Jurisprudential and Legal Analysis of Smart Contracts and Challenges to Their Validity in Iranian Law
Keywords:
Smart Contract, Blockchain, , Imāmī Jurisprudence, , Iranian Law, Validity of Contract, Intention and Consent (Qaṣd wa Riḍā)Abstract
Blockchain‑based smart contracts have created a fundamental transformation in contract law. This study, employing a descriptive‑analytical method and a comparative approach, examines the jurisprudential and legal foundations of these contracts and the challenges to their validity in Iranian law. The main question is to what extent smart contracts comply with the general principles and rules of contracts in Imāmī jurisprudence and Iranian law, and what obstacles exist in the way of their legal validity. The findings show that from a jurisprudential perspective, smart contracts can be analysed within the framework of rules such as "the believers are subject to their terms" (al‑muʼminūn ʻinda shurūṭihim), "obligation to contracts" (al‑ʻaqd sharīʻat al‑ʻāqidīn), and the obligation to fulfil contracts (luzūm al‑wafāʼ bi‑l‑ʻuqūd), although challenges such as gharar (ambiguity/excessive risk), lack of genuine consent, and conditions contrary to Sharia are raised. From a legal perspective, the most important challenges to the validity of these contracts include: lack of explicit legal recognition, the need to establish the coordination of the inner will with the outward expression (intent and consent), the difficulty of proving claims, the impossibility of unilateral termination in some cases, and conflict with mandatory rules (qawāʻid āmirah). The present study, through comparative analysis of the approaches of leading legal systems (the United States and the European Union) and by citing valid jurisprudential principles, offers solutions for recognising and validating smart contracts in the Iranian legal system.
References
1. Anṣārī, M. (2010). Farāʼid al‑Uṣūl (al‑Rasāʼil). Majmaʻ al‑Fikr al‑Islāmī.
2. Ḥakīm, S.M. (1416 AH). Mustamsak al‑ʻUrwah al‑Wuthqā. Dār Iḥyāʼ al‑Turāth al‑ʻArabī.
3. Khūʼī, S.A. (1410 AH). Miṣbāḥ al‑Fiqāhah. Muʼassasah Iḥyāʼ Āthār al‑Imām al‑Khūʼī.
4. Shams, A., & Aḥmadī, M. (2022). A comparative analysis of smart contracts and jurisprudential institutions (ṣulḥ and wakālah). Comparative Jurisprudence and Law, 4(2), 105–130.
5. ʻAbbāsī, B., & Jaʻfarī, S. (2021). Legal challenges of smart contracts in the Iranian legal system. Private Law Research Quarterly, 9(34), 125–152.
6. Kātūziyān, N. (2016). General Rules of Contracts (Vol. 1). Enteshārāt‑e Sahāmī‑ye Enteshār.
7. Muḥaqqiq Dāmād, S.M., Mūsavī, S.M., & Riḍāʼī, A. (2020). A jurisprudential examination of smart contracts in Imāmī jurisprudence. Jurisprudence and Foundations of Islamic Law, 53(2), 75–98.
8. Naṣr‑Iṣfahānī, M., & Karīmī, A. (2019). The legal nature of smart contracts in the context of blockchain technology. Justice Law Journal, 83(108), 243–268.
9. Naṣīrī, M., & Qāsimī, Z. (2021). Blockchain and the transformation of contract law. Journal of Emerging Technologies Law, 2(1), 41–60.
10. Yazdī, S.M.K.Ṭ. (1429 AH). ʻUrwat al‑Wuthqā (2nd ed.). Muʼassasat al‑Nashr al‑Islāmī.
11. Arizona Revised Statutes § 44‑7061. (2017).
12. European Commission. (2020). Proposal for a Regulation on Markets in Crypto‑assets (MiCA). COM(2020) 596 final.
13. Fairmaud, F. (2016). Smart contracts: A legal analysis. Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 31(6), 321–330.
14. Nevada Revised Statutes § 719.125. (2017).
15. Raskin, M., Saleh, F., & Savelyev, A. (2017). The law of smart contracts. University of Chicago Business Law Review, 1(1), 1–50.
16. Szabo, N. (1997). Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday, 2(9).
17. Werbach, K. (2005). Contracts ex machina. Duke Law Journal, 67(1), 1–80.
18. Werbach, K., Cornell, N., & Cunningham, L. (2018). Smart contracts and the law. Harvard Business Law Review, 8(2), 201–250.
