Any threat to the peace: cyberspace's threat

The author of this post is Filippo Belfatto.

One day I woke up with this question. Do cryptocurrencies be considered a threat to sovereignty? I know this sounds strange but what I mean is: when I make a bitcoin transaction am I using a stuff to damage a State?
I know, the Blockchain technology allows bitcoin thus it is actually the tool. So, I have to make this assumption: without Blockchain technology wouldn’t be any question but bitcoins are still nowadays the Pop Star. In fact, bitcoins have, more or less, immediately had a crushing effect against economic systems, law systems and social relationship. For all these reasons I’m going to speak about bitcoins.
The question above is quite tricky. First of all, it should qualify the extent of “threat to a State”. In order to determine the case, I decided to use the Art. 39 United Nations Chart. The choice has some reasons: i) every single autonomous State could, with his own laws, qualify who or what is a threat; ii) cryptocurrencies exists in cyberspace, they don’t have flags, colour or regions.^[1]

In the light of Art. 39 UN Chart we have to construe the expression “any threat to the peace”. During the years, the United Nations Security Council has read, with lots of resolutions, a meaning. In this sense, it would be said that “any threat to the peace” are: civil wars, human rights violations, act of terrorism and others.^[2]

Now the problem is: how should I construe an international treaty like this one? I don’t want to bother you with boring legal disputes and stuff so, the answer is I have to use Art. 31 of Vienna Convention.^[3] Hence, to really understand the meaning, the extent of “any threat to the peace”, we have to take into account also the ordinary value of the words. So, in almost all dictionaries the term “to threat” postulates: i) at least two subjects, the threatening and the threatened; ii) an object throughout make the iii) eventually suffered detriment.^[4]

We almost have all the elements to answer the original question. On 31 January 1992, the President of the United Nations Security Council said that economic crisis, humanitarian and human crisis, social and ecological crisis are a threat to the peace. For the sake of clarity, he also stated that the absence of war between States doesn’t ensure peace and international.^[5]

One fundamental attribute of every States is the exclusive use of weapons and, in general, the power of coercion. On the contrary, a State without this power wouldn’t be able to govern and protect his territory. As already said above, since 1992 the case “threat to the peace”, does not only mean a threat with weapons like nuclear bomb, but it also extends to economic and social threat.
Now, from this point of view the words: “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution” would have a new, also legal, sense.^[6]

From my perspective, cryptocurrencies could be “seen” and then qualified in two opposite way: one with State’s eyes, one with person’s eyes. So, on one hand, they may be a threat to the peace, they may be objects to make acts of terrorism or to hurt State’s property; on the other hand, instead, the person may consider cryptocurrencies like i) something digital to realize positive freedom; ii) Blockchain technology as a tool to make “real” the concept of cyberspace, for instance more like the meaning of space in legal sense.

The regulation of these digital values is State-by-State different, for instance, some States have decided that these bits may be considered pursuant to the law of capital markets. Instead, other States have sniffed that Blockchain technology could be much more disruptive and of some utility, if it is controlled by them. Of course, in some part of the World cryptocurrencies are not allowed and illegal.

Nonetheless of what I’ve just said, I have to admit that is growing a consensus on International level. In fact, States have understand that cryptocurrencies are an alternative type of regulation for human relationship. This new form of digital human relationship is a threat for States because, for instance, bitcoin hurts State’s property if the law does not effect Nakamoto’s invention.

When a person makes a transaction with cryptocurrencies to purchase the bread, a car, a house, or any other sort of goods or services State’s wealth goes out of sovereignty system. Let’s make an example: I convert 100 $ into 100 bitcoin, now with my bitcoin I’ll purchase X objects. Every single transaction that I’ve made with bitcoin will increase only sellers’ assets. The State does not “gain” nothing. So, Treasury does not earn taxation.
Taxation is fundamental for a State; tax law and the tributary system are key tools also to grant people and their rights^[7].
The State could be thought as a legal person, a company; it offers and receives obligations to and from other entities, like natural people. If and when people use or modify their rights someone has to pay a cost, this expense is not always and only paid by people. For instance: individual and collective security should be thought as a cost for a State, in fact military forces have to be paid.

And yet, when people decide to exercise their demonstration’s right they make it at their own expense: they create banners, signboards, stages etc. But on the other side, also the State has some costs, first of all it has to allow the right of manifestation. Indeed the State must: pays police offices to grant the safety of the manifestation, modifies roads conditions, makes available public spaces, a number of officials have to be paid to check and approve the purpose and formality of the manifestation etc.

The last example, property right represents the State’s system expense-profit. The right is a cost because the State must create laws and jurisdictional system to develop assurance and trust in people. Let me explain this concept. Hence, the State creates the property right, it has attributes, definitions, it grants powers and duties etc.
Definitely, the property has people think about every day is not something exists in “nature”, instead it is an artefact made by laws. Thus, like an Uroboro, law system makes the property right and meanwhile all the remedies set out by laws for property protection are applied only to property-right-by-law^[8].

This “laws-loop” system gives rise security and trust, people entrust the laws (if it is observed by “everyone” and it is the same for everyone) and they make use of them to develop social, economic and human relationships. As said above, an individual can purchase a good because he has faith that if something or someone will hurt his right, the laws will provide remedies. Thus, so much more laws are “well done” so much more will be the number of subjects who use them. And this is precisely the earing’s State, the profit gained by the Creator of trust^[9].
This concept is materialized by taxes. Taxes are collected among all the citizens so that the cost of the laws-system is allocated among the national community.

Hence, the State makes this system and in exchange individuals must use money. Rights, for example property right, are purchasable, are modifiable but only throughout a medium. This medium must be fungible and shared (also note that individual hasn’t the property of this thing) among all individuals^[10].
I’ve just described this medium that is no less than State Money^[11].

In the light of what I’ve already said about Art. 39 United Nations Chart, I think that, from States point of view, cryptocurrencies are a threat to peace and to their law, economic and social systems.
On the contrary, I see power in the position of individuals. Maybe for the first time again in centuries humans have in their hands a real weapon against Leviathans. Please reader don’t misunderstand me, I don’t want to say that cryptocurrencies are an anarchic thing. I think they are something over ad different. Maybe for the first time in human history people have something to use to make trust-less relationships all around the world. Nowadays the World is bigger than humans, but humans can make relationships all over the World without a third party (State).

In the end, and I must admit this scares me, people, if they want so, could use cryptocurrencies to “threat to the peace” of all States. And this is possible, for the first time in history without too much efforts, with a digital technology. The threat to States is now from the cyberspace which seems more like a “real” space where people and “other things” live. So, threatening (humanity) could threat threatened (States) with an economic damage. But not only, throughout Blockchain technology is possible that in future States will be replaced by cloud communities.