Effectiveness of Civil Remedies in Self-Executing Smart Contracts: A Comparative Analytical Study in Light of Blockchain Technology

This article examines the effectiveness of traditional civil-law remedies in blockchain-based smart contracts. It focuses on the gap between the legal validity of remedies and their practical effectiveness when code executes automatically on a ledger designed to resist reversal. Using an analytical and comparative method, the study considers nullity, rescission, restitution, hardship and judicial intervention, and argues that litigation alone cannot fully address the consequences of irreversible execution. It proposes moving part of the legal flexibility into software design through secure interruption and termination mechanisms, while favoring a hybrid model combining a governing natural-language agreement with the executing code. The article also examines the allocation of liability among programmers, auditors, platforms and oracle providers, and affirms the continuing jurisdiction of courts despite the completion of automated performance. Further, it concludes that general civil-law rules remain capable of recognizing traditional remedies, but their practical effectiveness in decentralized environments depends on technical architectures that can respond to legally relevant events and on proportionate legislative requirements for higher-risk smart contracts.

Keywords: Smart Contract, Block-chain, Self-Execution, Civil Remedies, Software Design

Research Language: Arabic

How to cite:
ElQarar Journal for Peer-Reviewed Scientific Research, Vol. 12, Issue 34, Year (3), pp. 99-114.

Download Citation: Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

⚖️ Conflict of Interest:

The author/authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this research.

💰 Funding:

This study did not receive any financial support or grant from any public, private, or non-profit entity.

References

Allen, J. G. (2018). Wrapped and stacked: Smart contracts and the interaction of natural and formal language. European Review of Contract Law, 14(4), 307–343.
De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2018). Blockchain and the law: The rule of code. Harvard University Press.
EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum. (2019). Legal and regulatory framework of blockchains and smart contracts. European Commission.
Low, K. F. K., & Mik, E. (2020). Pause the blockchain legal revolution. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(1), 135–175.
Sklaroff, J. M. (2017). Smart contracts and the cost of inflexibility. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 166(1), 263–303.
UK Jurisdiction Taskforce. (2019). Legal statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts.
Werbach, K., & Cornell, N. (2017). Contracts ex machina. Duke Law Journal, 67(2), 313–382.
Werbach, K., & Cornell, N. (2017). Contracts ex machina. Duke Law Journal, 67(2), 313–382.
Al-Sanhūrī, ʿA. al-R. A. (n.d.). *Al-Wasīṭ fī sharḥ al-qānūn al-madanī al-jadīd* (Vol. 1, *Naẓarīyat al-iltizām bi-wajh ʿāmm - Maṣādir al-iltizām*) [The Mediator in Explaining the New Civil Law (Vol. 1, The Theory of Obligation in General - Sources of Obligation)]. Bayrūt: Manshūrāt al-Ḥalabī al-Ḥuqūقīyah.
Al-Imārāt al-ʿArabīyah al-Muttaḥidah. (2021). *Al-Marsūm bi-qānūn ittiḥādī raqm 46 li-sanat 2021 fī shaʾn al-muʿāmalāt al-iliktrūnīyah wa-khadamāt al-thiqah* [Federal Decree-Law No. 46 of 2021 on Electronic Transactions and Trust Services]. Abū Ẓaby.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Permitting copying, distribution, and reproduction of the work in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly attributed.