Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The unique features of the emerging blockchain technology and its new tools such as cryptocurrencies, despite having significant benefits, have posed various difficulties for states. In particular, the centrifugal structure of the blockchain has made it an important challenge to the sovereignty of the modern state. Too much emphasis on the sovereignty of states and ignoring the capabilities of decentralized technologies will result in nothing but an inefficient structure for states. But the assumptions based on the complete domination of blockchain technology over the sovereignty of states, at least based on the available data, do not seem very realistic. The present paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, answers the question of the consequences of blockchain for state governance without falling into the trap of simplistic unilateralism and dualism. The present study finds that the sovereignty of states and the strength of blockchain technology have framed today's complex life in practice on the basis of interaction and will continue to do so in the near future. Although the first party (state) seems to have the upper hand in such a framework, the distant future is unpredictable. To answer the above question, understanding the characteristics of the mentioned technology, recognizing how states react to it and evaluating the perspectives of how the two sides of the relationship interact (sovereignty of the state / blockchain) in order to make the good policy in this regard, it seems necessary.
The analysis of what has happened to the states in the last century shows that the application of the sovereignty of the states is gradually eroding. The changes caused by the creation and development of new technologies have forced the governments to take a specific reaction against the mentioned phenomenon. Some of the characteristics of blockchain technology such as its decentralized and trans-spatial structure, in particular, some elements on the governments, such as the authority to enact comprehensive laws in a specific territorial area and the authority to print national currency (fiat) and control it from It has faced a serious challenge through various economic and financial policies.
Any simplistic view regarding the complete dominance of the state's sovereignty over blockchain technology, as well as the passing of the aforementioned technology from the state's sovereignty, due to ignoring the other party's capacity to coordinate with the developments of the day and manage it, does not seem justified. This issue has caused the government's response to this phenomenon to fluctuate, from complete prohibition to legal restrictions and recognition and even the production of cryptocurrency. It is noteworthy that so far, some governments have not shown any legal or practical reaction to this phenomenon. Despite the relativity in the above assessment, it should be acknowledged that the technical ability of each government in dealing with new technologies (here, blockchain) is one of the most important factors in determining the type of government's response to this phenomenon.
Despite considering blockchain technology as a threat to the sovereignty of states, the opportunities and advantages of the mentioned technology for exercising the sovereignty of states should not be overlooked. In other words, the blockchain technology with its unique features puts innovative methods and mechanisms in line with the government; A tool that, if governments are equipped with the mentioned technology, will deeply affect the scope and effectiveness of the government's actions in the two areas of law making and monitoring its implementation. The aforementioned reality, along with the development of virtual space (and its effects on the diminution of the government's sovereignty in a certain territorial area), doubles the necessity of a justified and calculated response to blockchain technology. However, it should be acknowledged that the technological threats to the government's governance are far greater than its opportunities. The absence of a central control authority in this technology and the equality of all users, as well as the impossibility of refining it by governments or any other person, clearly undermine the government's ability to exercise sovereignty in this field, at least in the current situation is excluded; A thing that also removes other threats to the government's sovereignty (including providing a platform for money laundering and other crimes).
Due to the newness of the above technology and the incomplete experience of states in reacting to it, it may not be possible to provide an accurate prediction of the outcome of this relationship (interaction between government governance and blockchain technology) at this stage. Based on this, the range of actions that governments can take in response to the above phenomenon cannot be fully explained and accurately evaluated. Nevertheless, in the current situation, although governments, like other individuals, have the possibility to enter this field and produce cryptocurrencies; Also, they can try to deal with or manage the mentioned phenomenon by prohibiting or imposing some restrictive conditions, it should not be overlooked that the range of the mentioned measures apparently could not and may not be able to create an important practical obstacle for people to enter to this arena. All this shows the necessity of adopting a realistic approach by governments towards this phenomenon, especially considering the consequences of not having a specific reaction against it. The course of the studies conducted in this article apparently indicates that governments are moving towards the option of peaceful coexistence with blockchain technology, of course, with the imposition of certain conditions and specific requirements in order to manage it (to the extent of the technology's capabilities). Governments will move.
Considering the concentration of at least part of the capital of some Iranian individuals in crypto-currencies and predicting the possibility of its continuation in the future and even the entry of more capital in this direction, compiling a model of the Iranian government's justified response to the aforementioned phenomenon with a comprehensive review of experience other governments and evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each of the models and prescribing the most suitable response based on the economic, political and even cultural conditions and requirements of the Iranian society, can be used as a suggestion for future researches on this issue. be taken into consideration and action.

Keywords

الف) فارسی
اسکینر، کوئنتین. (1393). بنیادهای اندیشه سیاسی مدرن (جلد دوم: عصر دین­پیرایی). ترجمۀ کاظم فیروزمند. تهران: انتشارات آگاه.
پوجّی، جانفرانکو. (1377). تکوین دولت مدرن (درآمدی جامعه­شناختی). ترجمۀ بهزاد باشی. تهران: نشر آگه.
جونز، ویلیام تامس. (1358). خداوندان اندیشه سیاسی (جلد دوم، قسمت اول). ترجمۀ علی رامین. تهران: مؤسسۀ انتشارات امیرکبیر.
درسچر، دانیل. (1398). مبانی بلاک چین. ترجمۀ بهرام پاشایی و محمدرضا صمدزاده، تهران: نشر آیلار.
رجبی، ابوالقاسم. (1397). ارز مجازی: قانونگذاری در کشورهای مختلف و پیشنهادها برای ایران. گزارش پژوهشی مرکز پژوهش­های مجلس شورای اسلامی. شماره مسلسل  16042. https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/report/show/1070755
شهبازی، محمد، کاظم­پوریان، سعید و تقوا، محمدرضا. (1399).  بررسی کاربردی الگوریتم­های اجماع استفاده‌شده در شبکه­های بلاک چین.  سیاست‌نامه علم و فناوری، 10 (3)، 35-54.
عباسی، جواد. (1397). بلاک چین: آشنایی با مفاهیم بنیادی. تهران: مؤسسۀ کتاب مهربان نشر.
گل­محمدی، احمد. (1392). چیستی، تحول و چشم‌انداز دولت. تهران: نشر نی.
کاتوزیان، ناصر. (1385). دوره مقدماتی حقوق مدنی (اموال و مالکیت)، تهران: میزان.
گرجی­ازندریانی، علی­اکبر و مرادی­برلیان، مهدی. (1399). کندوکاوی در پنج شناسۀ فرایافتِ مدرن دولت: پایداری در برابر چالش­ها. دولت پژوهی، 6 (23)، 133-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.22054/tssq.2020.29348.437
لاگلین، مارتین. (1388). مبانی حقوق عمومی. ترجمۀ محمد راسخ. تهران: نشر نی.
نوری، مهدی و نواب­پور، علی­رضا. (1397). مقدمه­ای بر تنظیم­گری رمزینه ارزها در اقتصاد ایران. گزارش پژوهشی مرکز پژوهش­های مجلس شورای اسلامی. دفتر مطالعات اقتصادی. شماره مسلسل 15932.  https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/report/show/1066099
وانگ، آریس وانلین. (1399). اقتصاد رمزنگاری. ترجمۀ علی یارمحمدی. تهران: نشر یزدا
هابز، توماس. (1381). لویاتان. ترجمه حسین بشیریه. تهران: نشر نی.
هلد، دیوید. (1394). شکل­گیری دولت مدرن، در درآمدی بر فهم جامعۀ مدرن، کتاب یکم: صورت­بندی­های مدرنیته (174-113) ویراستۀ استوارت هال و برَم گیبن، ترجمۀ محمود متحد و دیگران. تهران: نشر آگه.
 
ب) انگلیسی
Aneesh, A. (2016). Technologically Coded Authority: The Post-Industrial Decline in Bureaucratic Hierarchies. Retrieved from https://web.stanf ord.edu/class/sts175/NewFiles/Algocratic%20Governance.pdf
Atzori, M. (2017). Blockchain Technology and Decentralized Governance: is the State Still Necessary? Journal of Governance and Regulation, 6(1), 45-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.22495/jgr_v6_i1_p5
Castelló Ferrer. E. (2019). The Blockchain: A New Framework for Robotic Swarm Systems. In. Arai. K., Bhatia. R., Kapoor S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2018. FTC 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 881. (pp. 1037-1058). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02683-7_77
De Caria, R. (2019). Blockchain-Based Money as the Ultimate Challenge to Sovereignty: Reflections from a Public Economic Law Perspective. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 6(2), 131-145. https: //doi.org/ 10.1163/22134514-00602004
De Caria, R. (2021). Blockchain and Sovereignty. In. Pollicino. O & De Gregorio. G. (Eds.), Blockchain and Public Law: Global Challenges in the Era of Decentralisation (pp.41-60). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2018). Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code, Harvard University Press.
Goossens, J. (2021). Blockchain and Democracy: Challenges and Opportunities of Blockchain and Smart Contracts for Democracy in the Distributed, Algorithmic State. In. Pollicino. O & De Gregorio. G. (Eds.), Blockchain and Public Law: Global Challenges in the Era of Decentralisation (pp.77-89). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, R. (2007). Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hinsley, F. H. (1986). Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press.
Kalmo, H., & Skinner, Q. (2010). Introduction: A Concept in Fragments. In. Kalmo, H & Skinner, Q. (Eds.), Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept (pp.1-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kesan, J. P., & Shah, R. C. (2006). Setting Software Defaults: Perspectives
From Law, Computer Science and Behavioral Economics. Notre Dame Law Review, 82, 583–634. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol82/iss2/2
Kohl, U. (2021). Blockchain Utopia and Its Governance Shortfalls. In. Pollicino. O & De Gregorio. G. (Eds.), Blockchain and Public Law: Global Challenges in the Era of Decentralisation (pp.13-40). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
McElroy, W. (Mar 8, 2020). Rumors of Bitcoin’s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated. Retrieved from https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-death-rumors-greatly-exaggerated/
Manski, S., & Manski, B. (2018). No Gods, No Masters, No Coders? The Future of Sovereignty in a Blockchain World. Law Critique, 29, 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-018-9225-z.
Manski S. (2017). Building the Blockchain World: Technological Commonwealth or Just More of the Same? Strategic Change, 26 (5), 511–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2151.
March, C., & Schieferdecker, I. (2021). Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky (2021). CESifo Working Paper, 9139, Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3872378
Metzger, J. (2019). The Current Landscape of Blockchain-Based, Crowdsourced Arbitration. Macquarie Law Journal. 19, 81-101.
Nelson, B. (2006). The Making of the Modern State: A Theoretical Evolution. New York: Palgrave.
Peck, M. (April 24, 2018). Let’s Destroy Bitcoin. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/24/143425/lets-destroy-bitcoin/
Poggi, G. (1990). The State: Its Nature, Development, and Prospects. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Quintais, J. P., Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., & Ferrari, V. (2019). Blockchain and the Law: A Critical Evaluation. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, (2)1, 86-112. Retrieved from https://stanford-jblp.pubpub.org/pub/blockchain-and-law-evaluation
Reidenberg, J. R. (1998). Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology. Texas Law Review, 76 (3), 553-594.
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/42
Sharma, T.K. (2018). Advantages and Disadvantages of Per­missionless Blockchian for the Blockchain Council. Retrieved from https://www.blockchain-council.org/blockchain/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-permissionless-blockchain/
Simpson, G. (2008). The Guises of Sovereignty. In. Jacobsen, T., Sampford, C., & Thakur, R. (Eds.), Re-envisioning Sovereignty: The End of Westphalia? (pp.51-69). UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Taleb, N. N. (2018). ‘Foreword’ to Saifedean Ammous, The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking. Wiley.
Wolff, R. P. (1990). The Conflict Between Authority and Autonomy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from https:// ssrn.com/ abstract = 2580664 45.
 
Abbasi, Javad. (2018). Blockchain. Tehran: Meraban Book. [In Persian]
Drescher, Daniel. (2019). Blockchain Basics: A Non-Technical Introduction in 25 Steps. Translated by Bahram Pashaei & Mohammad Reza Samadzadeh. Tehran: Aylar Publication. [In Persian]
Golmohammadi, Ahmad. (2013). Nature, Evolution and Perspective of the State. Tehran: Nashre Ney. [In Persian]
Held, David. (2015). The Formations of Modernity: Understanding Modern Societies an Introduction Book 1. (113-174). Edited by Bram Gieben & Stuart Hall. Translated by: Mahmoud Mottahed & et al. Thehran: Agah Publication. [In Persian]
Hobbes, Thomas. (2002). Leviathan. Translated by Hossein Bashiriyeh. Thehran: Nashre Ney. [In Persian]
Jones, William Thomas. (1979). Masters of Political Thought Vol 2. Translated by Ali Ramin. Tehran: Amirkabir Publication. [In Persian].
Loughlin, Martin. (2009). the Idea of Public Law. Translated by Mohammad Rasekh. Nashre Ney. [In Persian]
Moradi Berelian, Mahdi & Gorgi Azandariani, Ali Akbar. (2020). Exploring the Five Identities of Modern State Conception: Resilience to Challenges. State Studies. 6 (23), 133-180. [In Persian]
Poggi, Gianferanco. (1998). The Development of the Modern State. Translated by Behzad Bashi. Tehran: Agah Publication. [In Persian]
Quentin, Skinner. (2014). The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Volume 2. The Age of Reformation). Translated by kazem firouzmand. Tehran: Agah Publication. [In Persian]
Shahbazi, Mohammad, Kazem Pourian, Saeed & Taghva, Mohammadreza. (2020). An Applied Investigation of Consensus Algorithms Used in Blockchain Networks. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Letters. 10 (3), 35-54. [In Persian]
Wang, Aries Wanlin. (2018). Crypto Economy: How Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, and Token-Economy Are Disrupting the Financial World Hardcover. Translated by Ali Yar Mohammadi. Tehran: Yazda Publication. [In Persian]