1. Introduction.
Economical structure of the globe demands radical amendments considering the effects of recently increasing hyperinflation and the foreign currency gap, especially in developing countries as a result of the global pandemic, and arising problems of energy supply and transportation due to the war between Ukraine and Russia. That demand in its essence does not come to the fore as a new problem in the economic field but revisits the old debates under the light of new technologies and approaches. Subjects of international trade so far adopted the US Dollar as a common unit for their commercial transactions. This preference was tested by several economic crises throughout history many times and yet remains to prevail. Nevertheless, with the development of digitalization in the social and economic field, the effectiveness of current international trade based on the US dollar should be questioned again.
Although the use of blockchain technologies as a means of payment and intermediary dates back a long time in the back streets of the internet, its legal validity and usage in society have increased considerably in recent years. Traders have started to change their traditional practices, and financial institutions[1] and governments[2] began to be forced to embrace these new technological implements. These new technologies, which are in their infancy, have brought legal issues that needed to be resolved.
In this context, this essay will analyze the historical backgrounds and reasons for dollar dominance in international trade including contemporary issues and critiques. Secondly, it will examine the conventional transboundary money-transferring methods and will explore cryptocurrencies as a potential alternative to be used and digital financial instruments related to blockchain technologies to be applied in international trade, by explaining and discussing the latest digital contract applications. Finally, the current legal situation of blockchain technologies and possible legal problems that may arise due to the application of these technologies will be examined in terms of contract law and private international law.
2. Embattled History of US Dollar-Oriented International Trade and Reasons For Change.
Three major economic institutions that shaped and governed the principles and regulations of international trade emerged at the end of World War II: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.[3] The last two organizations from the abovementioned were raised as a result of the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.[4] The Bretton Woods conference envisaged an economic system for the world which adopted the US Dollar as a global reserve currency[5] since the IMF system obliged member countries to peg their national currencies to either gold or the US dollar.[6] Perhaps Lord Woolton was the one who most accurately summarized the result in the House of Lords debate after the conference by expressing, “We fought at Dunkirk, but today we are surrendering what I conceive to be our just rights. We are surrendering them to the power of the dollar....”[7]
After the implication of the Bretton Woods system, several international economic crises occurred due to the imbalance and inadequacy of the system. In fact, during the conference English economist and philosopher Keynes foresaw that the system based on a currency under the rule of a single country was not stable for international trade to sustain. Instead, Keynes proposed International Clearing Union as an alternative system and suggested an international currency unit called Bancor. This system aimed to achieve flexibility in international liquidity.[8] Triffin also predicted that if the deterioration in the US current account balance continues, the US will not be able to fulfil its 35-dollar-per-ounce promise.[9] By the 1960s demand for US Dollar was overwhelming all around the world and the Federal Reserve had to print lots of dollars which caused inflation at intolerable levels. Eventually, The dollar crisis in 1971, led to fundamental amendments made by Richard Nixon, resulting in the abandonment of the Bretton Woods system by removing the convertibility of US Dollars into gold.[10] Although this radical decision mainly was considered a successful economical manoeuvre to hold the superior position of the US Dollar at the time,[11] indeed it has shaken the credibility of the US dollar globally.[12]
Nevertheless, the core problems with inflation and currency volatility have still not been resolved and have deepened. From 1990 to 2000, many countries faced inflation rates that endangered their local economies and financial systems.[13] Hyperinflation may cause dollarization as we have observed such consequences in countries like the Republic of El Salvador, Ecuador, Republic of Zimbabwe which accepted the US Dollar in their central banks.[14] Gradually, US Dollar gained immense control over global finance, markets, trade agreements, and foreign exchange reserves since there are no viable alternatives.[15] Dollarized economies carry the danger of losing control of monetary policy as well as the case in Ecuador.[16] More importantly, it has been claimed that the dominance of the US dollar as the international reserve currency has many negative effects on international trade. First, exchange rate volatility in countries that cannot maintain a fixed exchange rate regime, poses uncertainty.[17] If exchange rate volatility becomes more frequent, the financial results of import and export agreements become unpredictable and international trade is adversely affected.[18] Exchange rate volatility also creates difficulties when trying to take macroeconomic actions such as tackling inflation, because exchange rate changes should be taken into account constantly when implementing economic measures.[19] As in the case of Russia, the use of the US dollar as an economic weapon may also provide a political reason for countries to seek de-dollarization.[20]
The search for alternatives to resolve the abovementioned chronic issues of the US Dollar in international trade is accelerated by the economic crisis after the global pandemic[21] and the presence of trending new technological financial trends.[22] Cryptocurrencies have begun to be considered by many countries as a serious option against the dollar. For example, Russia, as a matter of its foreign policy, considers cryptocurrencies as an important weapon that may end the American monetary hegemony.[23] Iran, another country that suffers from the financial sanctions of the United States, also sees cryptocurrencies as an opportunity to participate effectively in international trade.[24] Moreover, the active participation of traders in paying their obligations directly or through service providers has increased the acceptability of Bitcoin.[25] All these occurrences brought along technical and legal issues such as integrating blockchain technologies into the existing financial system and establishing the legal infrastructure.[26]
3. Understanding Blockchain Technology and Cryptocurrencies: Integration to Financial Instruments.
The concept of using a chain of hashes to establish an overall order of commitments to a set of documents that are dynamically increasing was first proposed by Stuart Haber and Scott Stornetta in 1991.[27] In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto released a paper that made cryptocurrencies known to a larger audience and helped them gain popularity.[28] The distributed and decentralised ledger created by blockchain technology is independent of middlemen and intermediaries. Every block functions as a cryptographic record of transactions, and the system is made up of an interconnected chain of linked blocks.[29] In recent years, blockchain technology has evolved into a tool that can be utilised across several sectors. It has promised to be the technology that makes transactions simple, effective, secure, and affordable.[30] In the Blockchain system, the records of the transactions are kept in an unalterable block that includes all of the transactional data. Within the network, any valuable transaction or piece of information can be recorded and distributed.[31]
Blockchain technology is considered revolutionary because it allows parties in anonymity to conduct a transaction exempt from the governance of certain authorities and is resistant to data manipulation.[32] However, claims about the reliability of blockchain technology are still questionable due to its vulnerability to hacking.[33] Nevertheless, its admissibility is increasing gradually in the banking system. For example, huge finance companies such as Mastercard started to adopt blockchain technologies in payment systems.[34] One important development in this aspect is the introduction of smart contracts to the conventional payment system as a financial instrument.[35] To achieve a better understanding a brief overview of financial practices in international trade is necessary to include.
Whether it is a seller or buyer, in transactions, subjects of cross-boundary trade have sought solutions to mitigate the costs and risks that arise from internal or external reasons.[36] A letter of credit is one financial contract that serves exactly this purpose. Although there are various types, typically, it is a contract between the issuing bank, the applicant and the beneficiary, where the issuing bank is obliged to make the payment to the beneficiary provided that the condition of submitting the specified documents by the beneficiary is met.[37] However, this method is not completely sufficient to eliminate settlement risks and still needs improvement to achieve the desired result effectively. Conventional letter of credit agreement is seen as a time-consuming and tedious method in today's world where business life demands extreme fluidity and speed.[38] One reason is related to the independence principle, bank investigation requires a delicate examination to eliminate the risks as a result of asymmetric information.[39] Another conundrum is establishing a contractual balance between the interest of the applicant and beneficiaries in terms of bearing the risk.[40] The applicant is always carrying the risk of fraud with the possibility of forged documents being submitted to the bank by the malicious beneficiary because of the principle of autonomy.[41] Just as the same risk applies to the issuing bank as in the case of Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation[42] which is an exceptional decision where the court abandoned the independence principle.[43] On the other hand, while opening the Letter of Credit, the buyer could disregard the conditions that were agreed upon in the sales contract or try to modify the terms of the transaction to his advantage by adding new conditions for example to benefit from exchange rate fluctuation.[44]
It has been argued that smart contracts within the scope of blockchain technology may be an alternative to overcome these problems. Parties can reach an agreement using a code that is run on a decentralised blockchain.[45] Smart contracts are reducing costs and accelerate the process by eliminating the necessity of intermediation of a third party for the fulfilment of obligations because it enables to performing of the contractual obligation automatically when the conditions are met.[46] Also provides security since the contractual data is preserved in the immutable blockchain network.[47] However, even in such a case, one can argue that the risk of fraud arising from the malicious behaviour of the parties remains. Eliminating this risk may be possible but indeed it will be a long-term process because overall digitalization of all the aspects of international trade from the contract to transportation is required.[48] For example, if the delivery mechanism is integrated into the digital system in sync with blockchain data it is not possible to demand payment without it having been triggered by the digital confirmation of the delivery. In this case, it can be stated that theoretically smart contracts can be effective in eliminating determined risks, but a holistic technological transformation is required by integrating all related data from financial commercial and government bodies.[49]
After the emergence of Bitcoin in 2009, numerous different cryptocurrencies were launched, and today cryptocurrencies have begun to be accepted as an investment and payment tool.[50] Although being decentralized has been stated as a positive feature of cryptocurrencies currently, they still have inadequacies to replace fiat money for that very reason since the stability of values seems uncertain to assure trust due to the lack of a centralized system.[51] Another issue is cryptocurrencies are frequently susceptible to theft, hacking, technical issues and mistakes.[52] Even so, the aforementioned challenges do not deter governments from seeking to adopt this groundbreaking technology. It may be indicated that states try to tame this wild beast. One attempt in that direction is called “Central Bank Digital Currencies.[53]” House of Lords already reported that alternative technological payment trends can reduce the US dollar's sanction power; similar risk is also viable for Sterlin and Euro.[54] CBDCs can be considered a digital variant of existing central bank money.[55] Many countries all around the globe such as Sweden, China and Korea are conducting their pilots for CBDC implementation.[56] Countries such as the Bahamas, Nigeria, Eastern Caribbean Union, and Jamaica have already launched the CBDC.[57]
The possibility of successful completion of studies in this direction brings to mind the following question. Can cryptocurrencies, which have so far been attracted by their decentralization and anonymity, ultimately allow for ultimate centralized control with the regulations of governments in this area? One concern mentioned in this aspect is expressed by the House of Lords report stating that CBDCs potentially allow Governments to track payments made and this may constitute a violation of the right to privacy.[58] In this respect, it should come as no surprise that the CBDC implementation is particularly attractive to authoritarian countries such as China. Nevertheless, in line with the above reasons, it seems that the financial integration of blockchain technologies and cryptocurrencies will remain valid in the future as part of an indispensable financial transformation.
4. Legal Concerns and Challenges Regarding Regulating Cryptocurrencies.
Currently, there appears to be no consensus on the legal status of cryptocurrencies around the world. Countries' jurisdictions either recognize cryptocurrencies as legal tender or as property. A legal tender is described as a money that is accepted as payment for goods and services, as well as for the repayment of debts and other obligations, within the boundaries of a certain jurisdiction.[59] Property on the other hand is defined as a legal relationship with an object that is conducive to ownership.[60] El Salvador for example, is one country that adopted cryptocurrency as a legal tender.[61] Contrarily, it has been accepted as property in the UK. Queens Bench Division stated that cryptocurrency assets like Bitcoin were property since they could be defined, identified by third parties, could be assumed by other parties, and had some permanency.[62] Although both UKJT and courts so far have carried this approach, it is still insufficient to resolve some uncertainties in the common law. One issue is, it is still unclear how the Sale of goods act provisions will be applied in terms of international trade paid with cryptocurrency. Section 2 of the Sale of Goods Act states that: ”A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.[63]” With a current definition since cryptocurrencies are accepted as property, therefore, contracts in which cryptocurrencies are used as a means of payment should be considered barter contracts[64] which means outside the scope of the current sale of goods provisions. Contrarily in the US, the district court already stated that Bitcoin can be used as money, the only limitation in this regard may be that it is limited to countries that accept it as currency.[65]
UKJT expressed that according to section 61 characterising cryptocurrencies as “goods” is not possible since they interpreted the phrase “things in action” means all things that are not suitable for possession. [66] Their reasoning was, although they accept that cryptocurrencies do not fall under the category of things in action or things in possession and can be considered as a third category, they stated that these interpretations are irrelevant because according to section 61, anything other than things in possession is not to be considered goods[67] by referring to the distinction made in Colonial Bank v Whinney.[68] However, the statement in this direction is based on a dubious interpretation. There is no explicit provision in the Sale of Goods Act indicating that anything that is not “things in possession” is “things in action”. In addition, such an interpretation violates the principle, exceptions should be construed strictly, which is the general rule in law. Because according to section 61 the general rule is, goods include all personal chattels. The exclusion of money and things in action are exceptions. It should be admitted that there is a legal gap that needs to be resolved here by revisiting this interpretation.
Another problem that arises from treating cryptocurrencies as property is ascertaining whether they have legal value. The value of the fiat money is based on actual fiscal values related to the supply and demand mechanism. Therefore in terms of contractual law, there is no difficulty in attributing legal value to fiat money.[69] Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, are not yet accepted as legal tenders for many countries, with the exceptions mentioned above. This means, there is no rational value that determines the value of cryptocurrencies other than people's trust[70] thus raising the question of whether cryptocurrencies can be considered sufficient consideration in terms of contract law. Although in some cases cryptocurrency is defined as something of legal value[71], these confirmations have only been made from a property law perspective.[72] Nevertheless, Treiblmaier’s idea can be a solid resolution against the argument that cryptocurrency has no intrinsic value. To summarise, he explained that to attribute a value to a thing in terms of basic human necessities, there is no difference between gold, fiat money, and cryptocurrencies.[73] Along with this, he argued that the energy and capital used to produce cryptocurrency data can give cryptocurrencies an inherent value.[74] Adopting this approach may bring a solution to the issue of how cryptocurrencies should be evaluated in a contractual sense as a consideration, otherwise, the enforceability of commercial transactions made by cryptocurrency remains uncertain.
Ascertaining which law governs cross-border transactions involving blockchain technology in terms of the conflict of law aspect is another challenge since smart contracts have pseudonymous nature, unlike conventional commercial transactions. According to Article 3 of the Rome 1 regulation[75] parties are entitled to choose the applicable law. According to Article 4(1), in case of no selection, the law of the most closely connected country shall govern the contract. The problem arises because article 4(2) states that the most closely connected country is, “Where the party who is to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract has, at the time of conclusion of the contract, his habitual residence, or, in the case of a body corporate or unincorporated, its central administration.” The first legal advice is therefore to promote the exercise of the right of choice reserved in Article 3 with a provision included in smart contracts.[76] However, the question remains whether such a provision in smart contracts can meet the written form requirement sought in the law.[77]
It is quite possible to see blockchain dispute resolution systems such as Aragon Court and Kleros becoming widespread in the future.[78] In such a case, there is a possibility that blockchain technology may cause a radical change in conventional alternative dispute resolution methods.
5. Conclusion.
Although there are apprehensions about the integration of blockchain technologies in commercial transactions, financial institutions and countries seem quite eager to develop and adopt smart contracts and cryptocurrencies. It is quite possible that contracts in the traditional sense will be abandoned and smart contracts will be preferred. However, the perfection of smart contracts depends on the completion of digital transformation in all areas. The characterization of cryptocurrencies as property creates many uncertainties in terms of contract law. Especially with the implementation of CBDCs, it is difficult for common law countries to maintain this perception based on old jurisprudence. However, it is seen that many issues are not fully evaluated within the scope of contract law and are still in their infancy. With the spread of cryptocurrency trading activities, it seems inevitable that cryptocurrencies will be accepted as legal tender by legal regulation to be brought in this regard. Along with this, blockchain dispute resolution systems could be the future of dispute resolution arising from international trade.
Bibliography
Cases
AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC (Comm) 3556.
Ruscoe and Moore v Cryptopia Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZLR 728, 831
Securities and Exchange Commission v Shavers et al, No 4:2013cv00416 (E.D. Tex, 19 August 2013)
Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation [1941] 177 Misc 719, 31 NYS2d 631.
Legislations
Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (adopted 17 June 2008, entered into force 17 December 2009) No 593/2008
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Books
Ganne E, Can Blockchain Revolutionize International Trade? (World Trade Organization 2018)
Liu ZZ and Papa M, Can BRICS De-Dollarize the Global Financial System? (Cambridge University Press 2022)
Ocampo JA, Resetting the International Monetary (Non)System (Oxford University Press 2017)
Steil B, The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order (Princeton University Press 2013)
Journal Articles
Alavi H, 'Risk Analysis in Documentary Letter of Credit Operation' (2017) Financial Law Review, 10.1515/flr-2016-0021 28.
Amato M and Fantacci L, “Back to Which Bretton Woods? Liquidity and Clearing as Alternative Principles for Reforming International Money” (2014) 38 Cambridge Journal of Economics 1431
Arslanalp S, Bell CS and Eichengreen B, “The Stealth Erosion of Dollar Dominance: Active Diversifiers and the Rise of Nontraditional Reserve Currencies” (2022) 2022 IMF Working Papers 1.
Auboin M and Ruta M, “The Relationship between Exchange Rates and International Trade: A Literature Review” (2013) 12 World Trade Review 577
Auer R, Frost J, Gambacorta L, Monnet C, Rice T and Shin HS, “Central bank digital currencies: motives, economic implications and the research frontier.” (2021) BIS Working Papers No 976
Banik B and Roy CK, “Effect of Exchange Rate Uncertainty on Bilateral Trade Performance in SAARC Countries: A Gravity Model Analysis” (2020) 5 International Trade, Politics and Development 32.
Cavusgil ST, Deligonul S, Ghauri PN, Bamiatzi V, Park BI, and Mellahi K, ‘Risk in International Business and Its Mitigation’ (2020) 55 Journal of World Business (2)
Chohan UW, “A History of Bitcoin” (2017) SSRN Electronic Journal, 3.
Costigan T, Drew Cottle and Angela Keys, “The US Dollar as the Global Reserve Currency: Implications for US Hegemony” (2017) 8 World Review of Political Economy 104
Cueva S and Diaz JP, “The Fiscal and Monetary History of Ecuador: 1950–2015” [2018] SSRN Electronic Journal.
Derindag OF, Yarygina IZ and Tsarev RY, “International Trade and Blockchain Technologies: Implications for Practice and Policy” (2020) 421 IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 022051
ElBahrawy A, Alessandretti L, Kandler A, Satorras RP, and Baronchelli A, 'Evolutionary dynamics of the cryptocurrency market' (2017) 4(6) R. Soc. open sci. 170623
Falwadiya H and Dhingra S, “Blockchain Technology Adoption in Government Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review” (2022) 15 Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing 473.
Freund A, ‘Economic incentives and Blockchain security’ (2017) Journal of Securities Operations & Custody 10
Fry JM and Serbera JP, 'Quantifying the Sustainability of Bitcoin and Blockchain' (2020) 33(4) Journal of Enterprise Information Management
Giancaspro M, “Cryptocurrency and the Consideration Conundrum: Does Crypto Have Legal Value under Contract Law?”(2022) 33(1) Journal of Banking and Finance: Law and Practice
Guillaume F and Riva S, “Blockchain Dispute Resolution for Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: The Rise of Decentralized Autonomous Justice” (2022) SSRN Electronic Journal
Gupta M, Abrol S, Sapra R, “Central Bank Digital Currency (Cbdc): A Global Perspective.” (2023) Jamshedpur Research Review Year 11, vol. 1, issue 57
Haber S and Stornetta WS. “How to time-stamp a digital document.” (1990) Journal of Cryptology 3: 99
Igwe IOC, “History of the International Economy: The Bretton Woods System and Its Impact on the Economic Development of Developing Countries” (2018) 4 Athens Journal of Law 105
Irwin DA, “The Nixon Shock after Forty Years: The Import Surcharge Revisited” (2012) 12 World Trade Review 29.
Johnson HG, 'The International Monetary Crisis of 1971' (1973) 46 Journal of Business 11.
Khalil M, Khawaja KF and Sarfraz M, “The Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Financial Sector during the Era of Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Moderated Mediated Model” (2021) 56 Quality & Quantity 2435
Kshetri N, "El Salvador’s Bitcoin Gamble," (2022) 55(6) Computer 85.
Kshetri N, 'Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things?' (2017) 19(4) IT Professional 68.
Larson DA, ‘Mitigating Risky Business: Modernizing Letters of Credit with Blockchain, Smart Contracts, and the Internet of Things’ (2019) Michigan State Law Review 2018 (4)
Malikanzi S and Gekara M, ”Factors Contributing To The Use Of Commercial Letter (S) Of Credit On International Business Transaction(S): A Case Of Manufacturing Industries In Kenya.” (2013) International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research 103
Marthinsen JE and Gordon SR, “Hyperinflation, Optimal Currency Scopes, and a Cryptocurrency Alternative to Dollarization” (2022) 85 The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 161
Meier GM, “The Bretton Woods Agreement -- Twenty-Five Years After” (1971) 23 Stanford Law Review 235
Morton T, “The Future of Cryptocurrency: An Unregulated Instrument in an Increasingly Regulated Global Economy.” (2020) 16 Loyola University Chicago International Law Review 129
Neroth P. "Cyber currency: One way to bypass the Euro." Engineering & Technology 8 (2013): 18
Rezaeinejad I, ‘Challenges and Opportunities Cryptocurrency in Iran Economy & E-Businesses’ (2021) 29(4) Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 689.
Ruhl G, “Smart (Legal) Contracts, or: Which (Contract) Law for Smart Contracts?” (2020)), Cappiello B & Carullo G (eds) Blockchain, Law and Governance, Springer (Forthcoming)
Savelyev A, 'Contract Law 2.0: ‘Smart’ Contracts as the Beginning of the End of Classic Contract Law' (2017) 26(2) Information & Communications Technology Law 116.
Siddik NA and others, “Blockchain Technology and Facilitation of International Trade: An Empirical Analysis” (2020) 10 FIIB Business Review 232.
Smith NR, “Could Russia Utilize Cryptocurrencies in Its Foreign Policy Grand Strategizing?” (2019) 17 Russia in Global Affairs 134.
Tokic D, 'Long-term consequences of the 2020 coronavirus pandemics: historical global-macro context', (2020) Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 31(3)
Treiblmaier H, “Do Cryptocurrencies Really Have (No) Intrinsic Value?” (2021) Electronic Markets 1749.
Triffin R, “The International Role and Fate of the Dollar” (1978) 57 Foreign Affairs 269
Ukwueze F, “Cryptocurrency: Towards Regulating the Unruly Enigma of Fintech in Nigeria and South Africa” (2021) 24(1) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
Uysal F, Ahmadisheykhsarmast S, and Sonmez R, 'A Smart Contract Framework as an Alternative Method for Letter of Credit Use in Construction Procurement' (2022) 22(2) International Journal of Construction Management 642.
Zhang C and Hu N, “A New Method for Computing Letter of Credit Risks” (2020) 10 SAGE Open 215824402097021
Zoeller CJP and Bandelj N, “Crisis as Opportunity: Nixon’s Announcement to Close the Gold Window” (2019) 5 Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 237802311984181.
Official Reports
House of Lords: Economic Affairs Committee, “Central bank digital currencies: a solution in search of a problem?” (Authority of the House of Lords 2022)
House of Lords: Economic Affairs Committee, “Smart Legal Contracts Advice to Government” (Authority of the House of Lords 2022)
UK Jurisdiction Taskforce“Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts” (2019) The LawTech Delivery Panel
Thesis
Bao NNT, Chen Y and Yuen CW, 'Crypto as A Choice Of Payment: Perceived Challenges From User Perspectives' (Jonkoping University 2019)
Khadka R, “The impact of blockchain technology in banking: How can blockchain revolutionize the banking industry?” (Thesis, Centria University 2020)
--------------
[1] Mahmoona Khalil, Kausar Fiaz Khawaja and Muddassar Sarfraz, “The Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Financial Sector during the Era of Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Moderated Mediated Model” (2021) 56 Quality & Quantity 2435
[2] Himanshu Falwadiya and Sanjay Dhingra, “Blockchain Technology Adoption in Government Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review” (2022) 15 Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing 473
[3] Gerald M Meier, “The Bretton Woods Agreement -- Twenty-Five Years After” (1971) 23 Stanford Law Review 235
[4] José Antonio Ocampo, Resetting the International Monetary (Non)System (Oxford University Press 2017)
[5] Thomas Costigan, Drew Cottle and Angela Keys, “The US Dollar as the Global Reserve Currency: Implications for US Hegemony” (2017) 8 World Review of Political Economy 104, 106
[6] Isaac OC Igwe, “History of the International Economy: The Bretton Woods System and Its Impact on the Economic Development of Developing Countries” (2018) 4 Athens Journal of Law 105, 113
[7] Benn Steil, The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order (Princeton University Press 2013), 240.
[8] Massimo Amato and Luca Fantacci, “Back to Which Bretton Woods? Liquidity and Clearing as Alternative Principles for Reforming International Money” (2014) 38 Cambridge Journal of Economics 1431
[9] Robert Triffin, “The International Role and Fate of the Dollar” (1978) 57 Foreign Affairs 269
[10] Harry G. Johnson, 'The International Monetary Crisis of 1971' (1973) 46 Journal of Business 11.
[11] Christoffer JP Zoeller and Nina Bandelj, “Crisis as Opportunity: Nixon’s Announcement to Close the Gold Window” (2019) 5 Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 237802311984181
[12] Douglas A Irwin, “The Nixon Shock after Forty Years: The Import Surcharge Revisited” (2012) 12 World Trade Review 29
[13] John E Marthinsen and Steven R Gordon, “Hyperinflation, Optimal Currency Scopes, and a Cryptocurrency Alternative to Dollarization” (2022) 85 The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 161, 161
[14] Ibid, 164
[15] Serkan Arslanalp, Chima Simpson-Bell and Barry Eichengreen, “The Stealth Erosion of Dollar Dominance: Active Diversifiers and the Rise of Nontraditional Reserve Currencies” (2022) 2022 IMF Working Papers 1
[16] Simón Cueva and Julian P Diaz, “The Fiscal and Monetary History of Ecuador: 1950–2015” [2018] SSRN Electronic Journal
[17] Marc Auboin and Michele Ruta, “The Relationship between Exchange Rates and International Trade: A Literature Review” (2013) 12 World Trade Review 577
[18] Banna Banik and Chandan Kumar Roy, “Effect of Exchange Rate Uncertainty on Bilateral Trade Performance in SAARC Countries: A Gravity Model Analysis” (2020) 5 International Trade, Politics and Development 32, 33
[19] Ibid 33
[20] Zongyuan Zoe Liu and Michaela Papa, Can BRICS De-Dollarize the Global Financial System? (Cambridge University Press 2022) 14.
[21] Damir Tokic, 'Long-term consequences of the 2020 coronavirus pandemics: historical global-macro context', (2020) Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 31(3), 9
[22] Nir Kshetri, 'Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things?' (2017) 19(4) IT Professional 68.
[23] Nicholas Ross Smith, “Could Russia Utilize Cryptocurrencies in Its Foreign Policy Grand Strategizing?” (2019) 17 Russia in Global Affairs 134
[24] Ismael Rezaeinejad, ‘Challenges and Opportunities Cryptocurrency in Iran Economy & E-Businesses’ (2021) 29(4) Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 689, 697.
[25] Pelle Neroth. "Cyber currency: One way to bypass the Euro." Engineering & Technology 8 (2013): 18
[26] Omer Faruk Derindag, Irina Z Yarygina and Roman Yu Tsarev, “International Trade and Blockchain Technologies: Implications for Practice and Policy” (2020) 421 IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 022051
[27] Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta. “How to time-stamp a digital document.” (1990) Journal of Cryptology 3: 99
[28] Usman W Chohan, “A History of Bitcoin” (2017) SSRN Electronic Journal, 3
[29] Nur Alam Siddik and others, “Blockchain Technology and Facilitation of International Trade: An Empirical Analysis” (2020) 10 FIIB Business Review 232
[30] Roshan Khadka, “The impact of blockchain technology in banking: How can blockchain revolutionize the banking industry?” (Thesis, Centria University 2020),10
[31] İbid, 2
[32] Alexander Savelyev, 'Contract Law 2.0: ‘Smart’ Contracts as the Beginning of the End of Classic Contract Law' (2017) 26(2) Information & Communications Technology Law 116,118.
[33] Alexander Freund, ‘Economic incentives and Blockchain security’ (2017) Journal of Securities Operations & Custody 10, 67
[34] John Michael Fry and Jean-Philippe Serbera, 'Quantifying the Sustainability of Bitcoin and Blockchain' (2020) 33(4) Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 5.
[35] Dakota A. Larson, ‘Mitigating Risky Business: Modernizing Letters of Credit with Blockchain, Smart Contracts, and the Internet of Things’ (2019) Michigan State Law Review 2018 (4)
[36] S. Tamer Cavusgil, Seyda Deligonul, Pervez N. Ghauri, Vassiliki Bamiatzi, Byung Il Park, and Kamel Mellahi, ‘Risk in International Business and Its Mitigation’ (2020) 55 Journal of World Business (2)
[37] Larson (n 35) 940
[38] Sophia Malikanzi and Mouni Gekara, ”Factors Contributing To The Use Of Commercial Letter (S) Of Credit On International Business Transaction(S): A Case Of Manufacturing Industries In Kenya.” (2013) International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research 103
[39] Cheng Zhang and Ni Hu, “A New Method for Computing Letter of Credit Risks” (2020) 10 SAGE Open 215824402097021
[40] Hamid Alavi, 'Risk Analysis in Documentary Letter of Credit Operation' (2017) Financial Law Review, 10.1515/flr-2016-0021 28, 28.
[41] Ibid, 36
[42] Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation [1941] 177 Misc 719, 31 NYS2d 631.
[43] Alavi (n 40) 37
[44] Ibid 38
[45] Furkan Uysal, Salar Ahmadisheykhsarmast, and Rifat Sonmez, 'A Smart Contract Framework as an Alternative Method for Letter of Credit Use in Construction Procurement' (2022) 22(2) International Journal of Construction Management 642, 649
[46] House of Lords: Economic Affairs Committee, “Smart Legal Contracts Advice to Government” (Authority of the House of Lords 2022) ,12
[47] Uysal (n 45) ,647
[48] Emanuelle Ganne, Can Blockchain Revolutionize International Trade? (World Trade Organization 2018), 27.
[49] Ibid ,27
[50] Abeer ElBahrawy, Laura Alessandretti, Anne Kandler, Romualdo Pastor-Satorras, and Andrea Baronchelli, 'Evolutionary dynamics of the cryptocurrency market' (2017) 4(6) R. Soc. open sci. 170623, 2.
[51] Nguyen Nguyen Tran Bao, Yiwen Chen and Cheuk Wai Yuen, 'Crypto as A Choice Of Payment: Perceived Challenges From User Perspectives' (Jonkoping University 2019), 14.
[52] Ibid, 13
[53] House of Lords: Economic Affairs Committee, “Central bank digital currencies: a solution in search of a problem?” (Authority of the House of Lords 2022)
[54] Ibid, 5
[55] Raphael Auer, Jon Frost, Leonardo Gambacorta, Cyril Monnet, Tara Rice and Hyun Song Shin, “Central bank digital currencies: motives, economic implications and the research frontier.” (2021) BIS Working Papers No 976, 3
[56] Ibid, 5
[57] Monika Gupta, Shivani Abrol, Ritu Sapra, “Central Bank Digital Currency (Cbdc): A Global Perspective.” (2023) Jamshedpur Research Review Year 11, vol. 1, issue 57, 19
[58] House of Lords: Economic Affairs Committee (n 53), 11
[59] Festus Ukwueze, “Cryptocurrency: Towards Regulating the Unruly Enigma of Fintech in Nigeria and South Africa” (2021) 24(1) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 10
[60] UK Jurisdiction Taskforce“Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts” (2019) The LawTech Delivery Panel, 11
[61] Nir Kshetri, "El Salvador’s Bitcoin Gamble," (2022) 55(6) Computer 85.
[62] AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC (Comm) 3556 [59].
[63] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[64] Towne Morton, “The Future of Cryptocurrency: An Unregulated Instrument in an Increasingly Regulated Global Economy.” (2020) 16 Loyola University Chicago International Law Review 129, 135
[65] Securities and Exchange Commission v Shavers et al, No 4:2013cv00416 (E.D. Tex, 19 August 2013)
[66] UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (n 60) , 29
[67] Ibid , 30
[68] Colonial Bank v Whinney [1885] 30 CHD 261
[69] Mark Giancaspro, “Cryptocurrency and the Consideration Conundrum: Does Crypto Have Legal Value under Contract Law?”(2022) 33(1) Journal of Banking and Finance: Law and Practice, 10
[70] Ibid, 11
[71] Ruscoe and Moore v Cryptopia Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZLR 728, 831
[72] Giancaspro (n 69) ,15
[73] Horst Treiblmaier, “Do Cryptocurrencies Really Have (No) Intrinsic Value?” (2021) Electronic Markets 1749, 1753.
[74] Ibid, 1755
[75] Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (adopted 17 June 2008, entered into force 17 December 2009) No 593/2008
[76] Giesela Ruhl, “Smart (Legal) Contracts, or: Which (Contract) Law for Smart Contracts?” (2020)), Benedetta Cappiello & Gherardo Carullo (eds) Blockchain, Law and Governance, Springer (Forthcoming) ,16
[77] Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (n 75) Article 3
[78] Florence Guillaume and Sven Riva, “Blockchain Dispute Resolution for Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: The Rise of Decentralized Autonomous Justice” [2022] SSRN Electronic Journal,63