区块链争议规制的国际私法路径
Dispute Resolution for Blockchain in International Private Law Approach
摘要: 规制区块链争议必须尊重其不可篡改的技术特征,对于无效或可撤销的交易,可通过法律给受让人施加反向转移的义务。目前暂没有直接适用于区块链的统一实体法规范,因此需从管辖和法律适用角度考虑国际私法规则在区块链交易中的具体应用。但区块链去中心化、多节点的特点给连结点的寻找造成了困难,一方面区块链平台需要尽可能地帮助参与者达成法律适用选择,另一方面各国应尽快就加密财产的性质达成共识,在承认和执行加密财产与区块链信息保护的判决上加强合作。
Abstract: The regulation of blockchain disputes must respect its non-tampering technical characteristics, and for invalid or voidable transactions, the transferee can be imposed the obligation of reverse transfer by law. At present, there is no unified substantive law that is directly applicable to the blockchain, so the specific application of conflict rules in blockchain transactions needs to be considered from the perspectives of jurisdiction and application of law. But the decentralized and multi-node characteristics of blockchain make it difficult to find the point of contact. On the one hand, blockchain platform needs to help participants reach the choice of law in the contract. On the other hand, countries should reach a consensus on the nature of cryptographic property as soon as possible, and strengthen cooperation in recognition and enforcement of judgments about cryptographic property and blockchain information protection.
文章引用:朱馨怡. 区块链争议规制的国际私法路径[J]. 争议解决, 2021, 7(4): 179-186. https://doi.org/10.12677/DS.2021.74023

参考文献

[1] 郑戈. 区块链与未来法治[J]. 东方法学, 2018(3): 75-86.
[2] 马兆林. 人工智能时代——一本书读懂区块链金融[M]. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2017: 143.
[3] Goldman Sachs Blockchain: Putting Theory into Practice.
https://github.com/bellaj/Blockchain/blob/master/Goldman-Sachs-report-Blockchain-Putting-Theory-into-Practice.pdf
[4] 链捕手. 民生银行: “全力拥抱”区块链, 已应用于福费廷与信用证业务[EB/OL]. 中国电子银行网.
https://www.cebnet.com.cn/20190311/102555797.html, 2021-10-26.
[5] 温晓桦. 可编程性在物联网中的交易应用[EB/OL].
https://blog.csdn.net/weixin_34268610/article/details/90428335, 2021-10-26.
[6] 能链科技. 区块链合约层——一种自动执行的数字协议[EB/OL].
https://www.nenglian.com/insight/2207.html, 2021-10-26.
[7] Kaal, W. (2013) Evolution of Law: Dynamic Regulation in a New Institutional Economics Framework. University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-17.
[8] Raskin, M. (2017) The Law and Legality of Smart Contracts. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 1, 305-340.
[9] Lessig, L. (2006) Code Version 2.0. Basic Books, New York.
[10] De Filippi, P. and Loveluck, B. (2016) The Invisible Politics of Bitcoin: Governance Cri-sis of a Decentralised Infrastructure. Internet Policy Review, 5, 1-28.
[11] 包丁裕睿, 迟骋, 李世刚. 区块链争议解决与治理范式选择[J]. 科技与法律, 2019(3): 74-83.
[12] Raskin, M. (2015) Realm of the Coin: Bitcoin and Civil Pro-cedure. Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, 20, 970-1011.
[13] 李伟. 区块链争议的冲突法解决范式探讨——以加密财产跨境转移为例[J]. 武大国际法评论, 2021(2): 66-90.
[14] Lehmann, M. (2019) Who Owns Bitcoin? Private Law Facing the Blockchain. European Banking Institute Working Paper Series No. 42.
[15] Werbach, K. (2018) Trust, but Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 33, 491-551.
[16] Guillaume, F. (2019) Aspects of Private International Law Related to Blockchain Transactions. In: Kraus, D., Obrist, T. and Hari, O., Eds., Blockchains, Smart Contracts, Decentralised Autonomous Organizations and the Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 49-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef