区块链技术的出现，让尼克·萨博的智能合约从设想成为了现实。基于区块链技术的匿名性和难以篡改性等技术特点，智能合约形成独特的运行机制。智能合约已经在以金融行业为首的各领域得到实践应用，对交易方式带来了新改变，并体现出巨大的应用潜能。与此同时，区块链智能合约的发展，对我们现行的法律制度和法律监管方式产生了重大的影响。然而，我国各界对智能合约的法律属性尚未形成权威的、统一的认识。基于此，本文的目的在于明确区块链智能合约的法律属性，并提出对其进行法律规制的建议。

首先，本文从对区块链和智能合约的概念进行说明为出发点，分析区块链的特征和发展、区块链智能合约的运行过程、特点和适用场景，并重点对区块链智能合约的法律性质进行剖析。

其次，在明确区块链智能合约合同属性的基础上，探究智能合约在运用中出现的法律问题。在订立阶段，智能合约的特殊性体现为合约主体的缔约能力不确定、与要约和承诺的撤回规则存在冲突以及合约形式为代码语言。智能合约的履行具有差异性，如智能合约的履行形态特殊、对智能合约进行解释的难度大并且智能合约履行的不可逆转与合同解除制度存在冲突。关于合同的变更和转让，智能合约难以实现传统合同制度中的合同变更，存在灵活度的僵化问题。在合同的违约和救济方面，智能合约中的归责问题复杂于传统合同，且救济措施具有滞后性。

再次，探究域外国家对智能合约的态度和规制方式。本文以美国、英国和意大利为代表，对区块链智能合约在域外的规制情况进行考察，以期对我国的借鉴提供思路。

最后，结合域外国家的规制经验，从立法、司法、行政规制和行业自律这四个角度，提出我国规制智能合约的建议。应完善区块链智能合约的相关立法，包括明确智能合约的订立规则、规范其适用类型、构建底层区块链技术的立法体系和健全智能合约中的违约及救济。应推动区块链智能合约相关司法实践的创新，核心是要将区块链技术引入司法实践，并指定互联网法院为智能合约相关纠纷的管辖法院。应强化区块链智能合约的行政监管，具体措施包括借鉴“沙盒监管”经验、建立合约主体的“代码身份”、政府作为“超级用户”进行监管、制定区块链的技术标准并明确数字货币的法律地位。应加强区块链智能合约的行业自律，通过结合代码法律化与法律代码化并建立行业内安全审查机制，对智能合约进行行业规制。

With the advent of blockchain technology, Nick Szabo's smart contract has become a reality.Because of the characteristics of blockchain technology, such as it’s anonymous and difficult to tamper with, smart contracts form a unique operating mechanism. Smart contracts have been applied in various fields, especially in the financial industry, bringing changes to the way of trading and have shown great application potential.At the same time, the development of blockchain-based smart contracts have a significant impact on our current legal system and the way of legal regulation.However, the different circles in our country have not yet reached a consensus on the legal nature of smart contracts.Based on this, this paper provides an analysis of the legal nature of the smart contract, and puts forward proposal for its legal regulation.

Firstly, this paper explains the concepts of blockchain and smart contracts, analyzes the characteristics and development of blockchain technology, and describes the three stages of a smart contract, its characteristic features and sphere of its application. Then the paper gives emphasis to analyse the legal nature of smart contracts.

Secondly, the paper explores the legal issues in the application of smart contracts.As for entering into a smart contract, the conclusion of smart contracts has particularity. It’s mainly reflected as follows: the civil capacity of the subject of smart contracts cannot be confirmed;the conclusion of smart contracts conflicts with the withdrawal rules of offers and acceptances in traditional contracts;and the terms of the contracts are in the form of code.When it comes to the performance of contracts, smart contracts are performed differently from the traditional contracts.And it’s difficult to have chances to explain the terms of smart contracts.Besides, since the execution of smart contracts is irreversible, it conflicts with the system of dissolution of contracts.With regard to contract modification and transfer, the flexibility to change the contract is lost in smart contracts.In the aspect of the remedy for breach of contracts, liability allocation in smart contracts is more complicated than that in traditional contracts, and the remedies of the right  has a characteristic of lag.

Then, taking the United States, Britain and Italy as representatives, the paper investigates the attitudes towards smart contracts and legal regulations in other countries and hopes to provide beneficial references for us.

Finally, based on the regulatory experiences of other countries, this paper suggests solutions including four perspectives: legislative, judicial, administrative regulation and industry self-discipline.In terms of the the perfection of related legislation, it is necessary to improve the formation rules of smart contract, clarify its types of application, build the legislative system of the underlying blockchain technology and consummate the default and remedy of smart contracts.The core of driving innovation in the judicial practice is to introduce the blockchain technology into judicial practice and designate the Internet Court as the dispute resolution court.The specific measures of administrative regulation include following the example of "Regulatory Sandbox", establishing "code identity" of the parties, letting the government regulate as a "superuser", developing technical standards of blockchain and defining the legal status of digital currency.In addition, strengthening industry regulation includes coding within the legal frame as well as adding encoded laws into smart contracts, and establishing the safety review mechanism in the industry.