Smart contracts challenge some of the foundational assumptions upon which private international law has traditionally been constructed. Although private international law has previously adapted to the challenges posed by electronic commerce, online platforms, and other internet-mediated transactions, smart contracts present a distinct problem. The decentralized, automated, and frequently pseudonymous nature of blockchain-based transactions complicates the identification of the territorial connecting factors that have historically enabled courts to determine both the appropriate forum and the applicable law. Unlike both conventional contractual relationships and the digital technologies that have traditionally confronted private international law, smart contracts may be formed, performed, and executed through decentralized technological infrastructures that lack a clear territorial center while simultaneously generating multiple competing connections to different legal systems. Although traditional connecting factors remain capable of operating in certain smart-contract configurations, particularly where the transaction retains meaningful links to the physical world, genuinely decentralized blockchain environments may both complicate the identification of territorially relevant connections and generate a multiplicity of competing territorial connecting factors, none of which emerges as naturally or doctrinally superior.
The resulting difficulty lies not only in identifying the territorial connections associated with a transaction, but also in determining which of those connections should govern the allocation of jurisdiction and the selection of the applicable law. Recent institutional analysis has suggested that this difficulty should be addressed through increasingly issue-specific connecting-factor analysis, under which different aspects of the same dispute may be connected to different legal systems according to the policy underlying the particular private international law rule in question. This Article argues, however, that where decentralized blockchain environments generate multiple equally plausible territorial connections, the continued multiplication of connecting factors risks reintroducing the very uncertainty that both private international law and smart-contract architecture seek to minimize.
Smart contracts are often valued for their capacity to promote certainty through automated and predictable execution, as well as their immunity to human intervention during the performance phase. Private international law pursues a similar objective, seeking to reduce uncertainty through the identification of predictable jurisdictional and choice-of-law rules that enable parties to anticipate the legal consequences of their transactions. Yet increasingly issue-specific connecting-factor analysis risks generating fragmentation and unpredictability at precisely the stage where both systems aspire to provide clarity. Indeed, because both smart-contract architecture and private international law are fundamentally certainty-enhancing systems, a methodology that multiplies uncertainty at the jurisdictional and choice-of-law stage is difficult to reconcile with the objectives of either.
The central claim advanced in this Article is that the distinctive characteristics of smart contracts justify a different normative response. Smart contracts are not merely another form of electronic commerce. Their autonomous and frequently irreversible execution, limited susceptibility to human intervention during the performance phase, and tendency to shift the practical burden of corrective litigation onto the party seeking relief fundamentally alter the procedural structure of contractual disputes. These features justify the development of a connecting-factor methodology specifically adapted to smart-contract disputes, where decentralized architecture may both complicate the identification of meaningful territorial connections and generate multiple competing territorial connections without revealing a naturally dominant territorial anchor.
The analysis reveals two related difficulties: identifying meaningful territorial connections where none is readily apparent, and selecting among competing connections where several are plausible. Both difficulties limit the guidance that conventional connecting factors can provide in decentralized smart-contract disputes. A claimant-centered model responds by anchoring jurisdiction and applicable law in the claimant’s territorial affiliation, promoting certainty, predictability, and coherence while recognizing the burden of seeking corrective relief after automated execution. This common anchor reduces reliance on broad judicial discretion and places corrective proceedings within a more predictable legal setting. The resulting adaptation retains the core structure of territorial connecting-factor analysis while responding to the procedural consequences of automated execution. In this way, the framework facilitates the integration of smart-contract transactions into private international law while promoting certainty, predictability, and access to justice.
Recommended Citation: Amir Bushansky, Smart Contracts and Private International Law: Claimant-Centered Jurisdiction and Applicable Law, 50 Fordham Int’l L.J. 61 (2026).