#private-international-law (1 article)

When Your Digital Wallet Is Rejected in Another Country: The Legal Gaps in Cross-Jurisdictional Redress

The cross-jurisdictional redress gaps for wallet disputes can be classified into four typical categories; within the EU these have been partially addressed, while outside the EU they remain almost entirely empty. Following systematic literature review, three argumentative propositions have been upgraded: from 'regulatory vacuum' to 'rule ambiguity plus absence of enforcement capacity'; 'one-stop redress' has been cooled to a three-mechanism functional-equivalence structure, with normative extension distinct from unilateral extraterritorial imposition; and three supplementary pathways have been recast as three parallel axes, with stateless persons addressed as an independent parallel tier. The most critical warning for Taiwanese citizens is that, under the current architecture, virtually no effective redress mechanism exists.