CONFLICTS OF LAW AND JURISDICTION ON BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12662/2447-6641oj.v20i33.p60-82.2022

Keywords:

blockchain, private international law, peer to peer, jurisdiction, conflict of laws

Abstract

Background: The technology known as blockchain allows private relations that are international per se, since its operation is based on decentralized logic, in which its different "nodes" are distributed in computers all over the world. However, to locate a transaction made through blockchain through the classical reasoning of Private International Law is a challenging task, which brings questions about how to address the matter of jurisdiction and choice of law in those legal relations.

Objective: The objective of this article is to present the difficulties in identifying the competent court and the connecting factor applicable to international conflicts potentially arising from the technology, as well as to point out possible paths for a solution.

Method: The research uses the deductive method; as for the procedure, it is a bibliographical research that analyzes studies and scientific articles on the subject.

Results: The research concludes that the application of classical criteria to solve conflicts of laws matters in the blockchain requires specific care and suggests that peer to peer technology itself can bring viable alternatives for greater legal security in the solution of conflicts emerging from technology.

Author Biographies

Michele Alessandra Hastreiter, CENTRO UNIVERSITÁRIO CURITIBA - UNICURITBA

Professora de Direito Internacional Público e Privado no Centro Universitário Curitiba – UNICURITIBA. Doutoranda em Direito pela Universidade Federal do Paraná. Mestre em Direito pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná. Especialista em Direito, Logística e Negócios Internacionais. Advogada e Administradora Internacional de Negócios.

Marcia Carla Pereira Ribeiro, Universidade Federal do Paraná e Pontifícia Universidade Federal do Paraná

Professora Titular de Direito Societário na Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná – PUCPR. Professora Associada de Direito Empresarial na Universidade Federal do Paraná – UFPR. Pós-doc pela FGVSP, pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa e pela Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne. Pesquisadora Conv.Université de Montréal – CA. Advogada. E-mail: mcarlaribeiro@uol.com.br

Downloads

Published

2022-01-12

How to Cite

HASTREITER, Michele Alessandra; RIBEIRO, Marcia Carla Pereira. CONFLICTS OF LAW AND JURISDICTION ON BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS. Revista Opinião Jurídica (Fortaleza), Fortaleza, v. 20, n. 33, p. 60–82, 2022. DOI: 10.12662/2447-6641oj.v20i33.p60-82.2022. Disponível em: https://periodicos.unichristus.edu.br/opiniaojuridica/article/view/3909. Acesso em: 24 sep. 2026.

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 33 (2022)

Section

Artigos Originais

License

Copyright and Licensing

According to the current submission policy, authors retain the rights to their works and grant the Revista Opinião Jurídica the right of first publication, with commercial rights reserved by the publisher under the terms of the non-commercial license used. Revista Opinião Jurídica uses a Creative Commons license. The works published are under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC-SA).

This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:

 BY: credit must be given to the creator.
 NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
 SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENT

By submitting an article, the author(s) declare to have sole responsibility for the content of the piece and is(are), therefore, responsible for any judicial or extrajudicial measures referring to it.

1. In case of joint authorship, all authors are considered collectively responsible, except when proved otherwise.