As the friend Mauro Pili says there are three fundamental laws: those of physics, those of computer science and those of man.
The latter are clearly the weakest because they require significant application problems and probably by now obsolete when they are voted.
The former are definitely the most ‘strong by their nature.
Those of information technology are in the middle. Written by man (for now) do not require his intervention to be performed.
So how is it possible that some parliamentarians around the world tried to regulate a smart contract by looking only at some existing norms (in Italy you only look at CAD or the United States is aping), without addressing the issue in its globality ?
The problem of regulating a smart contract at a regulatory level is as useless as it is fascinating.
It requires a thorough knowledge of a legal matter often forgotten in courtrooms or in legislative processes: the philosophy of law.
And if for Kelsen the right is the organization of force, perhaps the task of man is to transform the weak laws into strong laws, not taking care to give legitimacy to a smart contract (the smart contracts defend themselves very well) but to transfuse in the system of connections between smart contracts that will connect to each other (a bit like many different internet services are connected through API), a few simple and fundamental principles almost as unchangeable and unsurpassable constitutional rules because it is the basis of our humanity ‘.
A bit like the laws of robotics.