Advertisement

Law and Critique

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 141–149 | Cite as

Legal Engineering on the Blockchain: ‘Smart Contracts’ as Legal Conduct

  • Jake Goldenfein
  • Andrea Leiter
Article
  • 1.5k Downloads

Abstract

A new legal field is emerging around blockchain platforms and automated transactions. Understanding the relationships between law, legal enforcement, and these technological systems has become critical for scaling blockchain applications. Because ‘smart contracts’ do not themselves constitute agreements, the first necessary ‘legal’ development for transacting with these technologies involves linking computational transactions to natural language contracts. Various groups have accordingly begun building libraries of machine readable transaction modules that correspond to natural language contracting elements. In doing so, they are creating the building blocks for ever more complex transactions that will ultimately define the entire envelope of computational legal conduct in these environments, and likely standardise the field. However, also critical to emerging blockchain ‘legalities’, is the capacity for dispute resolution and legal enforcement. Beyond the performance of parties, or the quality of goods and services transacted, new mechanisms are also needed to address the performance of the computational transaction systems themselves. Such mechanisms are necessary to address the reality that smart contracts cannot be forced to perform actions beyond the parameters of their coding, even by a judicial order. Legal tools, both technological and institutional, are thus being developed to ‘soften’ the effects of self-executing transactions. In this article we treat these developments as law-making practices that are constitutive of an emerging legal field. Legal engineering exercises of this kind are not novel, and by drawing on historic examples from the common law and international arbitration, we gain insights into the competitive dynamics likely to be shaping legal engagements on the blockchain.

Keywords

Arbitration Automation Blockchain Dispute resolution Emerging norms Jurisdiction Law and technology Legal standards Platform law Smart contracts 

References

  1. Abramowitcz, Michael. 2015. Peer-to-peer law, built on Bitcoin. GWU Law School Research Paper No. 2015-9 (4 March).Google Scholar
  2. Adams, Richard, Beth Kewell, and Glenn Parry. 2018. Blockchains for good? Digital ledger technology and sustainable development goals. In Handbook of sustainability and social science research, ed. Walter Fihlo et al. Springer International publishing AG.Google Scholar
  3. Agrello. 2017. https://www.agrello.org/how-it-works. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  4. Ast, Federico, and Alejandro Sewrjugin. 2015. The crowdjury, a crowdsourced justice system for the collaboration era. 10 November. https://medium.com/the-crowdjury/the-crowdjury-a-crowdsourced-court-system-for-the-collaboration-era-66da002750d8. Accessed 9 April 2018.
  5. Choi, Wai L. 2017. When smart contracts are outsmarted: The parity wallet ‘freeze’ and software liability in the internet of value. 22 December. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=33a0af51-80f3-4643-8536-db9a0d9ba2c7. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  6. Clippinger, John Henry, and David Bollier. 2012. The rise of digital common law: An argument for trust frameworks, digital common law and digital forms of governance. https://idcubed.org/digital-law/the-rise-of-digital-common-law/. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  7. Common Accord. Undated. http://www.commonaccord.org/. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  8. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. 1958. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/New-York-Convention-E.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  9. Davidson, Sinclair, Primavera de Filippi, and Jason Potts. 2018. Blockchains and the economic institutions of capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000200.Google Scholar
  10. Dawson, John. 1969. The oracles of the law. Ann Arbor: Michigan.Google Scholar
  11. de Filippi, Primavera, and Samer Hassan. 2016. Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: From code is law to law is code. First Monday 21 (12).Google Scholar
  12. Dezalay, Yves, and Bryant G. Garth. 1998. Dealing in virtue: International commercial arbitration and the construction of a transnational legal order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dolzer, Rudolph. 2005. The impact of international investment treaties on domestic administrative law. International Law and Politics 37: 953–972.Google Scholar
  14. Dorsett, Shaunnagh, and Sean McVeigh. 2012. Jurisdiction. Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  15. Gurri, Adam. 2014. Using bitcoin to build a better common law. https://theumlaut.com/using-bitcoin-to-build-a-better-common-law-bf7507ce2a4a. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  16. Hale, Mathew. 1971. The history of the common law of England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Koulu, Riikka. 2016. Blockchains and online dispute resolution: Smart contracts as an alternative to enforcement. ScriptED 13 (1): 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Legal Industry Working Group, Undated. Enterprise Ethereum Alliance. https://entethalliance.org/working-groups/. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  19. Legalese Pte Ltd. 2017-18. https://legalese.com/aboutus.html#innovation-premise. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  20. Levy, Karen. 2017. Book-smart, not street-smart: Blockchain-based smart contracts and the social workings of law. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maitland, Frederic William. 1889. The history of the register of original writs. Harvard Law Review 3 (3): 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maitland, Frederic William, and Francis Charles Montague. 1998 [1915]. A sketch of English legal history. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Mattereum White Paper, Undated. https://mattereum.com/images/pdf/mattereum-draft-white-paper.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  24. Open Law. 2017. https://openlaw.io/. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  25. Pagallo, Ugo, Massimo Durante, and Shara Monteleone. 2017. What is new with the internet of things in privacy and data protection: Four legal challenges on sharing and control in IoT. In Data protection and privacy: (In)visibilities and infrastructures, ed. Ronald Leenes et al. Springer.Google Scholar
  26. R3 Consortium. 2018. https://www.r3.com/research/. Accessed 12 April 2018.
  27. Rush, Peter. 1997. An altered jurisdiction—corporeal traces of law. Griffith Law Review 6: 144–165.Google Scholar
  28. Simpson, A.W.B. 1987. Introduction, A history of the common law of contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teubner, Gunther (ed.). 1997a. Global law without a state. Brookfield: Dartmouth Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  30. Teubner, Gunther. 1997b. Global Bukowina: Legal pluralism in the world society. In Global law without a state, ed. Gunther Teubner. Brookfield: Dartmouth Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  31. Töngren, M., et al. 2017. Characterization, analysis and recommendations for exploiting the opportunities of cyber-physical systems. In Cyber physical systems, ed. Houbing Song, et al. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Van der Meulen, Bernd. 2011. Private food law: Governing food chains through contract law, self-regulation, private standards, audits and certification schemes. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Werbach, Kevin. 2018. Trust, but verify: Why the blockchain needs the law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swinburne Law SchoolSwinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of LawThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations