THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ELECTRONIC AGREEMENTS AND RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE CIVIL LAW OF UZBEKISTAN AND CHINA

International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 1 THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ELECTRONIC AGREEMENTS AND RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE CIVIL LAW OF UZBEKISTAN AND CHINA DENG YING Independent Researcher, PhD Tashkent State University of Law, Lawyer at the Law Firm LLC “JINGSH” [email protected] https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6489-6657 Abstract The article is devoted to the study of the legal significance of electronic agreements and risk management systems in the civil law of Uzbekistan and China. It analyzes the legal foundations for the conclusion and execution of electronic contracts, including the provisions of the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Law of Uzbekistan “On Electronic Document Flow,” and the Law of the People’s Republic of China “On Electronic Signatures.” Particular attention is paid to the validity of electronic agreements, party identification, the evidentiary value of electronic documents, and the risks arising during their conclusion and performance. A comparative analysis of the approaches of the two countries to risk management, including legal, technical, and organizational mechanisms, is conducted. Examples of judicial practice in Uzbekistan and China are examined, demonstrating the specifics of applying electronic agreements in civil transactions. Based on the analysis, trends in the harmonization of national legal frameworks and directions for improving legislation to ensure the reliable functioning of electronic contracts are identified. Keywords: electronic agreement, legal validity, civil law, risk management, Uzbekistan, China, electronic signature, electronic document flow, party identification, judicial practice, legal regulation, digital economy. ЮРИДИЧЕСКАЯ ЗНАЧИМОСТЬ ЭЛЕКТРОННЫХ СОГЛАШЕНИЙ И СИСТЕМЫ РИСК-МЕНЕДЖМЕНТА В ГРАЖДАНСКОМ ПРАВЕ УЗБЕКИСТАНА И КИТАЯ DENG YING самостоятельный исследователь PhD Ташкентского государственного юридического университета, Адвокат юридической фирмы OOO “JINGSH” International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 2 [email protected] https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6489-6657 Аннотация Статья посвящена исследованию юридической значимости электронных соглашений и систем управления рисками в гражданском праве Узбекистана и Китая. Анализируются правовые основы заключения и исполнения электронных договоров, включая положения Гражданского кодекса Республики Узбекистан, Закона РУз «Об электронном документообороте» и Закона КНР «Об электронной подписи». Особое внимание уделено вопросам действительности электронных соглашений, идентификации сторон, доказательственной силы электронных документов и рискам, возникающим при их заключении и исполнении. Проведен сравнительный анализ подходов двух стран к управлению рисками, включая правовые, технические и организационные механизмы. Рассмотрены примеры судебной практики Узбекистана и Китая, демонстрирующие особенности применения электронных соглашений в гражданском обороте. На основе анализа выявлены тенденции гармонизации национальных правовых режимов и направления совершенствования законодательства для обеспечения надежного функционирования электронных договоров. Ключевые слова: электронное соглашение, юридическая сила, гражданское право, управление рисками, Узбекистан, Китай, электронная подпись, электронный документооборот, идентификация сторон, судебная практика, правовое регулирование, цифровая экономика. Introduction Modern digital technologies have a profound impact on the transformation of economic relations, necessitating the modernization of legal mechanisms that regulate them. One of the key phenomena of the digital economy is the electronic agreement (EA), which has become an essential tool in civil and commercial transactions, particularly in the context of globalization and cross-border trade. Electronic agreements significantly reduce transaction costs, accelerate the conclusion of contracts, and enhance transparency. However, they also give rise to new legal challenges, including the identification of parties, ensuring the authenticity of electronic signatures, preserving the integrity of electronic documents, and recognizing their evidentiary value in judicial proceedings [1, 2]. For countries with rapidly developing digital economies, such as the Republic of Uzbekistan and the People’s Republic of China, legal regulation of electronic agreements is particularly relevant. In Uzbekistan, the legal foundation for electronic International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 3 transactions is established in the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which in Article 105 allows transactions in written form, including electronic form [3], while Article 366 explicitly provides for the possibility of concluding contracts through the exchange of electronic messages [3]. Additional regulation is provided by the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Electronic Document Flow,” Article 7 of which grants electronic documents equal legal force with paper documents [4]. In China, similar legal mechanisms are governed by the Law of the People’s Republic of China “On Electronic Signatures” (2005, amended in 2019), which establishes the legal significance of electronic signatures, conditions for their use, and the authority of certified certification centers [5]. Furthermore, China was among the first countries to establish specialized Internet courts to adjudicate disputes related to electronic agreements and digital evidence [6]. The relevance of this study is driven by the need for a comparative analysis of the legal nature of electronic agreements in Uzbekistan and China, the identification of their common and distinctive features, and an examination of existing mechanisms for mitigating risks associated with their conclusion and execution. The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of electronic agreements under the civil law of Uzbekistan and China, to identify their legal nature, regulatory features, and existing risk management mechanisms. To achieve this aim, the study sets the following objectives: 1. Determine the legal nature of electronic agreements in the civil law of Uzbekistan and China. 2. Examine the conditions for the validity of electronic agreements and their execution procedures. 3. Analyze the main legal risks arising from the conclusion and performance of electronic agreements. 4. Review current legal, technical, and organizational mechanisms for risk mitigation. 5. Conduct a comparative analysis of legislative approaches in Uzbekistan and China, including judicial practice. 6. Formulate conclusions and recommendations for improving national legislation in the context of digital transformation. Legal regulation of electronic agreements and digital transactions has become a subject of active scholarly research in recent years. Most studies focus on the legal nature of electronic agreements, their validity conditions, and legal risks associated with their conclusion and execution. In domestic civil law scholarship, electronic agreements are considered a type of contract executed in written form, with particular emphasis on the legal validity of International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 4 electronic signatures and electronic documents [1, 2]. Uzbek researchers highlight the importance of adapting national legislation to the demands of the digital economy, stressing the need to improve regulations concerning party identification and the evidentiary value of electronic documents [3]. International literature emphasizes the challenges of unifying legal regulation of electronic agreements across borders. For instance, German and American scholars analyze the legal nature of electronic offers and acceptances, as well as cross-border recognition of electronic contracts [4, 5]. Chinese legal doctrine actively develops the concept of Internet courts and recognizes electronic evidence as a key component of judicial proceedings in the digital economy [6]. Comparative legal research shows that while the basic principles—such as the equivalence of paper and electronic documents and the legal validity of electronic signatures—are similar, approaches vary between countries. For example, China allows contracts to be concluded through electronic platforms even without a qualified electronic signature if there is factual evidence of parties’ consent [6], whereas Uzbek law requires stricter formal compliance [3]. Despite a significant number of studies on the topic, research gaps remain. In particular, mechanisms for minimizing risks in cross-border electronic transactions are insufficiently explored, as are questions regarding the harmonization of judicial practice between countries with different legal systems. Furthermore, the admissibility of “smart contracts” in the civil law of Uzbekistan and China remains an open question, warranting further scientific investigation. Methodology This study is based on a combination of general scientific and private-law methods, enabling a comprehensive analysis of the legal nature of electronic agreements in the civil law of Uzbekistan and China, as well as the identification of specific regulatory and practical features [7]. The research employed dialectical, analytical, and synthetic methods, along with a comparative-historical approach. These methods allowed the study to trace the evolution of legal regulation of electronic agreements, identify development trends, and explore prospects for legislative improvement in both countries [8]. The primary research tool was the comparative-legal method, applied to analyze the provisions of the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Electronic Document Flow” [4], and the Law of the People’s Republic of China “On Electronic Signatures” [5, 9]. This approach helped to identify both common patterns and national specificities in the regulation of electronic agreements. Special attention was given to the study of normative legal acts governing electronic document flow, the legal validity of electronic signatures, and procedures for executing contracts in the digital environment. The method of legal interpretation— International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 5 grammatical, systemic, and teleological—was applied to ensure accurate understanding of legislative norms and their interrelations [1, 2]. To assess the practical application of legislation, judicial decisions in Uzbekistan and China were analyzed. For instance, the study examined the case of LLC “SmartLog” vs. Individual Entrepreneur T.A. (Uzbekistan, 2023), as well as a dispute between a purchaser and the platform JD.com (China, 2021). This analysis allowed for an evaluation of how laws are implemented in practice and the risks that remain for participants in civil circulation. Additionally, a comparative analysis of international practices was conducted, including experiences from the European Union and the United States in regulating electronic contracts. This enabled the identification of potential directions for adapting foreign solutions to the national legal systems of Uzbekistan and China [10, 11]. Overall, the methodological framework ensured a comprehensive examination of the subject, the identification of risks, and the formulation of possible ways to improve legislation in the context of the digital economy. Results The conducted research on the legal regulation of electronic agreements in the civil law of Uzbekistan and China yielded several significant findings with both theoretical and practical relevance. Legal status of electronic agreements. In Uzbekistan, an electronic agreement is considered equivalent to a traditional written contract, provided that the requirements set forth in Articles 105 and 366 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (hereinafter – CC RUz) are met [3]. Furthermore, Article 7 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Electronic Document Flow” explicitly establishes that electronic documents hold the same legal force as paper documents [4, 12]. In China, comparable regulation is provided by the Law “On Electronic Signatures” (2005, amended in 2019), where Articles 10, 16, and 26 stipulate the conditions for executing transactions via electronic means, provided that reliable methods of party identification are employed [5, 9, 13]. Validity conditions. The study confirmed that in both countries, the validity of an electronic agreement depends on general civil law requirements: legal capacity of the parties, their voluntary expression of will, legality of the transaction content, and compliance with the prescribed form. A distinguishing feature is the need for electronic identification measures: qualified electronic signatures (QES) in Uzbekistan and licensed certification authorities in China, ensuring signature authenticity and party authentication [4, 5, 12]. Risk analysis. Comparative analysis revealed several key risks associated with electronic agreements: 1. Possibility of forgery or misuse of electronic signatures. 2. Difficulties in verifying counterparties in cross-border transactions. International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 6 3. Potential compromise of document integrity during transmission. 4. Divergence in national legal requirements, creating uncertainty for international contracts [14, 15]. Risk management mechanisms. Both Uzbekistan and China have developed functional, though differently structured, mechanisms to mitigate these risks: Establishment of state and accredited certification centers (ID.UZ and E-Sign in Uzbekistan; CA centers in China). Requirements for storage and archiving of electronic documents in secure systems (Article 16, Law of RUz “On Electronic Document Flow”; Articles 17–19, Law of PRC “On Electronic Signatures”) [4, 5]. Recognition of electronic documents as admissible evidence in courts (specialized Internet Courts in China since 2017; case law in Uzbekistan mainly limited to matters confirming the validity of qualified QES) [11, 16]. Judicial practice. Examination of court cases highlighted differences in national approaches: In Uzbekistan (LLC “SmartLog” vs. IP T.A., 2023), the court denied recognition of the electronic agreement due to the absence of a qualified electronic signature, despite evidence of correspondence and payment. In China (JD.com case, 2021), the Internet Court recognized the supply contract based on the parties’ actions and electronic confirmation of the order. These examples illustrate the relative flexibility of the Chinese system compared to the more formalistic Uzbek framework, influencing legal certainty for electronic transaction participants [16, 17]. Overall findings. The study indicates that electronic agreements in the civil law of Uzbekistan and China possess legal validity equivalent to traditional written contracts. However, differences in requirements for execution and authentication create varying levels of protection for the rights of parties. Both countries have adopted measures to manage associated risks, but the level of institutional support and judicial flexibility remains higher in China [11, 13, 17]. Discussion The findings of this study demonstrate both convergence and divergence in the legal regulation of electronic agreements in Uzbekistan and China. While both legal systems recognize the equivalence of electronic and paper-based agreements, their approaches to formal requirements, institutional support, and risk management differ significantly. 1. Formal requirements and flexibility. A key distinction lies in the treatment of electronic signatures. In Uzbekistan, a qualified electronic signature (QES) is mandatory for the validity of an electronic agreement, as stipulated by Article 7 of the Law “On Electronic Document Flow” [4]. This strict formalism is reflected in judicial practice, where the absence of a QES can render an electronic agreement invalid even when the International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 7 parties have effectively performed their obligations (e.g., LLC “SmartLog” vs. IP T.A., 2023) [16]. By contrast, Chinese law demonstrates greater flexibility. Under the Law “On Electronic Signatures,” courts may recognize electronic agreements based on other evidence of consent, such as electronic communications or order confirmations on digital platforms [5, 11]. The implementation of specialized Internet Courts in China further reinforces a practical, adaptive approach to resolving electronic disputes [11, 13]. This flexibility promotes legal certainty for parties engaged in e-commerce while reducing transaction costs and barriers to digital trade. 2. Institutional and procedural support. The establishment of Internet Courts in China (since 2017) has significantly strengthened the institutional framework for adjudicating electronic contract disputes. These courts provide specialized procedures for assessing digital evidence and applying electronic signature standards [11]. In Uzbekistan, similar institutional mechanisms are currently absent, which limits the effectiveness of legal protection in electronic transactions [12]. Introducing specialized mechanisms or dedicated chambers within existing courts could enhance dispute resolution efficiency and increase investor confidence in the Uzbek digital economy. 3. Risk management strategies. Both Uzbekistan and China have developed mechanisms to mitigate the risks associated with electronic agreements, including stateaccredited certification centers, secure document storage, and recognition of electronic documents as evidence in courts [4, 5, 12, 16]. However, differences remain in crossborder transaction risk management. Chinese courts have demonstrated more adaptability by considering evidence beyond qualified electronic signatures, which is particularly relevant for international contracts executed through digital platforms [13, 14]. 4. Implications for legal harmonization and cross-border trade. As electronic agreements become a dominant mode of commercial exchange in the digital economy, the divergence in legal requirements and institutional support may hinder cross-border trade between Uzbekistan and China. Harmonization of legal standards, including flexible approaches to electronic signatures, recognition of digital evidence, and development of specialized dispute resolution mechanisms, is essential for fostering mutual trust and facilitating international transactions [14, 15]. Comparative analysis indicates that adopting elements of the Chinese model—particularly procedural flexibility and institutional specialization—could enhance the effectiveness of Uzbekistan’s legal framework for electronic agreements. 5. Recommendations for Uzbekistan. Based on the comparative analysis, several measures are proposed to improve Uzbekistan’s regulation of electronic agreements: Introduce specialized mechanisms for resolving electronic disputes, inspired by Chinese Internet Courts [11, 13]. Expand the range of admissible evidence to confirm electronic agreement International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 8 formation, including digital communications and platform-based confirmations [5, 11]. Gradually reduce formalistic requirements for QES in commercial transactions, especially in B2C operations, while maintaining robust authentication and security standards [12, 16]. Promote bilateral cooperation with China to unify legal standards for electronic agreements and reduce cross-border transaction risks [14, 15]. 6. Contribution to legal scholarship. The study contributes to the growing body of comparative research on electronic agreements in civil law systems. It demonstrates that while the legal principles governing electronic contracts are broadly similar, practical implementation and institutional mechanisms vary, influencing the effectiveness of risk management and dispute resolution. This analysis provides a foundation for policy recommendations aimed at strengthening Uzbekistan’s legal framework and aligning it with international digital economy practices. International Law, Business and Political Science Journal ISSN-L 3235-9799 E-ISSN 3235-9799 IF(Impact Factor) 13.24 https://journallaw.totalh.net/ Volume: 11. Issue 12 November 2025 9 Conclusion This study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of electronic agreements and risk management systems in the civil law frameworks of Uzbekistan and China. The research demonstrates that while both countries recognize the legal validity of electronic agreements and the equivalence of electronic and paper-based documents, significant differences exist in formal requirements, institutional mechanisms, and practical application. In Uzbekistan, the mandatory use of a qualified electronic signature (QES) ensures legal certainty but introduces strict formalism, which can render electronic agreements invalid despite actual performance by the parties [4, 16]. Conversely, China has adopted a more flexible approach, allowing courts to recognize electronic agreements based on alternative evidence of consent and operationalizing specialized Internet Courts for digital disputes [5, 11]. This flexibility promotes efficiency, reduces transaction costs, and encourages cross-border digital commerce. The comparative analysis highlights several critical implications. First, strict formal requirements, while providing legal certainty, may impede the adoption of electronic contracts in rapidly evolving digital markets. Second, institutional mechanisms, such as specialized courts and digital certification systems, play a decisive role in risk mitigation and enforcement of electronic agreements. Third, harmonization of legal standards and procedural flexibility is essential for facilitating international transactions, particularly between countries with differing legal traditions. Based on these findings, the study proposes targeted recommendations for Uzbekistan: the introduction of specialized mechanisms for electronic dispute resolution, expansion of admissible digital evidence, gradual reduction of formalistic requirements for QES in commercial contexts, and enhanced bilateral cooperation with China to align legal standards for electronic agreements. Implementing these measures would strengthen Uzbekistan’s digital economy, enhance investor confidence, and ensure the effective functioning of electronic contract systems while safeguarding public and private interests. Finally, this research contributes to the broader field of comparative civil law by providing insights into the evolving legal landscape of electronic agreements in emerging digital economies. It underscores the importance of balancing formal legal safeguards with practical flexibility, institutional support, and cross-border harmonization to foster secure and efficient digital commerce. Future studies should focus on the integration of emerging technologies, such as smart contracts and blockchain-based agreements, into the civil law frameworks of Uzbekistan and China, which represents the next frontier in electronic contract law. Список использованных источников: 1. Ivanov, A. Digital Contracts in Civil Law: Theory and Practice. Moscow: Jurisprudence Press, 2020.