The ‘bitcoin judgements’ in China: Promoting climate awareness by judicial reasoning?

• Published date: 01 April 2023
• Author: Mingzhe Zhu
• Date: 01 April 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12496

CASE NOTE

The ‘bitcoin judgements’in China: Promoting climate

awareness by judicial reasoning?

Mingzhe Zhu

University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

Correspondence

Mingzhe Zhu, University of Antwerp, Antwerp,

Belgium.

Email: mingzhe.zhu@uantwerpen.be

Funding information

Research Foundation –Flanders, Grant/Award

Number: 76473

Abstract

In 2021 and 2022, Beijing courts annulled three contracts for cryptocurrency mining,

holding that they were contrary to the public interest. The judges based their

decisions on Chinese law provisions concerning contractual validity and supported

their arguments by citing various policy documents warning of the risks of

cryptocurrency-related activities to financial market stability and energy consump-

tion. Although the provisions that the courts cited were recently reformed, the

courts' line of reasoning and approach may set an example for future cases concern-

ing carbon-intensive activities. This note therefore considers these judgements in the

broader context of climate change litigation, reflecting on the role of courts in imple-

menting industrial and microeconomic policy in the interpretation of contract law.

1|INTRODUCTION

On 14 December 2021, the District Court of Chaoyang, Beijing, ren-

dered a judgement in a dispute between two private companies,

annulling their cryptocurrency mining contracts, holding that crypto-

currency mining is contrary to the public interest.

1

The court of

appeal—the Third Intermediate Court of Beijing—later upheld the

court of first instance's judgement and its reasoning.

2

In a year charac-

terized by global heatwaves, wildfires and other adverse climate

events, these seemingly mundane judgements have attracted interna-

tional attention, because both courts explicitly referred to climate

change mitigation considerations in their reasoning.

3

According to

ClientEarth China, these are the first judgements to explicitly mention

China's targets for carbon peaking and neutrality.

4

Contrary to climate

litigation brought in other countries,

5

these judgements did not bring

about material changes into the Chinese State's approach to climate

action. However, they provide insights into the working of the

Chinese judiciary in the context of climate governance. The analysis

of these judgements suggests that, in China, judges seem minded to

incorporate climate considerations into the adjudication of contractual

disputes.

6

It reveals that Chinese courts may rely on policy documents

that are not legally binding

7

and use statutory and contractual inter-

pretation to achieve goals of climate policy in civil adjudication.

8

Indeed, these judgements may be regarded as exemplary of the speci-

ficities of climate change litigation in the Chinese context.

This case note analyses the so-called ‘bitcoin judgements’, paying

specific attention to the courts' consideration of public interest.

1

The District Court of Chaoyang in Beijing, Beijing Fengfujiuxin Marketing and Technology

Co. Ltd. v Zhongyan Zhichuang Blockchain Co. Ltd. (14 December 2021) [(2020) Jing 0105

Minchu No. 69754] (Bitcoin I). The translations of the judgements are the author's own.

2

The 3rd Intermediate Court of Beijing, Beijing Fengfujiuxin Marketing and Technology Co. Ltd.

v Zhongyan Zhichuang Blockchain Co. Ltd. (7 July 2022) [(2022) Jing 03 Minzhong No. 3852]

(Bitcoin II).

3

See, e.g., I Kaminski, ‘Chinese Court Rules Bitcoin Mining Harms the Climate’(Climate

Home News, 21 July 2022).

4

See ibid.

5

See M Powers, ‘Juliana v United States: The Next Frontier in US Climate Mitigation?’(2018)

27 Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 199; J

Verschuuren, ‘The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation: The Hague Court of Appeal

Upholds Judgment Requiring the Netherlands to Further Reduce Its Greenhouse Gas

Emissions’(2019) 28 Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law

94; M Wewerinke-Singh and A McCoach, ‘The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation:

Distilling Best Practice and Lessons Learnt for Future Rights-Based Climate Litigation’(2021)

30 Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 275; O Kelleher,

‘A Critical Appraisal of Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland’(2021)

30 Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 138.

6

Y Zhao, S Lyu and Z Wang, ‘Prospects for Climate Change Litigation in China’(2019)

8 Transnational Environmental Law 349.

7

H Du and H Zhang, ‘Climate Neutrality in the EU and China: An Analysis of the Stringency

of Targets and the Adaptiveness of the Relevant Legal Frameworks’(2022) 31 Review of

European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 495; X He, ‘Legal and Policy

Pathways of Climate Change Adaptation: Comparative Analysis of the Adaptation Practices

in the United States, Australia and China’(2018) 7 Transnational Environmental Law 347; J

Lin, ‘Climate Governance in China: Using the ‘Iron Hand”in B Richardson (ed), Local Climate

Change Law: Environmental Regulation in Cities and Other Localities (Edward Elgar 2012) 300.

8

M Zhu, ‘The Rule of Climate Policy: How Do Chinese Judges Contribute to Climate

Governance without Climate Law?’(2022) 11 Transnational Environmental Law 119.

DOI: 10.1111/reel.12496

158 © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC. RECIEL. 2023;32:158–162.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/reel