The paper considers the specifics of using a comparative method to study of legal regulation of cryptoassets. The main practical goals of comparative legal research today are legal transplantation and harmonization of legislation. As lawmakers and legal experts in many states are faced with the need to solve global problems related to the regulation of crypto-assets, a rethinking of the use of the comparative method is required. In order to create optimal legal regulation of cryptoassets, it is useful to reach a common understanding of this proprietary technology at the international level. In the study of legal phenomena, which are essentially transboundary at the present stage, it is necessary to take into account the legal regulation that is formed both in the legislation of the most technologically developed countries and in the international economic space.
1. Broi W.S. Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies: Is a New Legislative Framework Necessary // Law and Digital Economy. 2018. No. 1. P. 19 (in Russ.).
2. David R., Joffre-Spinozi K. Main legal systems of modernity / transl. from French V.A. Tumanov. M., 1990. P. 11. (in Russ.).
3. Kabalkin A., Sannikova L. Globalization of the legal space and novelties of the Russian civil legislation // Russ. justice. 2007. No. 12. P. 42 (in Russ.).
4. Zweigert K., Kötz X. Introduction to Comparative Law in Private Law: in 2 vols. / transl. from German. M., 1998. P. 29 (in Russ.).
5. Fauvarque-Cosson B., Kerhuel A. J. Is law an economic contest? French reactions to the Doing Business World Bank reports and economic analysis of the law // The American Journal of Comparative Law. 2009. Vol. 57. No. 4. P. 811 - 829.
6. Goggin G. et al. Digital rights in Australia // Digital Rights in Australia (2017). ISBN-13. 2017. P. 978-0.
7. Grossfeld, Bernhard. The strength and weakness of comparative law. Oxford, 1990.
8. Gutteridge H. C. Comparative law: an introduction to the comparative method of legal study and research. CUP Archive, 1974.
9. James G., Taylor von Mehren A. An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Law: Readings, Cases, Materials. Cambridge; New York, 2006.
10. Jung H. Should We Compare Laws or Cultures? // Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice. 2017. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 1 - 17.
11. Kamba W. J. Comparative law: A theoretical framework // International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1974. P. 485 - 519.
12. Legrand P. The impossibility of “legal transplants” // Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 1997. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 111 - 124.
13. Marcus G. Human rights and the new (ish) digital paradigm. 2015.
14. Monateri P. G. Methods in comparative law: an intellectual overview (September 25, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2151819 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2151819
15. Örücü E. Critical Comparative Law. 1999.
16. Paris M.L. The comparative method in legal research: the art of justifying choices // Legal Research Methods: Principles and Practicalities (Clarus Press 2016). 2016.
17. Picker C. B. Comparative legal cultural analyses of international economic law: a new methodological approach // The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law. 2013. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 21 - 48.
18. Schmitthoff M. The Science of Comparative Law // The Cambridge Law Journal. 1939. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 94 - 110.
19. Varga C. Comparative legal cultures: on traditions classified, their rapprochement & transfer, and the anarchy of hyper-rationalism with appendix on legal ethnography. 2012. URL: https://philpapers.org/archive/VARCLC.pdf
20. Watson A. Legal transplants and European private law. Maastricht, 2000. Vol. 4.
21. Watt H. M. Globalization and comparative law // The Oxford handbook of comparative law. 2006. P. 579 - 607. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199296064.013.0018.