the in of enforcement by a that it is under the or for such as or Some have also adopted to (or litigation contracts. A of the traditional to forum selection clauses. one this is in the case that forum selection for example, provides that or in a by any party is enforcing rights under the contract in is as it is against the public policy of however, courts have these the toward the more enforcement of forum selection is to as the the of these general is on exclusive forum selection clauses that to deprive courts of jurisdiction they would otherwise have the use of forum selection clauses in of the of is particularly For instance, a of and have adopted to with a of substantive Some to choice of court. for instance, in a agreement that jurisdiction or venue in a forum of this Others general any contractual that would as a waiver of the rights by the under the of the courts to and to a forum selection clause as a waiver of any of the Laws of For example, law any contractual that as a waiver of any of the rights in the A court the forum selection clause included in a agreement to be it the to for a by a The any agreement that that the an against the or in a venue of And in forum selection clauses included in the these of must be a general policy of toward forum selection clauses. the of is not the of private parties to of jurisdiction and it is contractual parties of The effect of such on choice of court is to the of particular of unfair any clause in a a forum selection clause be as on the of instance, the of a or in the of one of the parties instance, that it was procured by duress, fraud, or the is an in and of and other However, parties frequently the of forum selection clauses in on the of that it would be unconscionable to to a clause that not Bremen itself this on the of the clause in that And Supreme Court did the a for example, the Court the that forum selection clauses their enforcement not however, in v. the Supreme Court to the of The Bremen to for the of form The case involved an exclusive forum selection clause included the on a for on a A federal court of that the forum selection clause was and on that to permitting the to in a court other than the one The Supreme Court The Court the forum selection clause the it would any clause in a contract on a it or it it for that parties to the contract an exclusive forum selection the in the form of a on the in it be by its and the the form of on the the Court the clause was not Although the clause was not and the parties the clause was therefore to the Bremen was an and therefore on federal courts and state courts only in that however, the decision a and it is in of contract is that courts have on the of its in a of For instance, courts have to forum selection clauses included in consumer on the of the that they of the forum selection This is a courts that parties of forum selection clauses if the relevant clauses in or otherwise set other in the if the parties did not in the forum selection clauses in parties of and have to be for This is a Overall, the general that such in the consumer as well as the commercial is by well U.S. law, as as is by of is not for a contract to be as a general the that a forum selection clause only one party not it courts to clauses that objections to jurisdiction and venue by only one of the contract The is of clauses that the choice of court permissive for one party and exclusive for the Overall, the United is a policy in of enforcing forum selection clauses. courts party enforcement of a clause a of Forum selection clauses raise a of questions of the parties to only contractual out of their or to their they to federal as well as state courts in a and they the choice of court to be exclusive or This Part on the of these The general in the United States is that a forum selection clause will be as permissive it of most the or of such is A permissive forum selection clause the partiesâ to or in an a exclusive agreement not only a forum but the or in to litigation a clause these interpretation is more is approach to in most have adopted to as a against as a of the against one case this the court that of the jurisdiction a jurisdiction it be or a of such a a of of in this that the jurisdiction of any other for instance, clauses stating that the of jurisdiction be and be by the law of the State of with venue in were viewed as for of such as or and as to Some also to in the of such when they the partiesâ intent the one for example, the court a forum selection clause in the parties to as the venue for to be exclusive the as a venue interstate or (or to the jurisdiction of more than one By selecting one of in as the exclusive forum for parties able to the of as well as the of jurisdictional However, it is not for parties to such of the U.S. case law and on forum selection clauses on that the effect of exclusive when a party to such an agreement it by litigation elsewhere. other they on the of forum selection in the jurisdiction of a court. such they more than a to jurisdiction and venue in the either to elsewhere. However, forum selection clauses, permissive clauses, may a as in that the parties may a forum that is not otherwise connected with the such the the of the parties also the effect of jurisdiction on a court that would not otherwise have Part that Part turns to the effect of permissive forum selection clauses on the U.S. courts have the discretion to decline jurisdiction on the that litigation in forum would be more or on this may be by the or initiated by the court The to be not only the of the parties, but a of other and as well. effect of a permissive forum selection is to the to the of venue in the on the that court would have more the is the court will the partiesâ forum selection clause in to decline of its The of jurisdiction over the to by the United States state and federal courts have that the of jurisdiction and an and therefore be by a a as a for the of jurisdiction over a The traditional rule, however, was that be given only the of this courts to by Over time, this and courts to such waivers, in the form of forum selection clauses, as this is with to it is to as the and waiver of with this view of the jurisdictional as a courts that jurisdiction on the of is when the forum is otherwise unconnected with the a courts have that the designated forum a to the but these to be The of a forum selection effect on jurisdiction a as well. Over the course of the as the Supreme Courtâs the under it was viewed as to jurisdiction over state a its courts to jurisdiction Some of these to the and state courts to jurisdiction on any not with however, particular of in jurisdiction may be over that use this form of a state court may jurisdiction over a only on one of the If a not as one of the of then the the court is to jurisdiction on that if the litigation is otherwise unconnected with the This itself in federal courts as they the of the state in they the of in to forum selection clauses the of This is with the general that to not the to on it was to jurisdiction over to however, the is that jurisdiction be only when is If that is then a party to a forum selection clause may that its waiver of the court jurisdiction over other if the of the chosen state not as one of the then a forum selection clause should not be is other for the of This is the in A of have under they to jurisdiction on the of a forum selection A of these based on the Model Choice of Forum one section of in the court would jurisdiction but for the of the Others to to the state in that the contract in also a choice of law in of law, and that the a of these one in other of contract would not be to jurisdiction on the court. if the court in the initiates litigation jurisdiction over the and the parties, the may that venue is either or and that the suit in court. The of a forum selection clause may the procedural If a in state a that also the jurisdiction of a federal court in that the a to the case to the federal the to a forum selection clause the state court as a the that agreement a waiver of the this courts have adopted a that such a waiver be and is by the to or by a particular state court as the exclusive forum for A permissive forum selection clause not this and therefore not a to is procedural by a state court a case to a more forum in state (or However, a to a case on the of under the doctrine of forum to this law and have it in procedural Although is the in they the approach that was as a of federal law in v. to on the of forum must be an forum must be is a in of the choice of the of private and public in the case must in of The private of the to be of to the of and the other that into of a case and The the state of the the on in a that is not to the dispute, and the of the court with the law to be have adopted that their courts to jurisdiction over that forum selection clauses courts. of is by clauses the of on the of a court may on that This is when an exclusive forum selection clause is a forum selection clause may as a waiver of a to the of the designated it not the other relevant And permissive forum selection clauses, by not the choice of may be relevant to the The is a permissive forum selection clause should be given in a forum this the chosen to initiate litigation in the designated and the to the in of other such a is to is in the that state courts to this Some courts have that a permissive forum selection clause suit is in the designated and is to under the Bremen that that the clause was as a of contract law, a party to litigation would need to that the designated forum was under that courts the traditional forum but a on the to a forum to it This is on the that the its to to that forum on the of its is one of the most in the Finally, courts to the with for the forum selection clause however, to decline to Although it to be a court that designated in a and exclusive forum selection clause a in a permissive may also forum on its one a court a of contract brought by a against a The contract included an exclusive forum selection clause in of The to the on the of forum The court that the Bremen and that the to that enforcing the clause would be unfair or However, it then on to forum on its that the connection to and that in the the court that it would be courts to the of and the the The initiates litigation other than the designated and the to in of the U.S. law, is given to a choice of and in this of case the general is that will not be the traditional forum in of that courts to a permissive forum selection clause when these however, a in the of a permissive forum selection clause the it may the court to to the choice of it the designated forum as an in the sense that the to jurisdiction the of the forum And it that the its to to the of that these permissive forum selection clauses in not in U.S. federal courts is by a general that the venue of brought in as otherwise by the under a may initiate litigation in a particular for example, if a of the to the A of additional the by a of when venue is when a case is in the of a to a case on this and under the court in a case is either it or it to or in it have additional when venue is but the doctrine of forum under a case will be in of an forum in a state or and under a case will be to a more court the federal a case in v. U.S. District the Supreme Court the these and a forum selection that the initiated litigation in a forum other than that designated in an exclusive forum selection to that the to the suit for venue under and The Court rejected this that the exclusive for venue is or the federal venue in other as as the of venue is or not the parties have in to in a the Court the only to use in a forum selection clause is an to federal court under in the case of an agreement a state or a under forum The Court on to the effect of an exclusive forum selection clause on these of The in to court the U.S. federal and so the Court the that should be a forum selection clause in that the enforcement of forum selection clauses party and of the justice a under to the of the parties should a of the be The Court particular of a forum selection clause for venue when a to suit only in a particular its choice of any other forum contrary to the rule, be given in the of the court should the partiesâ private only as the Court to a when a party suit in a forum in of a forum selection a to the forum will not with it the choice of law have this decision the traditional to exclusive forum selection Although involved a federal the also the to be given a forum selection clause in a to on the of forum in the of a (or the state the federal have not in the they a forum selection clause when forum And have on the that the under forum should be more than under the to of the than to however, the Supreme Court in stating that was a of the law on to state that should to to for forum in clauses to state or a of litigation under its to permissive forum selection clauses. is that the and of the the Court relevant only when an exclusive forum selection clause is on that courts have to the of in permissive forum selection clauses, with Some however, have adopted the of with to the in initiated in the designated forum and in initiated elsewhere. one the to the case out of the forum designated in a permissive forum selection The court that the its to the of that the private in of the in the designated and that would be only the public in of a the to the and interpretation of forum selection clauses on applicable may interstate and international choice of law is therefore an a of that be chosen to such the law of the the law chosen to the either by the parties, in the case of that also a choice of law or of the choice of law rule, in the case of that and in a case in the forum is not the the law of the the United choice of law is a of state than federal law, and state is one relevant to this on a court will forum law to of in the the effect of a permissive forum selection clause is on of jurisdiction and that effect is by forum law. A state court will its when a forum selection effect on its for instance, and its procedural when its effect on a the under a forum selection clause be given a court in that state will that the effect of a forum selection however, a court must the agreement is and it should be as permissive or exclusive. substantive contract law and therefore a lawsuit is in a state other than that law the it is for a of to For example, the forum state have adopted a the of a forum selection the state law the contract have such in to parties with such most with to exclusive forum selection clauses, they permissive as well. a permissive forum selection clause that is under forum law but as against public in the state law the that if the litigation is otherwise unconnected to the the law that the contract to the of would the forum selection and the for jurisdiction over the in the the law of the forum to the of by would the also arise in the effect of a forum selection clause on a to on the of For instance, in a state that would a permissive forum selection clause as a in forum law to the agreement would the procedural to the of a forum selection clause in a of Some contractual for example, based on or duress, or the of a more to the effect of a forum selection for instance, based on a policy of general to private jurisdiction or frequently as and to forum law. one court a general rule, the forum selection clause is and is a procedural that must be in with the law of the forum general a choice of law in the in the based on to substantive of contract However, under current based on such also as procedural and under the law of the Overall, of the case law that the of U.S. courts to questions of in questions of a contractual state courts Some over choice of law and with of contract interpretation as court the of the contract is and if it the contract will be as forum selection clauses when the contract in also a choice of law, courts the chosen law to questions of Others however, particularly but not in the of international these the courts forum law in the of a forum selection forum selection clauses when the contract in not a choice of law, courts more to forum law to questions of will the of the choice of law in an to the law the Some courts this approach by that the choice of court was also a choice of the courts may be This to forum law in the of forum selection clauses may to This is particularly in international the U.S. approach to one a in of permissive than exclusive forum selection clauses in so that of other The jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts is not to under federal is of the parties to a the federal courts also have the to based on state contract law. a federal courts frequently hear out of interstate and international contracts. the of as in v. federal courts in must the substantive law of the state in they that However, they not procedural law. This questions the of the that forum selection clauses federal courts frequently forum selection clauses in the of a to venue to federal court. a of Supreme Court provides a to the the v. the initiated litigation in a court in in of an exclusive forum selection The to the case to the designated The court that on the that the effect of the forum selection clause was by such as a of public the case the Supreme it that the effect of a forum selection clause on the to venue was a of federal procedural law, by a the federal courts were to that law, to the of any otherwise applicable state law. This is a that federal law, in the form of any state law the of a forum selection that the Court in a that the federal would be to the of state law in on jurisdiction as The Supreme Court this approach in the decision the law the of forum selection clauses in the of The case law this federal courts to any state law forum selection the of a to it is law a federal court should in the of a forum selection on this point is federal courts in have that the of a forum selection clause is and should be by the Bremen as a of federal By this a federal court the of courts have the questions of as a of substantive contract This should by choice of law Some courts that to to the law chosen by the However, state federal courts over the choice of law the substantive law of the forum in the of a forum selection Although may have state law the effect of a forum selection it did not state law on of substantive contract law. forum selection clauses may a of questions under that law, their as exclusive or federal courts in state law to approach is not Some federal courts federal in forum selection clauses, the of applicable Others they as to questions interpretation of the on the that enforcement of a forum clause interpretation of the clause it be federal law to interpretation of forum selection clauses federal law on this to these is that a choice of court must in to be as Others that the the effect of forum selection clauses in federal courts is federal questions of a clause is exclusive or be by of law in an otherwise Although courts in the of a the of the state in they in to the substantive law the the by that federal law and the relevant state law in of contract is to a general the of forum selection clauses in U.S. in consumer as well as commercial they will be given is more to the of and that For any particularly for to the of procedural law the U.S. federal is of I to for on a and to for
âClimate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.â1 Atmospheric and ocean temperatures are rising, â[p]recipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing.â2 The 2017 Climate Science Special Report describes the current state of scientific knowledge about U.S. and global climate change. The report concludes that âit is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation.â3 Global data show that 2016 was the warmest year on record and the third consecutive year for record global average surface temperatures.4 In the continental United States, 2016 was the second warmest year on record, after 2012, with higher than average precipitation and fifteen climate-related disasters including drought, wildfire, floods, and severe storms, which caused losses of more than $1 billion.5 The emission of greenhouses gases (GHGs),6 which move about in the atmosphere, is a major cause of global climate change. GHGs absorb terrestrial radiation that leaves the Earthâs surface. Although GHGs âcreate the natural heat-trapping properties of the atmosphereâ and are ânecessary to life as we know it,â high concentrations of GHGs cause an increase in the Earthâs absorption of energy and the resulting increase in temperature referred to as global warming.7 Recent research identifies deadly effects of climate change, âone of the biggest global threats to human health of the 21st century.â8 If global GHG emissions are not reduced, heat waves will affect 74% of the worldâs population by 2100. Even with drastic GHG reductions, almost half of humans will face deadly heat.9 In Europe, increasing temperatures will result in weather disasters, especially heat waves and coastal flooding, and a sharp increase in climate-related deaths by 2100.10 By 2050, climate change may affect nutrition in developing countries as rising temperatures reduce availability of plant proteins.11 Although a number of U.S. statutes govern human activities related to climate change, no comprehensive climate change legislation exists.12 Federal programs (including the Obama administrationâs Climate Action Plan13), as well as regional, state, and local initiatives, promised to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Recent developments, however, have diluted federal efforts.14 For example, in March 2017, President Trump revoked significant Obama-administration climate change policies, including the Climate Action Plan and related strategies.15 This revocation and others that followed are likely to result in increased emissions and a failure to meet climate targets (e.g., energy efficiency, methane emissions).16 Significantly, in June 2017, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,17 a decision that triggered international condemnation, as well as criticism from state and local governments and large corporations in the United States. In August 2017, the United States notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as the United States is eligible, unless it âidentifies suitable terms for reengagement.â18 The U.S. withdrawal was characterized as a âsevere backwards move and an abrogation of its responsibility as the worldâs second largest emitter . . . when more, not less, commitment is needed from all governments to avert the worst impacts of climate change.â19 Despite this withdrawal, however, the United States could meet its Paris goals through the efforts of cities, states, and businesses.20 The global crisis of climate change has affected the practice of law.21 Indeed, in recent years, climate change has engendered âa rapidly building wave of litigationâ in the United States.22 Although the judiciary is âa latecomer to the crisis that has worsened in the hands of the legislative and executive branches,â23 litigation can play a role in forcing government regulatory action and perhaps in providing remedies for harm from GHG emissions. As commentators observed, â[t]he president might root out climate policy from executive branch decision-making, but he cannot unilaterally remove the issue from judicial consideration.â24 This Report, guided by a questionnaire prepared for the Twentieth General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, addresses the topic of climate change lawsuits and the individual. The questionnaire focuses on lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs against public and private actors to achieve mitigation of climate change to its not on as corporations and the of climate change filed in the United States, a number individual that on of mitigation and for this Report of action to climate change. a number of by plaintiffs in climate change The Report a number of by individual plaintiffs and against public and private Climate change is of state, local judicial litigation in which the and an issue of the policy of climate change and U.S. and climate change to of government responsibility to GHG emission by and government with for in to GHG climate change litigation to and climate change into in The of litigationâ and by a of U.S. climate change litigation This to more than a of for and related to climate change. In some of the in the climate change is not the of the in federal and state the public and and a climate change and significant number of U.S. climate change are on federal statutes and and judicial of and have government regulatory by more for mitigation the for example, to climate-related action and to as the of the and federal for failure to GHG emissions and the of climate change. of climate change lawsuits have to example, of emissions after with plaintiffs Even more state of GHG emissions and climate change state that on and regulatory in local on local government Although climate change litigation on federal and state statutes has a plaintiffs have of with are for and have on the of action in climate change and some for with and considered is and some on public with its on may for some climate change lawsuits are to with a to the however, federal public in by that and the it federal to of emissions from on state may to plaintiffs have in but some commentators as the cause of for a in of and significant in against GHG especially in that emissions a to plaintiffs and that emissions caused may more in against local governments but that the than an extreme precipitation was cause of harm may Despite the of some climate change may not an to mitigate adapt to climate change. As change the this and in and in emissions the a action and as to once all of and of will have to climate change from a that is to private and local than Climate change and cannot through the was to private of and was and cannot to a to and for and all of have and the to and to and after a regulatory has been can and play a plaintiffs have filed a number of in on the public are of a global the Atmospheric with a with in and governments to natural of for and Although the of public in U.S. is to the is an of federal and state with in recent public litigation that the government a to its to public including the and affected by GHG emissions. public is and may to climate change. have the as a public and a have in a state GHG have public have that are to and have public to the is that to climate change could an state to as of the public in and to natural and as in of climate change the of judicial to climate change perhaps on and the Climate change, it is is âa global and is that by the of and the by international have to the for from harm caused by GHG emissions. in the of climate and from the on Climate and others that emissions of GHGs are a major cause of climate The in in in global temperatures has with a significant increase in the of in the the are For when is into the atmosphere, it the of a energy and the of is a a Despite judicial of the climate change litigation a number of in all climate change others to of on the cause of action and the The focuses on major to to mitigate the effects of climate change. not to plaintiffs in climate change of the U.S. which federal judicial to and plaintiffs in federal have to state The of to that the has a in the and that will in a The U.S. the of in an a show it has an in that is and and not the is to the action of the and it is as to that the will by a The for is to the than to the have to the of the and the the of the of and climate change lawsuits on of the have have to in the are to the and the the the of individual in the The in and The that we that the affect the in a and individual have that plaintiffs that are more than by all a global however, climate change of The that from climate change are may to that are but in a the that not the in the of The to the a and caused by climate change. the of plaintiffs are to a to a of As the U.S. of for the the of in climate change might by which a public action on to an a of scientific of âa of the of for can for of the climate change no could the on the harm by the this more As the in climate change has the that the reduce global but not that a decision can of climate change of a to government failure to the impacts of climate change in the the The that the statutes the government to more regulatory action to mitigate climate federal the the government to the impacts of that affect the to government failure to climate change in in the effects of a than and and harm global was not in the to plaintiffs of climate change have the decision that the harm is not related to climate and and to the failure to climate change could with in the when plaintiffs that are (e.g., failure to climate change in a decision that in harm to may to when can an for that is not climate is when a the failure to GHG emissions federal was a issue in States, local and private that the U.S. its responsibility the to the emissions of including from the to the to GHG emissions and the for to with the In its the that GHG emissions caused but that the state of the for as and for its from the of rising sea that could coastal In terms of emissions from to GHG The of emissions to the by and its The decision in was of as but some that the decision the for especially and As private plaintiffs could the to in from rising sea to climate change, but have been on are in the is that âa government action leaves some that to climate change and its The in a a of which in a federal it that of are to an branch of government and not in federal The might considered an of the for that can for the of In a the of a and that of is from the the the as a The that that are not Indeed, have been to In the climate change the was in and in a federal of emissions from The federal in that climate change was and especially on a of an policy of a for and that it needed a legislative policy it could the global warming The the as the the in and that of the The was not and the could a public the The but not the the that the which the to federal In a more recent of and public a federal in of the in The that the not a but a of been The however, that plaintiffs a have to to of the of judicial and the to litigation in the of climate the not and others that it was not to to it not of not from the of the The of a of issue the judicial and legislative has the of some climate change on federal decision is a federal public for that GHG emissions from to global Federal when Congress not and that the federal of GHG emissions. The its and the regulatory the the and the it federal to of emissions from The for of federal is the to of to the to not to emissions federal the The however, that . . . not judicial through in the federal Although plaintiffs in that not on the of For example, of was a federal public against energy for by an by from waves and to global Although federal could to the that to the of and that of the of action all its the federal public as it the issue in The was not affected by the that for that the GHG of the triggered which the executive branch has not its on federal but not the state The however, that availability . . . of a state on the of the a and and is the of climate change that the can more GHG Recent harm to public including the and not issue in and the has not been to public as public which and are by the are the government to the As a a the and the which to the however, of may a significant to in for caused by climate change. the the GHG emissions and as well as the of to that The of climate change significant GHGs from some have in the atmosphere, and others are emissions. emissions from when In on Climate describes the of climate change as in the and of harm the when can related to plaintiffs in climate change will face in especially emissions from a of into the atmosphere, and once there to climate change, which caused a . . . and that 2017 international that has that GHG emissions to climate change impacts for the of plaintiffs face the of that GHG emissions a in of of GHGs will of action that the a government GHG emissions not may have in plaintiffs may not meet the of cause for example, was caused by extreme than of by the that the of the resulting harm was that harm result from the plaintiffs from climate change, in and and in a of that the of from a in is of by climate change plaintiffs are to in climate in scientific have on than more local in scientific research may of plaintiffs to and to responsibility more in for example, that climate change is the result of emissions and emissions to major The on from to that of global emissions of and methane from international and For some this could of In the United States, have the to on regulatory and in statutes have that and others affected by regulatory to for after to the meet the however, have the for litigation against governments private plaintiffs in climate change litigation to and The some by Although climate change and in the United States, climate change in the United States have on human In the in the on that U.S. failure to GHGs human The not the but the to human of climate In recent years, public in state has human with by the of that public government action on climate change. for as well as âa with and others in all by a of and and lawsuits have been but a have to regulatory litigation the to its judicial role in public government to the as a public and remedies that will that the federal filed in the efforts of individual plaintiffs to of the public in the of climate change. in United are for and a with a in the United States, the and executive that for that the climate but and of concentrations in the to the U.S. not the plaintiffs in that to and and that have to natural in for the and for a that been and an and of a to reduce emissions of and moved to that the plaintiffs the federal government is not to public The and the of the to The the are for some of the harm caused by climate change, plaintiffs may climate change policy in and this can to change policy of the of the the the in of the and that the not a but a of have plaintiffs for and which are and likely to are to and are the to out emissions and reduce will to climate The and public a of of a the that to a climate of human life is to a and The that a action is and the climate in a that will cause human human result in to human and the it a for a The the of harm to public and that the to the federal not public and characterized as can in federal the of the that have been and in the of and the has for moved for an but in June 2017, the The United States filed a of in the in that in this show a and intent to the of Congress to policy energy of public and by out of a to a of human The the and on is the federal decision that might a to a but it to a climate that the plaintiffs will Indeed, the the of a against federal public was a of state in state may For example, a state of the public with a of individual and a that the public the government to GHG emissions. The of that the state a public to natural including the atmosphere, but that public the and than by a The addresses of GHGs and plaintiffs the to in the cannot GHG emissions. the the for the federal and state mitigation of climate change. example, regulatory others of GHG emissions and climate change in decision against public actors regulatory to mitigate climate by plaintiffs as of litigation lawsuits against public actors for In plaintiffs of of for In the GHG in the the and public and but its was on In of individual state and a of to the to GHG emissions as by the which regulatory and that it with the state The and the of and that the not with the the to that of of a on emissions that may the emissions from of of emission for and that on an of was a to the of of a for a to GHG emission to the In June the the of to its of especially in of the which the characterized as an to on climate change, that the of action on climate change, but to emission In the the second of the but the state and to public and the state In however, after the the the to its and for GHG emission to the The of this By the of the its GHG and GHG emission to the in a 2016 the to to a for that that is and to a The of the to the plaintiffs in In the of the that federal to the are more than to the States the to the In 2017, the of the 2016 as an of The in is significant of its of the crisis of climate change, its of of the atmosphere, and its on the of for In the an public responsibility of in a by severe to and significant number of U.S. than on government responsibility to the of GHG emissions and climate change in decision Federal on the the and state on state In an of litigation through âa well . . . that GHG emissions and climate change impacts are for but that the for the level of been but some more recent have of climate change in The on for federal of GHG emissions and climate change effects the 2017 executive that to but the withdrawal in 2017 not change the will to of climate change in and on of of have to of climate change by federal to the of in an have of climate change in others have climate change a of and the For example, a recent by on of individual is U.S. in of of the and that the on federal in major impacts on affected global climate change, and of the of the effects of on and of the the the In the prepared for the the and of not the effects of GHGs and climate and considered of a of the that the was not and This however, has been as of of its to to the energy that is the of climate plaintiffs mitigation of climate change to In U.S. for example, that of on almost in federal statutes by to climate change, global and GHG emissions. Although have to have plaintiffs to that in no scientific for that climate change that climate change cause harm to the in show that the to plaintiffs to that the of the a to climate the that plaintiffs to show that to the The federal the for of the state in the with a number filed have individual are with as especially the have been more than the In for of for example, a that the report was in it to the effects of a large on GHGs global individual plaintiffs of climate change in of local with For example, individual plaintiffs failure to an of a for a for was the failure to the effects of and emissions from effects on and increased GHG emissions. the the that of the was a the and of an of on an to the but not the climate change was In an individual and the on prepared the The that the with the but the individual the that the was The that the which considered GHG not climate change and effects of the The however, of the which to with a of the by of when the not that might mitigate significant effects on the Climate change policy and litigation in the United States with on however, has more in policy and and local have been especially in the of climate effects on coastal and to others for filed after not for failure of the of to adapt to the effects of climate change. The action in the and it to increased the government increased the of flooding, and the not to of cause of however, was but some in of for In from plaintiffs of the more than that the and failure to the to from The that the failure to and the to severe The in that the to the federal not The of the but the for and its the the government was from the to the decision for the government affected the plaintiffs been as well as In litigation after the government and individual filed a against the United that the of the increased and after and resulting in of The of decision on in which that the in and the was a cause of the The in that plaintiffs with and that the severe and a In after failure of the to the of for the was not plaintiffs no for the of for the of on the and for of as a result of The a with for a of and The U.S. of for the Federal will the of As federal the government in from related to climate change but government may more to which not government could the failure to that increase not of the the government is for a of that not have for government the and the cause of In some however, government failure to to and the might that and plaintiffs can against and local and are of that is for plaintiffs can that of the of climate and the that governments will for state for and some but is likely to Although government in some failure to public may state and local governments from for failure to failure to that have no to Despite some for state and local governments as are to for impacts from and of individual In a recent to after severe in the the of and its of in for failure to to The that it no knowledge of a is from for activities a For the a to the the to the The no to plaintiffs the of was the to the and the in plaintiffs to for of after In the against and government the public which to of government to the public than to individual are than in which governments to for to adapt to the effects of climate change. In a the local government over to a The a of the the but significant to the and others in the In a over a the and an The that for a on a of all and that increase the of the In a are to the of not to a not to a out that the resulting from a public the for may the of for as well as from the to individual climate change plaintiffs have private of private are not by but the some federal may and some that are in goals of . . . its to against private actors have not been to for a of by and a emissions and as well as the of against perhaps and climate change of that may but others example, of harm from climate to was a action against a number of energy corporations by a coastal by for of public and private and as well as The that the for the but not the and that the not as a The was when the but judicial to a of for the and the not the a by on of its individual and and that and a to public health and the in to adapt to effects of climate change, a sea level extreme could the In 2017, the federal to for but that plaintiffs for for not likely to 2100. actors may in by In 2017, local governments in private and to for of from and methane from to of action in the public private and for failure to and that since the but that GHG from affected climate and sea plaintiffs that to that plaintiffs and for and of of and plaintiffs have climate change that energy have and the public about the of climate change from recent filed in on of that by failure to climate-related may more significant in climate change The and climate change and its including impacts and extreme weather in the and others are from energy and an for as a government of its and of on climate Recent research that energy of the of climate change, the to reduce but to the As the climate change litigation especially for private as well some and are of but plaintiffs have been including the and of for individual and Although U.S. to have been to on private may some of the and that have Even individual plaintiffs may that lawsuits to mitigate adapt to climate change are not and than individual are more likely to have the to climate change This Report is on by the of and commitment of the issue to a a of and for the of an policy of a for the of a of the of an for to a decision the of from by on and to a to and are that plaintiffs likely could not the through the
Abstract Interest in cryptocurrency, a form of digital currency, is growing steadily in Africa. Some economists say it is a disruptive innovation that will blossom on the continent.
Blockchain technology has recently gained widespread attention by media, businesses, public sector agencies, and various international organizations, and it is being regarded as potentially even more disruptive than the Internet. Despite significant interest, there is a dearth of academic literature that describes key components of blockchains and discusses potential applications. This paper aims to address this gap. This paper presents an overview of blockchain technology, identifies the blockchain's key functional characteristics, builds a formal definition, and offers a discussion and classification of current and emerging blockchain applications.
The UK Government is under growing pressure to improve the performance of public services whilst reducing costs. Services are under stress at a national and local level. This pressure to improve the value being delivered to citizens whilst reducing operational costs and risks is analogous to the pressure the financial service industry has been under since 2008. Financial services organisations are increasingly turning to Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) to address these challenges. Distributed ledger technology is enabling a new paradigm in financial services where organisations collaborate and integrate at the infrastructure and transaction level, freeing up resources for innovation and competition at the application and value proposition level; what we are seeing is wholesale business model transformation. This paper explores how a new Public Value Network might enable Public Service Organisations to: 1. Retain their existing decentralised business models, (budgets, decision making, business, service design) yet optimise and synchronise locally and nationally 2. Collaborate in the design and delivery of frictionless human centric services 3. Automate- services, adherence to and auditing of regulation, policy and process 4. Improve financial transparency across public service value chain.
Krishnendu Chatterjee, Amir Kafshdar Goharshady, Rasmus Ibsen-Jensen, Yaron Velner
Crypto-currencies are digital assets designed to work as a medium of exchange, e.g., Bitcoin, but they are susceptible to attacks (dishonest behavior of participants). A framework for the analysis of attacks in crypto-currencies requires (a) modeling of game-theoretic aspects to analyze incentives for deviation from honest behavior; (b) concurrent interactions between participants; and (c) analysis of long-term monetary gains. Traditional game-theoretic approaches for the analysis of security protocols consider either qualitative temporal properties such as safety and termination, or the very special class of one-shot (stateless) games. However, to analyze general attacks on protocols for crypto-currencies, both stateful analysis and quantitative objectives are necessary. In this work our main contributions are as follows: (a) we show how a class of concurrent mean-payoff games, namely ergodic games, can model various attacks that arise naturally in crypto-currencies; (b) we present the first practical implementation of algorithms for ergodic games that scales to model realistic problems for crypto-currencies; and (c) we present experimental results showing that our framework can handle games with thousands of states and millions of transitions.
Blockchain has emerged as one of the most promising and revolutionary technologies in the past years. Companies are exploring implementation of use cases in hope of significant gains in efficiencies. However, to achieve the impact hoped for, it is not sufficient to merely replace existing technologies. The current business processes must also be redesigned and innovated to enable realization of hoped for benefits. This conceptual paper provides a theoretical contribution on how blockchain technology and smart contracts potentially can, within the framework of the seven principles of business process re-engineering (BPR), enable process innovations. In this paper, we analyze the BPR principles in light of their applicability to blockchain-based solutions. We find these principles to be applicable and helpful in understanding how blockchain technology could enable transformational redesign of current processes. However, the viewpoint taken, should be expanded from intra- to inter-organizational processes operating within an ecosystem of separate organizational entities. In such a blockchain powered ecosystem, smart contracts take on a pivotal role, both as repositories of data and executioner of activities.
Hany F. Atlam, Ahmed Alenezi, Madini O. Alassafi, Gary Wills
The Internet of Things (IoT) has extended the internet connectivity to reach not just computers and humans, but most of our environment things. The IoT has the potential to connect billions of objects simultaneously which has the impact of improving information sharing needs that result in improving our life. Although the IoT benefits are unlimited, there are many challenges facing adopting the IoT in the real world due to its centralized server/client model. For instance, scalability and security issues that arise due to the excessive numbers of IoT objects in the network. The server/client model requires all devices to be connected and authenticated through the server, which creates a single point of failure. Therefore, moving the IoT system into the decentralized path may be the right decision. One of the popular decentralization systems is blockchain. The Blockchain is a powerful technology that decentralizes computation and management processes which can solve many of IoT issues, especially security. This paper provides an overview of the integration of the blockchain with the IoT with highlighting the integration benefits and challenges. The future research directions of blockchain with IoT are also discussed. We conclude that the combination of blockchain and IoT can provide a powerful approach which can significantly pave the way for new business models and distributed applications.
The following sections are included:IntroductionCharacteristics of a BlockchainWork Flow in a BlockchainToken-based Blockchain SystemsTokenless Blockchain SystemsCryptographyConcluding RemarksReferences and Further Readings
The following sections are included:Advancement beyond Cloud ComputingIntroduction to BlockchainFeatures of BlockchainApplications of Blockchain to Different DomainsInternet of ThingsBlockchain in ChinaEnterprise Perspective of BlockchainDevelopments in BlockchainShortcomings of BlockchainKeeping up with BlockchainFinal NoteReferences and Further Readings
The following sections are included:Evolution of Digital Currency as Alternative CurrencyeCash and Other Pioneer CryptocurrenciesBitcoinBenefits and RisksImpact of the Digital Currency RevolutionConditions for Future SuccessConclusion and ProspectsAppendix: More Technical ConceptsReferences and Further Readings