Blockchain and Smart Public Procurement Contracts: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Digital Transformation in the Public Sector
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. The Concept of Blockchain Technology. – 3.1. Jurisprudential Concept of Blockchain Technology. – 3.2. Legislative Approaches to Defining Blockchain Technology. – 4. Types of Blockchain Technology. – 4.1. Public Blockchain. – 4.2. Private Blockchain. – 4.3. Hybrid Blockchain. – 5. The Concept of Smart Administrative Contracts. – 6. Types of Smart Administrative Contracts. – 6.1. Deterministic Smart Administrative Contracts. – 6.2. Non-Deterministic Smart Administrative Contracts. – 7. Contract Language and Documentation. – 8. Mechanism of Smart Contracts Operation Via Blockchain Technology. – 9. Practical Application of a Smart Administrative Contract Based on Blockchain Technology. – 10. Challenges Facing Smart Administrative Contracts Based on Blockchain Technology. – 10.1. Legal Challenges. – 10.2. Technical Challenges. – 11. Conclusion.
Background. The rapid advancement of digital technologies has introduced blockchain as a potential tool in public procurement contracts within the public sector. Smart contracts, particularly within civil law frameworks, have gained legislative recognition in jurisdictions such as France and several U.S. states. This development raises important questions about integrating blockchain-based smart contracts into governmental procurement systems, with a view to enhancing procedural transparency and operational efficiency, while acknowledging the limitations and dependencies on institutional frameworks.
The central issue lies in clarifying the legal and technical implications of blockchain-based smart procurement contracts. The research examines their potential to streamline public procurement management and improve procedural efficiency, while recognising the need for legal safeguards that maintain administrative law principles and accommodate institutional constraints.
Methods. This study adopts a comparative analytical approach, examining relevant legal provisions, technical requirements, and administrative practices across multiple jurisdictions. Various blockchain models—public, private, hybrid, and consortium—are evaluated for their suitability in procurement processes. Legislative experiences regulating smart contracts are analysed to extract best practices and inform a cautious framework for public sector adoption.
Results and Conclusions. The analysis indicates that blockchain-based smart procurement contracts may reduce bureaucratic delays and minimise human errors, while providing immutable records that can support accountability. However, successful implementation requires legal and institutional adjustments to address enforceability, liability allocation, interoperability, and data protection. A practical model illustrating each operational step—from drafting to automated execution—is proposed, emphasising feasibility and legal compliance rather than assuming transformative effects. The study highlights the necessity of tailored legislation, standardised protocols, and targeted training for public officials to support the cautious integration of blockchain in public procurement contracting. These measures aim to guide the legally informed and context-sensitive adoption of smart contracts, contributing to sustainable digital transformation in public sector governance.
Abstract
Background. The rapid advancement of digital technologies has introduced blockchain as a potential tool in public procurement contracts within the public sector. Smart contracts, particularly within civil law frameworks, have gained legislative recognition in jurisdictions such as France and several U.S. states. This development raises important questions about integrating blockchain-based smart contracts into governmental procurement systems, with a view to enhancing procedural transparency and operational efficiency, while acknowledging the limitations and dependencies on institutional frameworks.
The central issue lies in clarifying the legal and technical implications of blockchain-based smart procurement contracts. The research examines their potential to streamline public procurement management and improve procedural efficiency, while recognising the need for legal safeguards that maintain administrative law principles and accommodate institutional constraints.
Methods. This study adopts a comparative analytical approach, examining relevant legal provisions, technical requirements, and administrative practices across multiple jurisdictions. Various blockchain models—public, private, hybrid, and consortium—are evaluated for their suitability in procurement processes. Legislative experiences regulating smart contracts are analysed to extract best practices and inform a cautious framework for public sector adoption.
Results and Conclusions. The analysis indicates that blockchain-based smart procurement contracts may reduce bureaucratic delays and minimise human errors, while providing immutable records that can support accountability. However, successful implementation requires legal and institutional adjustments to address enforceability, liability allocation, interoperability, and data protection. A practical model illustrating each operational step—from drafting to automated execution—is proposed, emphasising feasibility and legal compliance rather than assuming transformative effects. The study highlights the necessity of tailored legislation, standardised protocols, and targeted training for public officials to support the cautious integration of blockchain in public procurement contracting. These measures aim to guide the legally informed and context-sensitive adoption of smart contracts, contributing to sustainable digital transformation in public sector governance.
About Authors
Authors information
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the conceptualization of the research and manuscript, including defining the study scope, designing the methodology, conducting analyses, and extracting results. They supervised the study. Additionally, all authors participated in drafting the manuscript and approved the final version.
Mohamed Abdelsalam
PhD, Assistant Professor, College of Law, Applied Science University, Kingdom of Bahrain.
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3701-6393
Co-author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, formal analyses, supervision, writing- original draft, writing- review and editing.
Alaa Abouahmed
PhD, Associate Professor, Public Law Department, United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2276-260X
Co-author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, formal analyses, supervision, writing- original draft, writing- review and editing.
Abdallah Shatat
Associate Professor of Management Information Systems, Bahrain Polytechnic, Kingdom of Bahrain
abdallah.shatat@polytechnic.bh
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2605-6358
Co-author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, formal analyses, supervision, writing- original draft, writing- review and editing.
Adham Hashish
PhD, assistant professor, Justice Diwan Law Firm
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2547-8284
Co-author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, formal analyses, supervision, writing- original draft, writing- review and editing.
Enas AlQodsi*
PhD, Associate Professor, Private Law Department, United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates.
enas.alqodsi@uaeu.ac.ae
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4643-9660
Corresponding author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, formal analyses, supervision, writing- original draft, writing- review and editing.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The authors declare that their opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Rights and Permissions
Copyright: © 2025 Mohammed Abdelsalam, Alaa Abouahmed, Abdallah Shatat, Adham Hashish and Enas AlQodsi This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Editors
Managing editor – Mag. Bohdana Zahrebelna. English Editor – Julie Bold. Ukrainian language Editor – Lilia Hartman.
References
Abdelaziz GM and Abouahmed A, ‘The Punitive Power of Independent Administrative Authorities: Focus on Financial and Tax Violations: A Comparative Study’ (2024) 7(2) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 301. doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-7.2-n000216
Abdelaziz GM and Hashish A, ‘Using Sanctions in Enforcing Digital Markets Act in the EU’ in El Khoury R and Nasrallah N (eds), Intelligent Systems, Business, and Innovation Research (Springer Cham 2024) 775. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36895-0_65
Abouahmed A, Eldakak A and Zakaria A, ‘Using Electronic Auctions for Contracting in the UAE Federal Government Procurements’ in Alareeni BAM and Elgedawy I (eds), Studies in Systems, Decision and Control (Springer Cham 2023) 884. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-39158-3_82.
Afify AM and others, ‘Unveiling the Right to Health in Egypt: Exploring the Transformations and Challenges in Egyptian Constitutional Law and Policy’ (2023) 12 Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 95. doi:10.36941/ajis-2023-0156
Al Shamsi H, ‘Enhancing Digital Transactions with Blockchain Technology: Descriptive-Analytical Study’ (2024) 7(3) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 485. doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-7.3-a000322
AlQodsi EM and Arenova L, ‘Smart Contracts in Contract Law as an Auxiliary Tool or a Promising Substitute for Traditional Contracts’ (2024) 16(3) Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction. doi:10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-1132
AlQodsi EM, Jadalhaq IM and El-Maknouzi MEH, ‘The Place of UAE’s Food Security in the National Legislation and its Role in Supporting Global Food Security’ (2024) 10(1) Cogent Social Sciences 2319379. doi:10.1080/23311886.2024.2319379
Al-Shawabkeh IK, ‘Legal Guarantees for Objective Performance Evaluation of the Federal Public Employee in the UAE Legislation’ (2020) 10(3) Lawyer Quarterly 217
Al-Shawabkeh IK, ‘Using the Tax to Reduce Environmental Pollution in the United Arab Emirates: Possibility and Challenges’ in AlQodsi EM and Abdallah AK (eds), Legal Frameworks and Educational Strategies for Sustainable Development (IGI Global Scientific Publishing 2025) 1. doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2987-0.ch001
Al-Shawabkeh IK and Alqudah M, ‘Independent Regulatory Bodies in the Jordanian Legal System: An Evaluative Review’ (2023) 9 International Journal of Public Law and Policy 188. doi:10.1504/IJPLAP.2023.130014
Anglen J, ‘Different Types of Blockchains: Public, Private, and Hybrid’ (Rapid Innovation, 2025) <https://www.rapidinnovation.io/post/different-types-of-blockchains-public-private-and-hybrid> accessed 4 October 2025
Atzori M, ‘Blockchain Technology and Decentralized Governance: Is the State Still Necessary?’ (2017) 6(1) Journal of Governance and Regulation 45. doi:10.22495/jgr_v6_i1_p5
Bambara JJ and others, Blockchain: A Practical Guide to Developing Business, Law, and Technology Solutions (McGraw Hill 2018)
Berryhill J, Bourgery T and Hanson A, Blockchains Unchained: Blockchain Technology and its Use in the Public Sector (Working Papers on Public Governance no 28, OECD 2018)
Buterin Vi, A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform (Ethereum White Paper, 2014)
Casino F, Dasaklis TK and Patsakis C, ‘A Systematic Literature Review of Blockchain-Based Applications: Current Status, Classification, and Open Issues’ (2019) 36 Telematics and Informatics 55. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006
Christidis K and Devetsikiotis M, ‘Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things’ (2016) 4 IEEE Access 2292. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566339
Clack CD, Bakshi VA and Braine L, ‘Smart Contract Templates: Foundations, Design Landscape and Research Directions’ (arXiv, 15 March 2017) arXiv:1608.00771v3 [cs.CY]
Curry M, ‘Blockchain Technology and the Legal Field’ (Moritz College of Law, 2022) <https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2022> accessed 4 October 2025
Dahiyat EAR, ‘The Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures in Jordan: Some Remarks on the Electronic Transactions Law’ (2011) 25(3) Arab Law Quarterly 297. doi:10.1163/157302511X568538
Dahiyat EAR, ‘Towards New Recognition of Liability in the Digital World: Should we be More Creative?’ (2011) 19(3) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 224. doi:10.1093/ijlit/ear006
Djamane D, ‘Smart Contracts: Global Perspectives and Legal Realities’, pt 2 (Daily Jus, 6 August 2025) <https://dailyjus.com/legal-tech/2025/08/smart-contracts-global-perspectives-and-legal-realities-part-2> accessed 3 October 2025
Duley C and others, The Oracle Problem and the Future of DeFi (BIS Bulletin no 76, Bank for International Settlements 2023)
El-Gheriani M and Hashish A, ‘Egypt Amends its Competition Law to Establish a Pre-Merger Control System’ (2023) 14(2) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 106. doi:10.1093/jeclap/lpad014
El-Gheriani M and Hashish A, ‘Harnessing the Crypto-Horse: Factors Affecting a Friendly Regulator of the Crypto-Industry: Dubai as a Test Case’ (2025) 34(3) Information & Communications Technology Law 241. doi:10.1080/13600834.2025.2452718
El-Wafaa TA, Khalil A and Hashish A, ‘Parliamentary Question: Insights from the Federal National Council in the UAE’ (2024) 10(6) Heliyon e27671. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27671
Fayed A, Zakaria A and Abouahmed A, ‘Innovations of Artificial Intelligence in Light of the Applicable Copyright Law: Realistic Solutions and Future Prospects. A Comparative Study of UAE, Egyptian, and French Laws’ (2025) 8(1) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 241. doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-8.1-a000116
Ghandour A and others, ‘Legal Framework for Blockchain Contracts: An Analysis Under UAE Law’ (SSRN, 14 December 2024) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5056550> accessed 4 October 2025
Heaver I, Melnichenko A and Kamran Z, ‘Blockchain 2025 – UAE – Global Practice Guides’ (Chambers and Partners, 12 June 2025) <https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/blockchain-2025/uae> accessed 3 October 2025
Jadalhaq IM and El Maknouzi MEH, ‘Reading UAE Contract Law Through the Lens of Islamic Jurisprudence: A Case Study on the “Extraneous Cause' Exception in the UAE Civil Code” (2019) 19(2) Global Jurist 20180045. doi:10.1515/gj-2018-0045
Jadalhaq IM and others, ‘A Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Interruption of the Statute of Limitations for Civil Claims: A Comparative Study of Arab Legislations’ (2023) 9(6) Heliyon e16756. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16756.
Joshi R, ‘Use Cases of Blockchain in Government and Public Sector’ (A3Logics, 23 October 2024) <https://www.a3logics.com/blog/blockchain-in-government/> accessed 3 October 2025
Mik E, ‘Smart Contracts: Terminology, Technical Limitations and Real World Complexity’ (2017) 9(2) Law, Innovation and Technology 269. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3038406
Raskin M, ‘The Law and Legality of Smart Contracts’ (2017) 1(2) Georgetown Law Technology Review 305. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2842258
Sherman AT and others, ‘On the Origins and Variations of Blockchain Technologies’ (arXiv, 15 October 2018) arXiv:1810.06130 [cs.CR]
Solosky NT and Shutzer DLC, ‘Contractor Compliance and Internal Investigations: New Practical Strategies for Unpredictable Times’ (2025) 60(4) The Procurement Lawyer 20
Susnjara S and Smalley I, ‘What is Blockchain Technology?’ (IBM, 2020) <https://www.ibm.com/topics/what-is-blockchain> accessed 4 October 2025
Tapscott D and Tapscott A, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World (Penguin 2016)
Tjong Tjin Tai E, ‘Force Majeure and Excuses in Smart Contracts’ (2018) 26(6) European Review of Private Law 787.
Tsentsura K, ‘How Governments Are Using Blockchain in 2025’ (Yellow.com, 19 August 2025) <https://yellow.com/research/how-governments-are-using-blockchain-in-2025-from-digital-identity-to-cbdcs-and-voting> accessed 3 October 2025
Werbach K, ‘Trust, But Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law’ (2018) 33(2) Berkeley Technology Law Journal 487
Werbach K and Cornell N, ‘Contracts Ex Machina’ (2017) 67(2) Duke Law Journal 313
Wright A and De Filippi P, ‘Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia’ (2015) 34 Social Science Research Network 41. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2580664
Yermack D, ‘Corporate Governance and Blockchains’ (2017) 21(1) Review of Finance 7. doi:10.1093/rof/rfw074
Yu H, Deng X and Zhang N, ‘To What Extent Can Smart Contracts Replace Traditional Contracts in Construction Projects?’ (2023) 32(3) Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 1393. doi:10.1108/ECAM-04-2023-0379
Zetzsche DA, Buckley RP and Arner DW, ‘The Distributed Liability of Distributed Ledgers: Legal Risks of Blockchain’ (2018) 4 University of Illinois Law Review 1361
Zhang R, Xue R and Liu L, ‘Security and Privacy on Blockchain’ (arXiv, 16 August 2019) arXiv:1903.07602v2 [cs.CR]
Reviews for article
Add a Review
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Дослідницька стаття
БЛОКЧЕЙН ТА СМАРТ-ДОГОВОРИ ПРО ДЕРЖАВНІ ЗАКУПІВЛІ: ПОРІВНЯЛЬНО-ПРАВОВИЙ АНАЛІЗ ЦИФРОВОЇ ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЇ В ДЕРЖАВНОМУ СЕКТОРІ
Мохаммед Абдельсалам, Алаа Абуахмед, Абдалла Шатат Адхам Хашиш та Енас Аль-Кодсі*
АНОТАЦІЯ
Вступ. Швидкий розвиток цифрових технологій представив блокчейн як потенційний інструмент у договорах про державні закупівлі в державному секторі. Смарт-договори, особливо в межах цивільного права, отримали законодавче визнання в таких юрисдикціях, як Франція та кілька штатів США. У цій статті порушено важливі питання щодо інтеграції смарт-договорів на основі блокчейну в державні системи закупівель з метою підвищення процедурної прозорості та операційної ефективності, водночас визнаючи обмеження та залежність від інституційних рамок.
Головне питання полягає у з'ясуванні правових та технічних наслідків смарт-договорів про закупівлі на основі блокчейну. У дослідженні було зʼясовано їхній потенціал для оптимізації управління державними закупівлями та підвищення процедурної ефективності, водночас визнаючи необхідність правових гарантій, які підтримують принципи адміністративного права та враховують інституційні обмеження.
Методи. Це дослідження використовує порівняльно-аналітичний підхід, розглядаючи відповідні правові положення, технічні вимоги та адміністративну практику в різних юрисдикціях. Різні моделі блокчейну — державні, приватні, гібридні та консорціальні — було розглянуто для того, щоб оцінити їхню результативність в процесах закупівель. Проаналізовано законодавчий досвід регулювання смарт-договорів, щоб виділити найкращі практики та сформувати обґрунтовану основу для впровадження в державному секторі.
Результати та висновки. Аналіз показує, що смарт-договори на основі блокчейну можуть зменшити бюрократичні затримки та мінімізувати людські помилки, водночас забезпечуючи незмінні записи, які можуть підтримувати підзвітність. Однак успішне впровадження вимагає правових та інституційних коригувань для вирішення питань щодо можливості забезпечити виконання, розподіл відповідальності, сумісність та захист даних. Запропоновано практичну модель, що ілюструє кожен операційний крок — від складання до автоматизованого виконання — з наголосом на доцільності та дотриманні законодавства, а не на передбачуваних трансформаційних ефектах. Дослідження підкреслює необхідність адаптованого законодавства, стандартизованих протоколів та цілеспрямованого навчання державних службовців для підтримки поступової інтеграції блокчейну в укладання договорів про державні закупівлі. Ці заходи спрямовані на керівництво юридично обґрунтованим та контекстно-залежним впровадженням смарт-договорів, сприяючи сталому цифровому перетворенню в управлінні державним сектором.
Ключові слова: технологія блокчейн, смарт-договори, державні закупівлі, технічні виклики, цифрова трансформація, порівняльне право.
Publication history
-
DETAILS FOR PUBLICATION
Date of submission: 12 Aug 2025
Date of acceptance: 04 Oct 2025
Publication: 18 Nov 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 3 rounds: 2 major revisions and 1 minor revision
Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
AI Disclosure Statement:
The authors declare that no artificial intelligence tools were used in the writing, translation, or editing of this manuscript. The research and the content of the article represent the authors’ own original work. The corresponding author confirms that all co-authors complied with this declaration.
How to cite it?
-
Abdelsalam M, Abouahmed A, Shatat A, Hashish A and AlQodsi E, ‘Blockchain and Smart Public Procurement Contracts: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Digital Transformation in the Public Sector’ (2025) 8(4) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 242-74 <https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.4-a000137>
