Research declarations
Smart Contracts Beyond ‘Code Is Law’: Formation, Attribution, Remedies and Cross-Border Recognition
Yuvraj · Published version 1
These declarations reproduce the recorded publication version. They are author disclosures, not independent verification by The Legal Gazette.
Research declarations
Funding and sponsor involvement
No external funding. This research was independently undertaken without financial sponsorship, institutional grants or external sponsor involvement.
Competing interests
The author is associated with The Legal Gazette, the intended publisher of this manuscript. No other financial, professional, institutional or personal competing interests are declared.
Author contributions
Yuvraj was solely responsible for conceptualisation, research design, methodology, investigation, collection and analysis of legal materials, comparative legal analysis, drafting, revision and final approval of the manuscript.
Originality and related publications
This manuscript is a substantially revised and updated version of an article previously published in 2025 under the title “Smart Contracts: A Difference in the Legal Set-Up and International Transactions.” The earlier version has subsequently been withdrawn from public circulation and removed from the platforms on which it was previously available. The present manuscript has undergone substantial revision, restructuring and updating to incorporate developments in automated contracting, electronic-transactions law, evidentiary frameworks, comparative legal approaches and international legal instruments. This version is submitted as the substantially revised and updated manuscript for publication in The Legal Gazette. The author acknowledges the prior publication and will provide details of the earlier publication upon editorial request. No concurrent submission of this manuscript to another publication is being made.
Methods and legal currency
This article adopts doctrinal and comparative legal research methods. It examines legislation, judicial decisions, official legal guidance, international instruments, model laws and selected academic literature. Primary legal sources are prioritised over secondary commentary. Comparative analysis draws upon India, the United Kingdom, selected United States jurisdictions, the European Union and China. The legal review is current as of 28 October 2026. No interviews, surveys or original empirical data collection were undertaken.
Limitations
The research primarily examines private commercial contracting and the legal enforceability of automated transactions. Comparative jurisdictions are used for analytical purposes and are not treated as legally interchangeable. The article does not provide a comprehensive assessment of cryptocurrency markets, every category of digital asset or all sector-specific regulatory frameworks. Its findings are doctrinal and normative rather than empirical.
Ethics and participant protections
Not applicable. This is a desk-based doctrinal and comparative legal study relying on publicly available legislation, judicial decisions, official legal materials and academic literature. No human participants, interviews, surveys, personal records or animal subjects were involved.
Data and materials availability
The research is based on publicly accessible legislation, judicial decisions, official publications, international instruments and academic literature cited in the manuscript. No original empirical dataset was generated. Third-party publications and legal materials remain subject to their respective copyright, licensing and access conditions.
AI and writing assistance
Generative AI tools were used to assist with language refinement, editorial organisation and writing assistance during manuscript preparation. The author independently reviewed the manuscript and takes full responsibility for its contents, legal analysis, interpretations, conclusions and source accuracy. No AI system is listed as an author.