dirightDigital Law JournalЦифровое право2686-9136Maxim Inozemtsev10.38044/2686-9136-2022-3-4-32-70diright-120Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИSmart contract disputes and public policy in the ASEAN+6 regionСпоры из смарт-контрактов и публичный порядок стран АСЕАН+6Де Эн ГоГ. Р.De En GohG. R.

Ph.D., Международный Арбитр, Юрисконсульт, Научный сотрудник

2000, Сидней, Джордж-стрит, 570

Ph.D., International Arbitrator, Legal Counsel, Fellow

570, George Street, Sydney NSW

roydeengoh@gmail.comШкола праваАвстралияThe College of LawAustralia202230122022343270Copyright © De En Goh G.R., 20222022Де Эн Го Г.Р.De En Goh G.R.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.digitallawjournal.org/jour/article/view/120

Smart contracts provide some benefits, such as better facilitation for contracting parties to monitor performance of their obligation and reducing the cost spent monitoring the contract. However, it is critical to understand various limitations of this concept as well as many legal and public policy uncertainties around it. Given the non-existence of an “universal rule” that governs smart contracts, the issues vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The article applies comparative legal method to analyse the legal regulation of smart contracts in ASEAN+6 countries as well as the leading jurisdictions in the sphere of implementing digital technologies in the economy. Due to public policy considerations, there are different scenarios of smart contract development. The possible outlook is that ASEAN+6 countries would not accept smart contract as contract, cryptocurrency as property, and/or enforcing foreign awards that relate to smart contract disputes and/or cryptocurrency. Another possible way out of the deadlock is to govern relations under smart contracts by the UNIDROIT Principles. However, if the parties do not opt for such a solution, the determination of the applicable law will be left to the relevant conflict-of-laws rules with all of the uncertainties. Therefore, the author suggests that supranational laws is the better path for avoiding uncertainties in smart-contractual relationships.

Смарт-контракты обладают рядом преимуществ, в частности облегчение контроля за выполнением условий договора сторонами и снижение затрат на мониторинг исполнения обязательства. Однако крайне важно учитывать технологические возможности смарт-контрактов, а также случаи противоречия последствий применения норм публичному порядку. Отсутствие «универсальных норм», регулирующих смарт-контракты, создает сложности их правовой регламентации, которые варьируются в зависимости от юрисдикции. В статье на основе сравнительно-правового метода проведен анализ опыта регулирования смарт-контрактов и в странах АСЕАН+6, а также в необходимых случаях юрисдикций, занимающих ведущие позиции в области внедрения цифровых технологий в имущественный оборот. Ввиду различной интерпретации публичного порядка существует несколько вариантов применения смарт-контрактов. Один из возможных подходов к их регулированию заключается в том, что страны АСЕАН+6 не будут квалифицировать смарт-контракты в качестве договоров, криптовалюту в качестве имущества, приводить в исполнение решения иностранных судов по спорам, связанным со смарт-контрактами и (или) криптовалютой. Возможным выходом может стать применение к смарт-контрактам Принципов УНИДРУА. Однако, в случае если стороны не включают условие об их выборе в качестве применимого права в договор, право определяется посредством применения коллизионных норм, что создает известные сложности. По мнению автора, указанных неопределенностей можно избежать при наличии соответствующей регламентации на наднациональном уровне.

Смарт-контракткриптовалютацифровая валютабиткоинвиртуальный активкриптоактивтокенмеждународное частное правоколлизионное правопубличный порядокSmart contractcryptocurrencydigital currencyBitcoinvirtual assetcrypto assettokenprivate international lawconflict of lawspublic policyReferencesWalch, A. (2019). In code(rs) we trust: Software developers as fiduciaries in public blockchains. In P. Hacker et al. (Eds.), Regulating blockchain: Techno-social and legal challenges (pp.58–82). Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198842187.003.0004Walch, A. (2019). In code(rs) we trust: Software developers as fiduciaries in public blockchains. In P. Hacker et al. (Eds.), Regulating blockchain: Techno-social and legal challenges (pp.58–82). Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198842187.003.0004Frantz, C. K., & Nowostawski, M. (2016). From institutions to code: Towards automated generation of smart contracts. IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self Systems (FAS*W), 53, 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1109/FAS-W.2016.53Frantz, C. K., & Nowostawski, M. (2016). From institutions to code: Towards automated generation of smart contracts. IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self Systems (FAS*W), 53, 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1109/FAS-W.2016.53Easterbrook, F. H. (1996). Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1996(1), Article 7. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1996/iss1/7/Easterbrook, F. H. (1996). Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1996(1), Article 7. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1996/iss1/7/Lessig, L. (1996). The law of the horse: What cyberlaw might teach. Harvard Law Review, 113, 501–546. https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/finalhls.pdfLessig, L. (1996). The law of the horse: What cyberlaw might teach. Harvard Law Review, 113, 501–546. https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/finalhls.pdfEpstein, R. A. (1995). Simple rules for a complex world. Harvard University Press.Epstein, R. A. (1995). Simple rules for a complex world. Harvard University Press.Katz, D. M. (2013). Quantitative legal prediction — Or — How I learned to stop worrying and start preparing for the data-driven future of the legal services industry. Emory Law Journal, 4(6), 909–936. https://scholarly-commons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol62/iss4/6Katz, D. M. (2013). Quantitative legal prediction — Or — How I learned to stop worrying and start preparing for the data-driven future of the legal services industry. Emory Law Journal, 4(6), 909–936. https://scholarly-commons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol62/iss4/6Jaccard, G. O. B. (2017). Smart contracts and the role of law. Jusletter IT, (22). https://lawded.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/x.pdfJaccard, G. O. B. (2017). Smart contracts and the role of law. Jusletter IT, (22). https://lawded.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/x.pdfSzczerbowski, J. (2017). Place of smart contracts in civil law. A few comments on form and interpretation. Law & Society: Private Law — Contracts eJournal. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Place-of-Smart-Con-tracts-in-Civil-Law.-A-Few-on-and-Szczerbowski/cddc80a1e54765d698e13cd242512ec73fa97cdbSzczerbowski, J. (2017). Place of smart contracts in civil law. A few comments on form and interpretation. Law & Society: Private Law — Contracts eJournal. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Place-of-Smart-Con-tracts-in-Civil-Law.-A-Few-on-and-Szczerbowski/cddc80a1e54765d698e13cd242512ec73fa97cdbSurden, H. (2012). Computable Contracts. U.C. Davis Law Review, 46, 629-700. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/46/2/Articles/46-2_Surden.pdfSurden, H. (2012). Computable Contracts. U.C. Davis Law Review, 46, 629-700. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/46/2/Articles/46-2_Surden.pdfHo, H. M., & Law, J. (2021). Singapore. In M. S. Sackheim, & N. A. Howell (Eds.) The virtual currency regulation review (4th ed., pp. 233–244). https://www.sidley.com/-/media/publications/vcrr-edition-4--singapore.pdf?la=enHo, H. M., & Law, J. (2021). Singapore. In M. S. Sackheim, & N. A. Howell (Eds.) The virtual currency regulation review (4th ed., pp. 233–244). https://www.sidley.com/-/media/publications/vcrr-edition-4--singapore.pdf?la=enDruck, J. A. (2018). Smart contracts are neither smart nor contract. Banking & financial services policy report, 37(10), 5–9.Druck, J. A. (2018). Smart contracts are neither smart nor contract. Banking & financial services policy report, 37(10), 5–9.Schrey, J., & Thalhofer, T. (2017). Rechtliche Aspekte der Blockchain [Legal issues of blockchain]. Neue Juristische Wochenschrifft, 70(20), 1431–1436.Schrey, J., & Thalhofer, T. (2017). Rechtliche Aspekte der Blockchain [Legal issues of blockchain]. Neue Juristische Wochenschrifft, 70(20), 1431–1436.Levy, K. E. C. (2017). Book-smart, not street-smart: Blockchain-based smart contracts and the social workings of law. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.107Levy, K. E. C. (2017). Book-smart, not street-smart: Blockchain-based smart contracts and the social workings of law. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.107Kõlvart, M., Poola, M., & Rull, A. (2016). Smart contracts. In T. Kerikmäe, A. Rull (Eds.) The future of law and e-technologies. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26896-5_7Kõlvart, M., Poola, M., & Rull, A. (2016). Smart contracts. In T. Kerikmäe, A. Rull (Eds.) The future of law and e-technologies. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26896-5_7Baptista, L. O. (1995). The UNIDROIT principles for international commercial law project: Aspects of international private law. Tulane Law Review, 69(5), Article 1209. https://www.tulanelawreview.org/pub/volume69/issue5/the-unidroit-principles-for-international-commercial-law-projectBaptista, L. O. (1995). The UNIDROIT principles for international commercial law project: Aspects of international private law. Tulane Law Review, 69(5), Article 1209. https://www.tulanelawreview.org/pub/volume69/issue5/the-unidroit-principles-for-international-commercial-law-projectKaulartz, M., & Heckmann, J. (2016). Smart Contracts — Anwendungen der Blockchain-Technologie [Smart Contracts — Application of blockchain technology]. Computer und Recht, 32(9), 618–624. https://doi.org/10.9785/cr-2016-0923Kaulartz, M., & Heckmann, J. (2016). Smart Contracts — Anwendungen der Blockchain-Technologie [Smart Contracts — Application of blockchain technology]. Computer und Recht, 32(9), 618–624. https://doi.org/10.9785/cr-2016-0923Spindler, G. & Woebbeking, M. K. (2019). Smart Contracts und Verbraucherschutz [Smart contracts und consumer protection]. In T. H. Braegelmann, & M. Kaulartz (Eds.) Rechtshandbuch Smart Contracts. C.H. Beck.Spindler, G. & Woebbeking, M. K. (2019). Smart Contracts und Verbraucherschutz [Smart contracts und consumer protection]. In T. H. Braegelmann, & M. Kaulartz (Eds.) Rechtshandbuch Smart Contracts. C.H. Beck.Bonell, M. J. (2018). The law governing international commercial contracts and the actual role of the UNIDROIT Principles. Uniform Law Review, 23(1), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/uny001Bonell, M. J. (2018). The law governing international commercial contracts and the actual role of the UNIDROIT Principles. Uniform Law Review, 23(1), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/uny001Szabo, N. (1996). Smart contracts: Building blocks for digital markets. https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_2.htmlSzabo, N. (1996). Smart contracts: Building blocks for digital markets. https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/smart_contracts_2.htmlReusch, P., & Weidner, N. M. (2018). Future Law: Blockchain, industrie 4.0, Internet of things, robotic. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft.Reusch, P., & Weidner, N. M. (2018). Future Law: Blockchain, industrie 4.0, Internet of things, robotic. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft.Raskin, M. (2017). The law and legality of smart contracts. Georgetown Law Tech Review, (1), 305–341.Raskin, M. (2017). The law and legality of smart contracts. Georgetown Law Tech Review, (1), 305–341.Dale, R. (2010). Classical approaches to natural language processing. In N. Indurkhya, & F. J. Damerau (Eds.) Handbook of natural language processing (2d ed., pp. 6–21). Chapman & Hall. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420085938Dale, R. (2010). Classical approaches to natural language processing. In N. Indurkhya, & F. J. Damerau (Eds.) Handbook of natural language processing (2d ed., pp. 6–21). Chapman & Hall. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420085938Cohney, S., Hoffman, D., Sklaroff, J., & Wishnick, D. (2019). Coin-operated capitalism. Columbia Law Review, 119(3), 591–676. https://columbialawreview.org/content/coin-operated-capitalism/Cohney, S., Hoffman, D., Sklaroff, J., & Wishnick, D. (2019). Coin-operated capitalism. Columbia Law Review, 119(3), 591–676. https://columbialawreview.org/content/coin-operated-capitalism/Nzuva, S. (2019). Smart contracts implementation, applications, benefits, and limitations. Journal of Information Engineering and Applications, 9(5), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.7176/JIEANzuva, S. (2019). Smart contracts implementation, applications, benefits, and limitations. Journal of Information Engineering and Applications, 9(5), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.7176/JIEABlemus, S. (2018). Law and blockchain: A legal perspective on current regulatory trends worldwide. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Financier, (4), 1–15.Blemus, S. (2018). Law and blockchain: A legal perspective on current regulatory trends worldwide. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Financier, (4), 1–15.Kiviat, T. I. (2015). Beyond Bitcoin: Issues in regulating blockchain transactions. Duke Law Journal, 65(3), 569–608. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol65/iss3/4Kiviat, T. I. (2015). Beyond Bitcoin: Issues in regulating blockchain transactions. Duke Law Journal, 65(3), 569–608. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol65/iss3/4Schroeder, J. L. (2016). Bitcoin and the uniform commercial code. University of Miami Business Law Review, 24(3), 1–79. https://repository.law.miami.edu/umblr/vol24/iss3/3/Schroeder, J. L. (2016). Bitcoin and the uniform commercial code. University of Miami Business Law Review, 24(3), 1–79. https://repository.law.miami.edu/umblr/vol24/iss3/3/Fairfield, J. A. T. (2015). Bitproperty. Southern California Law Review, 88(4), 805–874. https://southerncalifor-nialawreview.com/2015/05/02/bitproperty-article-by-joshua-a-t-fairfield/Fairfield, J. A. T. (2015). Bitproperty. Southern California Law Review, 88(4), 805–874. https://southerncalifor-nialawreview.com/2015/05/02/bitproperty-article-by-joshua-a-t-fairfield/Ricks, Val D. (1999). In defense of mutuality of obligation: Why “both should be bound, or neither. Nebraska Law Review, 78(3), 491–549. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol78/iss3/2/Ricks, Val D. (1999). In defense of mutuality of obligation: Why “both should be bound, or neither. Nebraska Law Review, 78(3), 491–549. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol78/iss3/2/Werbach, K, & Cornell, N. (2017). Contracts Ex Machina. Duke Law Journal, 67(2), 313–382. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol67/iss2/2Werbach, K, & Cornell, N. (2017). Contracts Ex Machina. Duke Law Journal, 67(2), 313–382. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol67/iss2/2Savelyev, A. (2017). Contract law 2.0: ‘Smart ’contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law. Information & Communications Technology Law, 26(2), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2017.1301036Savelyev, A. (2017). Contract law 2.0: ‘Smart ’contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law. Information & Communications Technology Law, 26(2), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2017.1301036Surden, H. (2014). Machine Learning and Law. Washington Law Review, 89(1),87–115. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss1/5/Surden, H. (2014). Machine Learning and Law. Washington Law Review, 89(1),87–115. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss1/5/Kristy, M. A. C., & Jing, Z. (2013). Public policy violation under New York Convention. Mimbar Hukum, 25(1), 139–150. https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jmh/article/view/16105Kristy, M. A. C., & Jing, Z. (2013). Public policy violation under New York Convention. Mimbar Hukum, 25(1), 139–150. https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jmh/article/view/16105Frantz, C. K., & Nowostawski, M. (2016). From institutions to code: Towards automated generation of smart contracts. In 2016 IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self Systems (FAS*W) (pp. 210–215). Piscataway. https://doi.org/10.1109/FAS-W.2016.53Frantz, C. K., & Nowostawski, M. (2016). From institutions to code: Towards automated generation of smart contracts. In 2016 IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self Systems (FAS*W) (pp. 210–215). Piscataway. https://doi.org/10.1109/FAS-W.2016.53Coote, B. (1988). The essence of contract. Pert 1. Journal of Contract Law, 1(2), 91–112.Coote, B. (1988). The essence of contract. Pert 1. Journal of Contract Law, 1(2), 91–112.Cons, G. M., & Hernández, G. M. A. (2019). Importance of a legal framework in smart contracts. Sinteza 2019 — International Scientific Conference on Information Technology and Data Related Research, 2019, 603–608. https://doi.org/10.15308/Sinteza-2019-603-608Cons, G. M., & Hernández, G. M. A. (2019). Importance of a legal framework in smart contracts. Sinteza 2019 — International Scientific Conference on Information Technology and Data Related Research, 2019, 603–608. https://doi.org/10.15308/Sinteza-2019-603-608Goode, R. (2005). Rule, practice, and pragmatism in commercial law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(3), 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei017Goode, R. (2005). Rule, practice, and pragmatism in commercial law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(3), 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei017Mankowski, P. (2017). Article 3 of the Hague Principles: The final breakthrough for the choice of non-State law? Uniform Law Review, 22(2), 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unx016InformationMankowski, P. (2017). Article 3 of the Hague Principles: The final breakthrough for the choice of non-State law? Uniform Law Review, 22(2), 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unx016Information

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.