National Blockchain Laws as a Threat to Capital Markets Integration

Matthias B. Lehmann
{"title":"National Blockchain Laws as a Threat to Capital Markets Integration","authors":"Matthias B. Lehmann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3857495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Various states have started providing private law frameworks for blockchain transfers \nand crypto assets. The first acts have been adopted by France and Liechtenstein, \nwhile a commission of the British government sees no difficulties in extending property \nprotection under the Common law to crypto assets. In the US, an amendment to the \nUniform Commercial Code has been suggested, which has not stopped some States \ngoing their own, different way. The aim in all cases is to promote the use of modern \ndistributed ledger technology and enhance investor protection. \nWhile these initiatives will increase legal certainty, they differ significantly. This \nhas an important downside: there is a strong risk that the blockchain will be made \nsubject to diverging legal rules. Similar to the world of intermediated securities, various \nnational laws will need to be consulted to determine the rights and privileges of \ninvestors. This may increase transaction costs, thwart interoperability and produce \nthorny conflict-of-laws problems. Markets risk being fragmented into national \nsegments, with an inevitable diminution of their depth and liquidity. \nAs a remedy, this article suggests developing uniform rules for the blockchain. \nBefore national legislators and judges once again divide the world through \nidiosyncratic rules, the private law of crypto assets should be harmonised to the \nhighest degree possible. Uniform rules should ideally be forged at the global level, by \nfora like the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), the \nUnited Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and the Hague \nConference on Private International Law. In the absence of world-wide rules, \nuniformisation of private law should take place at the regional level, for instance by the \nEuropean Union. The article makes specific suggestions as to how this can be \nachieved and what the content of those rules should be.","PeriodicalId":330356,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3857495","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Various states have started providing private law frameworks for blockchain transfers and crypto assets. The first acts have been adopted by France and Liechtenstein, while a commission of the British government sees no difficulties in extending property protection under the Common law to crypto assets. In the US, an amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code has been suggested, which has not stopped some States going their own, different way. The aim in all cases is to promote the use of modern distributed ledger technology and enhance investor protection. While these initiatives will increase legal certainty, they differ significantly. This has an important downside: there is a strong risk that the blockchain will be made subject to diverging legal rules. Similar to the world of intermediated securities, various national laws will need to be consulted to determine the rights and privileges of investors. This may increase transaction costs, thwart interoperability and produce thorny conflict-of-laws problems. Markets risk being fragmented into national segments, with an inevitable diminution of their depth and liquidity. As a remedy, this article suggests developing uniform rules for the blockchain. Before national legislators and judges once again divide the world through idiosyncratic rules, the private law of crypto assets should be harmonised to the highest degree possible. Uniform rules should ideally be forged at the global level, by fora like the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. In the absence of world-wide rules, uniformisation of private law should take place at the regional level, for instance by the European Union. The article makes specific suggestions as to how this can be achieved and what the content of those rules should be.
国家区块链法律对资本市场整合的威胁
各州已经开始为区块链转移和加密资产提供私法框架。法国和列支敦士登已经通过了第一批法案,而英国政府的一个委员会认为将普通法下的财产保护扩展到加密资产没有困难。在美国,对《统一商法典》提出了一项修正案,但这并没有阻止一些州走自己的、不同的道路。在所有情况下,目的都是促进现代分布式账本技术的使用,并加强对投资者的保护。虽然这些举措将增加法律确定性,但它们差别很大。这有一个重要的缺点:区块链很有可能受到不同法律规则的约束。与中介证券领域类似,在确定投资者的权利和特权时,需要参考各国的法律。这可能会增加交易成本,阻碍互操作性并产生棘手的法律冲突问题。市场面临着被分割成国家部分的风险,其深度和流动性不可避免地会下降。作为补救措施,本文建议为区块链制定统一的规则。在各国立法者和法官再次通过特殊规则划分世界之前,加密资产的私法应该尽可能地协调一致。理想情况下,应该在全球一级通过国际统一私法协会(UNIDROIT)、联合国国际贸易法委员会(UNCITRAL)和海牙国际私法会议等论坛制定统一规则。在没有世界性规则的情况下,私法的统一应在区域一级进行,例如由欧洲联盟进行。本文就如何实现这一目标以及这些规则的内容提出了具体建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信