The Legal Practicalities Of The Use Of Blockchain As A Form Of Online Dispute Resolution (Part 2) | T. Koroye

THE
LEGAL PRATICALITIES OF THE USE OF BLOCKCHAIN FOR ONLINE ARBITRATION.

Asides the technical
inhibitions in the complete adoption of blockchain (such as technical know-how,
space for retention of data, protection of confidential information, etc.),^[1]
blockchain is not currently used in all earnest for offline commercial
international transactions due to the legal ambiguities; some of which have
been previously hinted on and addressed earlier on in this work. The legal
uncertainties span from the questionability of the legality of a smart
arbitration contract (and if it falls under the ambit of forced consent of
parties who decide to use blockchain as an online platform) to the
enforceability of the arbitral awards. Thus, the legal uncertainties arise from
the initiation of the arbitration agreement through blockchain, to the
recognition of the award by the State. This work will however, limit itself to
the ambiguities to the applicable law of arbitral proceedings (lex situs) and the practicability of
the enforcement of the award.

I.                  
Lex
Situs in Blockchain Arbitration.

An essential and admirable
feature of Blockchain is its decentralised nature, as it operates on a
peer-peer operational system, above any regulatory authority.^[2]
This, however, poses a legal uncertainty as to the governing law applicable to
the international commercial dispute, also referred to as lex situs. Most
international arbitration statutes recognise this, as provided in Article 14 of the International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules^[3]
and Article 16 of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)
Arbitration Rules.^[4]  This position is recognised in the case of Hiscox
v. Outhwaite^[5] where the House of Lords held that the
seat of the award is where the contract was signed. The seat of arbitration
will determine the level of State intervention into the arbitration process
(concerning the arbitration theory employed by the State) and the arbitrability
of the subject matter (as was held in the case of Soleimany v. Soleimany^[6]).
The seat of arbitration also determines the degree to which the arbitral award
can be challenged.

Legal jurists hence have
criticised the practicality of the use of blockchain as a platform of online-
arbitration as Smart Contracts are enabled through distributed nodes, which cut
across multiple legal jurisdictions, especially on instances of international
contracts, consequently obfuscating the actual lex situs.^[7]
In rectifying this uncertainty, scholars have proposed that the arbitrators can
apply the principle of ex aequo et bono by resolving the
dispute on what is deemed fair and just, on instance of no clear applicable
law.^[8]
Hence, arbitrators in blockchain assume the powers of amiable compositeur^[9]
to carrying out their duties. This position has been criticised due to the very
nature of the technology itself, as it excludes parties through “forced
consent”^[10]
from expressly vesting arbitrators the powers to apply the principles of ex
aequo et bono.^[11]

Another theory proposed by
legal jurist is the adoption of the jurisdiction of the Fifth party in the
arbitration agreement (referencing the provider of the online-arbitration
service) as the lex situs of the
dispute.^[12]  This theory proposes that the service
provider maintain a degree of responsibility as owners and maintainers of the
service, and therefore can be accorded the appropriate seat of arbitration.^[13]
This position has been given judicial credence in the cases of re
Tezos Securities Litigation^[14] and Alibaba Group Holdings Ltd v.
Alibabacoin Foundation et al^[15]
where the U.S Courts, in determining issues relating to cryptocurrency and
blockchain, held inter alia that ‘the physical location of the verifying nodes’
is an important factor in determining the jurisdiction of the court.^[16]
This writer finds this theory persuasive, as it provides a practical resolution
to this legal debacle.

II.              
Enforcement
of the award.

As stated earlier, the New
York Convention stipulates in Article V
the prerequisites of a valid arbitral award, stating that it must written for
it to be recognised and enforced in another State.^[17]
This is necessary because the enforcement of an award requires judicial
assistance of the State where the award is to be recognised.^[18]
States are empowered to decline enforcement of an award in its jurisdiction on
the ground of public policy. Blockchain, however, provides an automatic
execution of the arbitral award through Smart Contracts for online disputes
relating to cryptocurrencies.^[19]

Advocates for the inclusion
of blockchain argue that this is a redeeming factor of the technology, as it is
an effective and practical implementation of the award without encumbrances.^[20]
This has been criticised by legal scholars who are of the view that this is a
deviation from traditional commercial practice as it automatically enforces the
award (this mostly involves the transfer of cryptocurrencies from one wallet to
the other) by bypassing the public policy position of the State.^[21]
This school of thought also argue that such an enforcement will disregard the
principle of favor debitoris^[22]
which protects the interests of the debtor of the award to ensure his
rights are not violated in enforcement.^[23]

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION.

As contractual relations
become autonomous through novel technological platforms, the role of dispute
resolution is also expected to adopt to the changes. The procedure of ‘old
wine, new bottle’ approach proposed by traditionalists is ill fitted here, as
with new frontiers comes new challenges. An example is the blur of boundaries
between procedure and execution in Smart Contracts. As legal jurists propose,
the use of blockchain creates more problems than it actually aims to resolve
due to its uncertainties from its ambiguous definition to concept of
decentralisation.^[24]

Regardless of legal
skepticisms, Blockchain has been adopted as an ODR platform to resolve online
disputes concerning cryptocurrencies. This, however, has not been implemented
into offline transactions despite its numerous advantages. Reasons for this are
not farfetched, as blockchain is riddled with legal uncertainties. The
technology has been related to the Wild West where there exists little or no
regulations, and all innovators are in a virtual race to the most reliable.^[25]
This writer, however, opines that this is a necessary process to streamline the
technology into a more favorable legal platform. Traditional commercial
practice emerged through centuries of practice by traders, referred to as lex
mercatoria.^[26]
This organic evolution is also the essential trigger of the internationally
accepted concept of arbitration. This legal Darwinism is essential for
regulation standards that are intricately interwoven with Blockchain and its
services, as not all old wines fit into new bottles. This is essential because
the proposals from jurists that Blockchain should be ‘centre-regulated’ negates
the entirety of the technology itself, as it operates on a decentralised,
peer-to-peer assessed medium.

This writer agrees with the
suggestion of the use of the ‘Oracle’^[27] in
the blockchain platform to serve as an interface between the technology and the
real world, to reflect the data and agreements of parties that are not encoded
into the Smart Contract.^[28]
This can include parties’ agreement on the use of arbitrators on instance of
conflict, choice of law applicable, seat of arbitration and the enforcement
procedure.^[29]
These updates can act as the necessary restrictions of the automatic nature of
Blockchain during arbitral proceedings, making it more suitable to resolve
offline commercial issues, resolving most of the highlighted legal issues.

In conclusion, blockchain is
relatively a new technology, and the extent of its potential, either alone or
mixed with another sector such as arbitration, are currently unknown. The
unknown, however, will so remain, if depths are not pushed. Blockchain will
revolutionise the commercial world, and as consequence, the legal world as
well.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

CASES.

1. Alibaba
   Group Holdings Ltd v. Alibabacoin Foundation et al No. 18-02897, Southern
   District of New York
2. Hiscox
   v. Outhwaite [19911 2W.LR. 1321 (C.A.)
3. re
   Tezos Securities Litigation 17-CV-06779-RS,D.N.D.Cal.
4. Soleimany
   v. Soleimany [ [1999]  3  All 
   ER 847

STATUTORY
INSTRUMENTS.

5. United
   Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
   Awards of 1958, 330 UNTS 38
6. United
   Nations Commission on International Trade Law [UNCITRAL Model law on
   International Arbitration UN Doc A/40/17, Annex I

BOOKS

7. Bercovitch
   J, Kremenyuk V, Zartman W I. ‘The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution’,
   (1st edn,  SAGE, 2008)
8. Duchateau
   M et aul, Evolution in Dispute Resolution : From Adjudication to ADR
   (Governance & Recht), (Eleven International  Publishing, 2016
9. Fiadjoe
   A, Alternative Dispute Resolution; A Developing World Perspective (Taylor
   & Francis Group, 2004)
10. Katsh
    E and Rifkin J, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in
    Cyberspace, (Wiley, 2001)
11. Laudon
    K C, E-Commerce: Business. Technology. Society, (13th edn, Harlow: Pearson,
    2019)
12. Newcombe
    A and Paradell L, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of
    Treatment, (Kluwer Law, 2009)
13. Reisman
    W. M et al, International Commercial Arbitration, (2nd edn, West Academic,
    2015)
14. Solovay
    N and Reed C K, The Internet and Dispute Resolution: Untangling the Web,
    (Law Journal Press, 2003)
15. Vide
    CR, Favor Debitoris: Ana´lisis Crı´tico (Temis, Madrid 2010).

JOURNALS

16. Dahiyat
    E A R, ‘A Legal Framework for Online Commercial Arbitration in UAE: New
    Fabric but Old Style, (2017) 26 ICTL 272
17. DiMatteo
    L A and Poncibo C, ‘Quandary of Smart Contracts and Remedies: The Role of
    Contract Law and Self-Help Remedies’ (2018) 26 European Review of Private
    Law 805.
18. Ebner
    N and Zeleznikow J, ‘No Sheriff in Town: Governance for Online Dispute
    Resolution : Governance for Online Dispute Resolution’, (2016) 32
    Negotiation Journal 297
19. Exon
    S N, ‘Ethics and Online Dispute Resolution: From Evolution to Revolution’,
    (2017) 32 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 609, 616
20. Goldenfien
    J and Leiter A, ‘Legal Engineering on the Blockchain: ‘Smart Contracts’ as
    Legal Contract, (2018) 29 Law Critique 141
21. Gurkov
    A, ‘Blockchain in Arbitration Development: Multi-Signature Wallet
    Showcase’ (2018) 2 IJODR 63
22. Johnson
    M E and Loone P, ‘ Court’s second ’07‐’08
    ADR case challenges arbitrator supremacy’, (2008) 26 Alternative DR,  5
23. Katsh
    E, Rifkin J and Gaitenby A, ‘E-Commerce, E-Disputes and EDispute
    Resolution: In the Shadow of “eBay Law”’, (2000) 15 OMiO ST. J.
    DiSp. RESOL. 705
24. Lainer
    T J, ‘Where on Earth Does Cyber-Arbitration Occur? : International Review
    of Arbitral Awards Rendered Online, (2000) 7 ILSA Journal of International
    & Comp. Law, 1
25. Low
    K F K and Mik E, ‘Pause The Blockchain Legal Revolution’, (2020) 69 ICLQ
    135
26. L.Q
    H, ‘Online Dispute Resolution Systems: The Future of Cyberspace Law’,
    (2001) 41 SCLR 354
27. Mania
    K, ‘Online Dispute Resolution : The Future of Justice,’(2015) 1, ICJ, 76
28. Micheler
    E and Heyde Lv, ‘Holding, Clearing and Settling Securities Through
    Blockchain/Distributed Ledger Technology: Creating an Efficient System by
    Empowering Investors’, (2016) 11 J. Int’l Banking & Fin. L. 652, 653
29. Mik
    E, ‘Smart Contracts: Terminology, Technical Limitations and Real World
    Complexity, Law, Innovation and Technology’, (2017) 9 LITJ 269, 280
30. Ortolani
    P, ‘Self-Enforcing Online Dispute Resolution: Lessons from Bitcoin’,
    (2016) 36 OJLS, 602
31. Ortolani
    P, ‘The Impact Of Blockchain Technologies And Smart Contracts On Dispute
    Resolution: Arbitration And Court Litigation At The Crossroads’, (2019) 24
    Unif. L. Rev, 430
32. Rabinovich-Einy
    O and Katsh E, ‘Digital Justice: Reshaping Boundaries in an Online Dispute
    Resolution Environment’, (2014) 1 IJODR 5.
33. Shaikh
    Z A and Lashari I A, ‘Blockchain Technology the New Internet’, (2017) 6
    IJMSBR 4
34. Shehata
    I, ‘Three Potential Benefits of Blockchain for Arbitration’, (2018) 31 YAR
    32
35. Smith
    S S, ‘Implications of Next Step Blockchain Applications for Accounting and
    Legal Practitioners: A Case Study’, (2018) 12 AABFJ 78
36. Xuhui
    F,  ‘Recent ODR Developments in
    China’, (2017) 2 IJOR 35
37. Young
    B, ‘World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc. v. Michael Bosman:
    ICANN’S Dispute Resolution: ICANN’S Dispute Resolution Policy at Work’,
    (2000) 3 I N.C.J.L & Tech
38. Yu
    H, ‘A Theoretical Overview of the Foundations of International Commercial
    Arbitration’, 2008, 1(2) CONTEMP.ASIA ARB. J. 255

INTERNET
SOURCES.

39. Ashish
    Chugh, ‘Why We Don’t Need Blockchain to Manage Cases in International
    Arbitration’, (Kluwer Arbitration, 2018)

    Why We Don’t Need Blockchain to Manage Cases in International Arbitration

    accessed 10th April 2020.

40. Association
    for International Arbitration, ‘Electronic Consumer Dispute Resolution’,
    (Arbitration-Adr, 2020)
    https://www.arbitration-adr.org/resources/?p=serviceproviders&a=show&id=40
    accessed 1st April 2020.
41. BENOAM,
    (Benoam, 2020) https://benoam-tech.com/ accessed 8th April 2020
42. Chamber
    of Digital Commerce, ‘“Smart Contracts” Legal Primer Why Smart Contracts
    Are Valid under Existing Law and Do Not Require Additional Authorization
    to Be Enforceable’ (Digital Chamber, January 2018),
    https://digitalchamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Smart-Contracts-Legal-Primer-02.01.2018.pdf  accessed 8th April 2020.
43. Chris
    Skinner, ‘The Wild West of Crypto’, (The Finanser, 2019) https://thefinanser.com/2019/12/the-wild-west-of-crypto.html/
    accessed 10th April 2020
44. Chandru
    Ganesh, ‘Arbitration as a Dispute Resolution Mechanism for the Domain Name
    System’, (WIPO, 1999) https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/ accessed 8th
    April 2020.
45. Civil
    Justice Council, ‘Online Dispute Resolution for Low Value Civil Claims,
    (UK Judiciary, 2915)
    https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Online-Dispute-Resolution-Final-Web-Version1.pdf   accessed 8th April 2020.
46. Crunchbase,
    ‘eQuibbly’, (Crunchbase, 2012)
    https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/equibbly accessed 9th April 2020
47. ebay,
    ‘Dispute Resolution Overview’, (eBay, 1995), 
    https://pages.ebay.com/services/buyandsell/disputeres.html  accessed 8th April 2020
48. Emmanuel
    Gaillard, ‘Transcending National Legal Orders for International
    Arbitration’, (ICCA, 2013)
    https://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/8/37646744616595/gaillard_20131001_eg_book-congress-series-no-17_transcending-national-legal-order.pdf
    accessed 10th April 2020
49. Fabian
    Frank, ‘Consent Management on the Ethereum Blockchain’, (Univeristy of
    Twente, 2018) 
    https://essay.utwente.nl/76745/2/Frank_MA_BMS.pdf accessed 10th
    April 2020
50. Fredrik
    Milani, ‘Blockchain Oracles’, (University Of Tartu, 2019)
    https://comserv.cs.ut.ee/home/files/Mammadzada_MasterThesis_ITM.pdf?study=ATILoputoo&reference=B913660BDAEE6C01D5D887A09A79331E898F990F
    accessed 11th April 2019
51. FINRA,
    ‘Arbitration Process’, (Finra, 2014)
    www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/Arbitration/Process/ accessed 9th
    April 2020
52. Graham
    Ross, ‘Challenges and Opportunities in ODR’, (Mediate, 2003)
    https://www.mediate.com/Integrating/docs/ross.pdf accessed 9th April 2020
53. Ibrahim
    Shehata, ‘Arbitration of Smart Contracts Part 2- Recommendations for the
    Future Landscape Smart Contracts’, (Kluwer Arbitration, 2018)

    Arbitration of Smart Contracts Part 2 – Recommendations for the Future Landscape of Smart Contracts

    accessed  8th April 2020

54. ICC,
    ‘Arbitration Rules’, (ICC, 2017)

    2021 Arbitration Rules

    accessed 9th April 2020

55. ICANN,
    ‘Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies’, (ICANN.ORG, 2020)
    https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dndr-2012-02-25-en accessed 8th
    April, 2020
56. Internet-ARBitration,
    (Net-ARB, 2005) https://www.net-arb.com/ accessed 8th April 2020
57. Ihab
    Amro, ‘Online Arbitration in Theory and in Practice: A Comparative Study
    in Common Law and Civil Law Countries’, (Kluwer Arbitration, 2019) 
    http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/04/11/online-arbitration-in-theory-and-in-practice-a-comparative-study-in-common-law-and-civil-law-countries/
    accessed 8th April 2020
58. Jelena
    Madir, ‘Smart Contracts: (How) Do They Fit Under Existing Legal
    Frameworks?’, (SSRN, Dec 2018)
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3301463  accessed 8th April 2020 
59. LCIA,
    ‘LCIA Arbitration Rules’, (LCIA, 2014)
    https://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/lcia-arbitration-rules-2014.aspx
60. Michael
    Crosby et al, ‘BlockChain Technology: Beyond Bitcoin’, (Berkeley,
    2015) 
    https://scet.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/BlockchainPaper.pdf
    accessed 8th April 2020
61. Osinachi
    Nwandem Victor, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Scope And Matters Arising’,
    (Elsevier, 2015),
    <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2592926>
    accessed 8th April 2020
62. Satoshi
    Nakamoto, ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System’ (Bitcoin 2008)
    https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf accessed 9th April 2020
63. Stephan
    W. Schill, ‘Lex Mercatoria’, (OPIL, 2014)
    https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1534
    accessed 10th April 2020
64. SquareTrade,
    (Square Trade, 2020) http://www.squaretrade.com accessed 9th April 2020
65. The
    Mediation Room, (the Mediation room, 2020)
    http://www.themediationroom.com. accessed 8th April 2020
66. UNCITRAL,
    ‘Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution’, (UNCITRAL, 2020) 
    https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/odr/V1700382_English_Technical_Notes_on_ODR.pdf
    accessed 3rd April 2020
67. WIPO,
    ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’, (WIPO, 2020),
    https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/ accessed 8th April 2020
68. WIPO,
    Guide to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDPR), (WIPO,
    2020) https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/ accessed 28th March 2020
69. US
    Census Bureau, ‘E-stats’, (Us Department of Commerce, 2019)
    www.census.gov/eos/www/2007/2007reportfinal.pdf , accessed 8th April, 2020