Executive Summary

Digital assets are cryptographically secured digital representations of value or rights that are created, transferred, and recorded on distributed ledgers known as blockchains. As their use expands across financial markets, digital commerce, and consumer platforms, disputes are inevitable. In this setting, international arbitration presents a particularly suitable forum for dispute resolution. Its hallmarks of neutrality, confidentiality, procedural flexibility, and expert adjudication align closely with the decentralised and cross-border nature of digital assets transactions.

At the same time, cryptocurrency disputes expose the dual character of arbitration: while it adapts well to decentralised commerce, it remains dependent on state authority for legitimacy, coercive support, and enforcement. These structural limits risk rendering arbitral proceedings ineffective unless supplemented by judicial intervention.

Part I of this article examines how national courts bridge this gap through interim measures in support of arbitration. Drawing on jurisprudence from England and Singapore, it demonstrates how courts have adapted traditional private-law remedies-including proprietary injunctions, worldwide freezing orders, and third-party disclosure-to the digital assets context, converting opaque transactions into traceable and enforceable facts.

Part II turns to the post-award phase, where the New York Convention’s pro-enforcement framework encounters domestic regulatory constraints. Recent decisions from the United Kingdom and Greece illustrate how courts have refused to recognise or enforce crypto-related arbitral awards on grounds of arbitrability and public policy, particularly where enforcement would undermine mandatory rules on consumer protection, financial regulation, or monetary sovereignty. These cases underscore that arbitral finality is conditioned by the enforcing forum’s legal order.

Part III synthesises these findings by exploring how arbitral tribunals can structure proceedings and remedies to enhance enforceability, alongside an assessment of evolving regulatory frameworks in key jurisdictions. It highlights that enforcement-conscious award design, engagement with mandatory law, and awareness of regulatory developments are essential to mitigating enforcement risk. 

The article concludes that arbitration remains indispensable for crypto disputes, provided parties design proceedings that integrate judicial cooperation, anticipate enforcement risks, and align with national regulatory frameworks. The future lies not in replacing courts with code, but in forging a coordinated model where arbitral flexibility and judicial authority operate in tandem to secure justice across decentralised systems.

This paper will be part of the TDM Special Issue on "Cryptocurrencies and Other Digital Assets in Arbitration". More information here www.transnational-dispute-management.com/news.asp?key=2080