Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Vol. 8 No. 1 (2024): Unram Law Review(ULREV)

Blockchain Arbitration in Confidentiality and Impartiality Principles: Lex Digitalis Arbitri: Lex Digitalis Arbitri

March 16, 2024


Kleros blockchain arbitration presents a promising solution for faster, more cost-effective, and more secure arbitration in digital environment. However, it comes with significant challenges; confidentiality and impartiality. Arbitration is often chosen due to its confidentiality. Examining Kleros’ blockchain arbitration, it becomes apparent that the platform lacks of confidentiality regime and therefore raising a number of probable issues. The anonymity of Kleros jurors complicates the matters, makes it challenging to establish trust, legally bind jurors, monitor compliance, and address potential jurors’ misconduct. Additionally, jurors’ anonymity prohibits disclosure of pertinent information, which may  rise  justifiable doubts, thereby resulting in jurors’ impartiality are questioned. Therefore, this article advocates for Kleros to reconsider their strict anonymity policy and to introduce confidentiality and impartiality provisions in order to align more with the established legal practices in digital arbitration environment (Lex Digitalis Arbitri).


  1. Books
  2. Blackaby, N., QC, C. P., Redfern, A., & Hunter, M. (2015). Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Sixth). Oxford University Press.
  3. Böckstiegel, K.-H., Kröll, S., & Nacimiento, P. (Eds.). (2007). Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in practice. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
  4. Born, G. B. (2021). International Commercial Arbitration (3rd Edition). Kluwer Law International B.V.
  5. Fouchard, P., Gaillard, E., & Goldman, B. (1999). Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (E. Gaillard & J. Savage, Eds.). Kluwer Law International.
  6. Fry, J., Greenberg, S., & Mazza, F. (2012). The Secretariat’s Guide to ICC Arbitration. ICC Publication.
  7. Henry, M. (2022). An Arbitrator’s Perspective: Confidentiality – Privacy – Security in the Eye of the Arbitrators or the Story of the Arbitrator who Became a Bee. In D. Moura Vicente, E. Dias Oliveira, & J. Gomes De Almeida (Eds.), Online Dispute Resolution (pp. 181–204). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.
  8. Katsh, M. E., & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2017). Digital justice: Technology and the internet of disputes. Oxford University Press.
  9. Merkin, R. M., & Hjalmarsson, J. (2016). Singapore arbitration legislation: Annotated (Second edition). Informa Law from Routledge.
  10. Moses, M. L. (2008). The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (First). Cambridge University Press.
  11. Moses, M. L. (2012). The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. In The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (Second). Cambridge University Press.
  12. Narayan, A., Bonneau, J., Felten, E. W., Miller, A., Goldfeder, S., & Clark, J. (2016). The Long Road to Bitcoin. In Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technology A Comprehensive Education. Princeton University Press.
  13. Noussia, K. (2010). Confidentiality in international commercial arbitration: A comparative analysis of the position under English, US, German and French law. Springer.
  14. Onyema, E. (2010). International Commercial Arbitration and the Arbitrator’s Contract (First). Routledge.
  15. Piers, M., & Aschauer, C. (Eds.). (2018). Arbitration in the Digital Age: The Brave New World of Arbitration (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  16. Reyes, A. (2018). The Practice of International Commercial Arbitration: A Handbook for Hong Kong Arbitrators (First). Informa Law from Routledge.
  17. Tang, Z. S. (2014). Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in International Commercial Law. Routledge.
  18. Vereinte Nationen (Ed.). (2012). UNCITRAL 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. United Nations.
  19. Webster, T. H., & Bühler, M. (2021). Handbook of ICC arbitration: Commentary and materials (5th edition). Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters.
  20. Case Law
  21. Aïta v. Ojjeh, (Paris Court of Appeal February 18, 1986). Aïta v. Ojjeh, (Paris Court of Appeal February 18, 1986).
  22. Arenson v. Casson Beckman Rutley & Co., [1977] 1 AC 405 (HL) (House of Lords 1977).
  23. Bleustein et autres v. Société True North et Société FCB International, (Tribunal de Commerce de Paris (Ord. réf.) February 22, 1999).
  24. Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co. Ltd v. Win Win Nu, [2003] SGHC 124 (Singapore High Court 2003).
  25. [CLOUT Case 665], 10 SchH 3/01 [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/61] (Oberlandesgericht Naumburg 2001).
  26. PT Central Investindo v. Franciscus Wongso, [2014] SGHC 190 (Singapore High Court 2014).
  27. United States of America v. Panhandle Eastern Corp., 118 F.R.D. 346 (D. Del. 1988) (United States District Court, D. Delaware 1988).
  28. Mangan, M., Choong, J., & Lingard, N. (2018). A guide to the SIAC arbitration rules (Second edition). Oxford University Press.
  29. PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v. Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal, [2013] SGCA 57 (Singapore Court of Appeal 2013).
  30. The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG, [2023] SGCA(I) 4 (Singapore Court of Appeal 2023).
  31. AAY and Others v. AAZ, [2009] SGHC 142 (Singapore High Court 2009).
  32. Ury v. Galeries Lafayette, (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 2 1975).
  33. Conference Papers
  34. Lembo, S., & Guignet, V. (2015). Confidentiality in Arbitration: From Myth to Reality. 2015 Fall Meeting of the American Bar Association, International Section, Montreal.
  35. Dissertations and Theses
  36. Finizio, S., & Miles, W. (2009). The International Comparative Legal Guide to: International Arbitration 2009 (The International Comparative Legal Guide). Global Legal Group.
  37. Journal Articles
  38. Allen, D., Lane, A., & Poblet, M. (2019). The Governance of Blockchain Dispute Resolution. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 25(1).
  39. Aouidef, Y., Ast, F., & Deffains, B. (2021). Decentralized Justice: A Comparative Analysis of Blockchain Online Dispute Resolution Projects. Frontiers in Blockchain, 4, 3.
  40. Bastida, B. M. (2007). The Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators in International Commercial Arbitration from a Theoretical and Practical Perspective. E-Mercatoria, 6(1).
  41. Bergolla, L., Seif, K., & Eken, C. (2021). Kleros: A Socio-Legal Case Study of Decentralized Justice & Blockchain Arbitration. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 37(1).
  42. Brown, A. C. (2001). Presumption Meets Reality: An Exploration of the Confidentiality Obligation in International Commercial Arbitration. American University International Law Review, 16(4).
  43. Buchwald, M. (2020). Smart Contract Dispute Resolution: The Inescapable Flaws of Blockchain-Based Arbitration. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 168(5).
  44. Building Value with Blockchain Technology: How to Evaluate Blockchain’s Benefits. (2019). World Economic Forum.
  45. Carducci, G. (2012). The Arbitration Reform in France: Domestic and International Arbitration Law. Arbitration International, 28(1), 125–158.
  46. Casino, F., Dasaklis, T. K., & Patsakis, C. (2019). A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telematics and Informatics, 36, 55–81.℡E.2018.11.006
  47. Castellane, B. (2011). The New French Law on International Arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration, 28(Issue 4), 371–380.
  48. Chevalier, M. (2021). From Smart Contract Litigation to Blockchain Arbitration, a New Decentralized Approach Leading Towards the Blockchain Arbitral Order. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 12(4), 558–584.
  49. De Ly, F., Friedman, M., & Di Brozolo, L. R. (2012). International Law Association International Commercial Arbitration Committee’s Report and Recommendations on “Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration.” Arbitration International, 28(3), 355–396.
  50. Douceur, J. R. (2002). The Sybil Attack. In P. Druschel, F. Kaashoek, & A. Rowstron (Eds.), Peer-to-Peer Systems (Vol. 2429, pp. 251–260). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  51. Edwin Carawan. (2016). Court Reform, Klērōtēria, and Comic Testimony. The Classical Journal, 111(4), 385.
  52. Foden, T., & Repousis, O. G. (2019). Giving away home field advantage: The misguided attack on confidentiality in international commercial arbitration. Arbitration International, 35(4), 401–418.
  53. Garimella, S. R. (2016). Revisiting Arbitration’s Confidentiality Feature. CLJP Hors Serie, XX(5).
  54. Kaushal, A. (2014). The Issue of Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration. SSRN Electronic Journal.
  55. Kirby, J. (2011). The 2011 French Law on Arbitration. International Legal Materials, 50(2), 258–283.
  56. Leena Pietilä-Castrén. (2016). A Lost Pinakion Rediscovered. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 85(1), 201.
  57. Mahajan, R. (n.d.). The Dilemma of Confidentiality in Arbitration Proceedings: A Legal Quagmire. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, II(II).
  58. Metzger, J. (2019). The Current Landscape of Blockchain-Based, Crowd-Sourced Arbitration. Macquarie Law Journal, 18(5).
  59. Poorooye, A., & Feehily, R. (2017). Confidentiality and Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration: Finding the Right Balance. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 22(2).
  60. Scherer, M. (2020). Remote Hearings in International Arbitration: An Analytical Framework. Journal of International Arbitration, 37(4), 407–448.
  61. Sing, R. (2010). Investing in Democracy: The Practice and Politics of Jury Pay in Classical Athens. The University of Western Australia, School of Humanities, Classics and Ancient History.
  62. Third Meeting. (1932). The Cambridge Classical Journal, 148, 3–4.
  63. Vouga, R. T. (2022). A Judge’s Perspective: Privacy and Confidentiality in Voluntary Commercial Arbitration. In D. Moura Vicente, E. Dias Oliveira, & J. Gomes De Almeida (Eds.), Online Dispute Resolution (pp. 159–180). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.
  64. Werbach, K. (2018). Trust, but Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law.
  65. Legislations
  66. French Code of Civil Procedure, Decree No. 2011-48 (2011).
  67. ICC Arbitration Rules (1998), (1998).
  68. Model of ICC Terms of Reference, (2018).
  69. ICC Arbitration Rules (2021), (2021).
  70. International Arbitration Act 1994, (2020).
  71. SIAC Rules, (2016).
  72. Singapore International Arbitration Centre—Code of Ethics for an Arbitrator, (2015).
  73. Reports
  74. Baker McKenzie. (n.d.). Comparative Chart of International Arbitration Rules. Global Arbitration News.
  75. Mourre, A. (2011). IBA Arbitration Guide: France (Country Guides). International Bar Association.
  76. Report on Review of Arbitration Laws. (1993). Law Reform Committee.
  77. UN Secretary General. (1981). Report of the Secretary-General: Possible features of a model law on international commercial arbitration (A/CN.9/207; p. 31). United Nations.
  78. Yeo, A., & Lee, L. W. (2018). IBA Arbitration Guide: Singapore (Country Guides). International Bar Association.
  79. White Paper
  80. Lesaege, C., Ast, F., & George, W. (2019). Kleros Short Paper v1.0.7. Kleros.
  81. Lesaege, C., George, W., & Ast, F. (2021). Kleros Long Paper v2.0.2. Kleros.
  82. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
  83. World Wide Web
  84. George, W. (2023, May 22). Why Kleros Needs a Native Token. Kleros.
  85. Kleros. (2023a, May 22). Kleros Courts. Kleros.
  86. Kleros. (2023b, May 22). Kleros FAQ. Kleros.
  87. Kleros. (2023c, May 22). Kleros FAQ - PNK Token. Kleros.
  88. Kleros. (2023d, May 22). Kleros FAQ - What Happens During a Dispute? Kleros.
  89. Kleros. (2023e, May 22). Kleros Privacy Policy. Kleros.
  90. Kleros. (2023f, May 22). Kleros Terms of Service. Kleros.
  91. Kleros. (2023g, May 22). PNK Token. Kleros.
  92. Narozhny, D. (2023, May 22). Is Kleros Legally Valid as Arbitration? Kleros.