The Power of Print: The Relevance of Paper Bills of Lading in Modern International Trade

Blog Post | 114 KY. L. J. ONLINE | January 31, 2026

The Power of Print: The Relevance of Paper Bills of Lading in Modern International Trade

By: Zachary Lee, Staff Editor, Vol. 114 

In recent years, policymakers and industry actors have sought to replicate the functions of paper bills of lading (B/Ls) through the electronic bill of lading (eBL), promising efficiency and the reduction of fraud.[1] Despite technological advancements and statutory reforms, institutional adoption of eBLs as negotiable instruments has been limited.[2] Banks, carriers, and trade-finance intermediaries continue to rely predominantly on traditional paper B/Ls, their main concerns being legal uncertainty and trust.[3] While there has been a rise in the legal acceptance of eBLs, banking institutions are still hesitant to use them as risk-allocation devices.[4] Because eBLs have yet to achieve universal legal recognition, cross-border reliability, circulation without restriction, and full trust by banking institutions, paper B/Ls continue to be the dominant instrument in modern international trade.

“A bill of lading is a document of title issued by the carrier to the shipper as a receipt to evidence that the carrier has received the merchandise to be shipped.”[5] For centuries, the B/L has played a crucial role in international trade as a negotiable document of title, enabling the transfer of rights to goods through endorsement and delivery.[6] B/Ls provide actors in the shipping process constructive possession over the goods to be shipped, so long as they possess the original paper B/L.[7] B/Ls balance and protect the interests of all parties involved, most significantly by providing their holders the right to seek recovery from the carrier if goods are damaged or lost and by enabling the holder to demand delivery from the carrier.[8]

There are many advantages to eBLs in theory.[9] eBLs streamline documentation, allowing the instant transmission of bills, which reduces backlogs in international trade.[10] However, despite the obvious increase in efficiency, the largest hurdle to the adoption of eBLs is their function as a negotiable document of title.[11] Negotiability is central to trade finance by protecting banks against borrower insolvency and default.[12] The negotiability of B/Ls is what allows a bank to issue a letter of credit without having to trust the buyer’s solvency.[13]

The primary international framework for eBLs is the UNCITRAL Model on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR), which establishes functional equivalence between paper and electronic transferable records.[14] Examples of jurisdictions that have adopted MLETR or equivalent laws are the United Kingdom, France, China, Singapore, Belize, and the Abu Dhabi Global Market, while notable global powerhouses such as the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and Russia have adopted no such laws.[15]

While a growing number of jurisdictions now recognize eBLs, the recognition and the legal effect of such recognition vary widely, especially for negotiability, cross-border use, and insolvency enforcement.[16] Negotiability only exists to the extent a legal system recognizes it, and while some jurisdictions expressly treat B/Ls as negotiable documents of title, others treat B/Ls only as evidence of a contract of carriage.[17] Banks tolerate jurisdictional differences between paper B/Ls because those differences are well-understood and backed by a large body of case law.[18] The UCP 600, the International Chamber of Commerce’s rules regarding international letters of credit, is similarly familiar worldwide.[19] However, banks are currently intolerant to the same level of divergence for eBLs, as their novelty introduces uncertainties to the risk model upon which banks rely.[20]

Negotiable instruments must be uniquely authentic and exclusively controlled, and banks bear the loss if any of these assumptions fail.[21] This variety and uncertainty are why banking institutions prefer paper B/Ls as vehicles for financing.[22] In an attempt to spark widespread adoption of eBLs among banks, carriers such as Hapag-Lloyd have integrated blockchain technology into their eBLs, ensuring unique authenticity.[23] While this is a viable solution to authenticity[24], a survey conducted by the Future of International Trade (FIT) Alliance has found that “[j]ust 21% of bank representatives said their institution has adopted eBLs, and only 28% said they plan to start using them within the next two years, despite high rates of awareness in the sector.”[25] The data suggests a miniscule amount of interest for the future institutional adoption of eBLs.

While authenticity may be guaranteed, the current ecosystem of eBLs largely neglects a key requirement of negotiable instruments: unrestricted circulation.[26] Traditional paper B/Ls are freely circulatable; physical possession is binary (you either have it or you don’t); [27] possession is intuitive;[28] and transfer does not require permission or an intermediary.[29] Paper B/Ls circulate independently of institutions,[30] and the concept of negotiability, as referenced in 18th Century English law and UCC Article 7, recognize this function of B/Ls.[31] eBLs, however, lack the natural kind of possession that such laws require.[32]

The requisite possessory status for eBLs depends on the eBL platform’s software rules, cryptographic controls, and platform governance.[33] In order to have legal possession, duplication must be impossible, control must be exclusive, and transfer must be final.[34] eBLs moving through Hapag-Lloyd’s newly implemented IQAX blockchain, like most eBLs, require platform membership, user authentication, and compatible systems.[35] This means transfer is conditional and dependent on infrastructure, which defies classical negotiability.[36] Additionally, with paper B/Ls, the rights attach to the document itself.[37] With eBL systems such as IQAX, rights often flow from platform user agreements, carrier participation contracts, and private rulebooks, which also defies classical negotiability.[38] These failed functions of eBL negotiability are further sources of reluctance for financial institutions.[39]

Despite the great theoretical solutions proponents of eBLs provide, eBLs’ practicability falls short of their intentions. Until eBLs become universally recognized by law, work reliably across borders, circulate freely, and integrate with bank systems, the paper B/L remains the superior document in modern international trade.

[1] David A. Bury, Electronic Bills of Lading: A Never-Ending Story?, 41 Tul. Mar. L. J. 197, 212–13.(2016) (“By monitoring the passage of title from one party to another, SEADOCS sought to protect property owners by reducing the frequency of fraudulent bill of lading transactions.”)

[2] John Basquill, Half of Firms Ebl-Ready but Bank Adoption Lags, Survey Finds, Glob. Trade Rev. (Dec. 12, 2024, 16:10 GMT), https://www.gtreview.com/news/digital-trade/half-of-firms-ebl-ready-but-bank-adoption-lags-survey-finds.

[3] Marina Comninos, How the Electronic Bill of Lading (Ebl) Is Transforming Digital Trade, ICC Acad. (Dec. 13, 2024), https://academy.iccwbo.org/international-trade/article/how-the-electronic-bill-of-lading-ebl-is-transforming-digital-trade.

[4] Basquill, supra note 2.

[5] Aaron X. Fellmeth, Introduction to International Business Transactions 238 (2d ed. 2024).

[6] See Lickbarrow v. Mason (1794) 101 Eng. Rep. 380, 382 (Eng.). (This case is the first of England to formally recognize B/Ls as negotiable documents of title, despite merchants having done so prior its 1794 publication. See David A. Bury, Electronic Bills of Lading: A Never-Ending Story?, 41 TUL. MAR. L. J. 197, 202 (2016).).

[7] Bury, supra note 1, at 200.

[8] See Id. at 201.

[9] Ben Thompson, How the Electronic Bill of Lading Improves the Shipping Process, IncoDocs (Oct. 1, 2024), https://incodocs.com/blog/electronic-bill-of-lading-export-process.

[10] Id.

[11] Bury, supra note 1, at 220.

[12] Deutsche Bank AG, Sullivan & Worcester UK LLP & Int’l Trade & Forfaiting Ass’n, A Guide to Receivables Finance 28–29 (Geoffrey Wynne, ed., 3d ed. 2021).

[13] Id. at 29.

[14] APEC Comm. on Trade and Inv., A Path to Paperless Trade: Analyising the Legal Gaps and Economic Benefit of Adopting or Maintaining a Legal Framework that Takes into Account the UNCITRAL Model on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) 8 (Feb. 2025), https://www.apec.org/publications/2025/02/a-path-to-paperless-trade--analysing-the-legal-gaps-and-economic-benefit-of-adopting-or-maintaining-a-legal-framework-that-takes-into-account-the-uncitral-model-law-on-electronic-transferable-records-(mletr).

[15] Status: UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (2017), United Nations Comm’n on Int’l Trade Law, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_transferable_records/status (last visited Jan. 25, 2026).

[16] Digital Container Shipping Ass’n, Overcoming Legal and Regulatory Barriers to eBL Adoption 13 (2024), https://dcsa.org/newsroom/overcoming-legal-and-regulatory-barriers-to-ebl-adoption; Stephenson Harwood LLP, TradeTrust-enabled Electronic Bills of Lading:  A Legal and Practical Analysis of Their Use in Global Trade 44 (2023), https://www.tradetrust.io/files/TradeTrust_Legal_Analysis_Article.pdf; Siqi Sun & Ran He, How to Possess an Electronic Bill of Lading as Information? A Comparative Perspective of the Legislation on the “Possession Problem” of Electronic Bills of Lading, 11 Front. Mar. Sci., Nov. 21, 2024, at 1-2.

[17] Cf. Bury, supra note 1, at 203–05 (discussing how B/Ls are treated differently under common law and civil law systems).

[18] Jake Fava, Chip off the Old Block: Acknowledging the Obstacles to Widespread Adoption of Blockchain Bills of Lading 7 Lond. Sch. Econs. L. Rev. 181, 196-97 (2021).

[19] See Dave Meynell, Evolution of UCP 600 and Its Impact on Documentary Credits, ICC Acad. (June 27, 2025), https://academy.iccwbo.org/trade-finance/article/evolution-of-ucp-600-impact-on-documentary-credits.

[20] See Marek Dubovec, The Problems and Possibilities for Using Electronic Bills of Lading as Collateral, 23 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L., 437, 449 (2006).

[21] U.C.C. § 3-104 (Am. L. Inst. & Unif. L. Comm’n 2002); See Steven B. Dow, The Doctrine of Price v. Neal in English and American Forgery Law: A Comparative Analysis, 6 Tulane J. Int’l & Comp. L. 113, 117-18 (1999).

[22] See Dubovec supra note 20, at 449 (“If the secured transactions laws do not provide sufficient rules that would guide the bank or other prospective lender through the process of creation and perfection of a security interest in an electronic document of title, the electronic replication of paper documents of title would not be possible.”).

[23] Naida Hakirevic Prevljak, Hapag-Lloyd One Step Closer to 100% Ebl Adoption, Offshore Energy (April 25, 2024), https://www.offshore-energy.biz/hapag-lloyd-one-step-closer-to-100-ebl-adoption; Zhao Li & Yongqiang Sun, Blockchain in Maritime: Applications, Effects, and Challenges, Front. Mar. Sci., July 31, 2025, at 4 (noting different blockchain platforms and their efficacy).

[24] See Li & Sun, supra note 23, at 4.

[25] See Basquill, supra note 2.

[26] See Sun & He, supra note 16, at 2.

[27] See U.C.C. § 1-201(b)(21)(A) (Am. L. Inst. & Unif. L. Comm’n 2001).

[28] See James Steven Rogers, Negotiability as a System of Title Recognition, 48 Ohio St. L.J. 197, 205 (1987).

[29] See 49 U.S.C. § 80104(a)(3).

[30] Mohd Hwaidi & Graham Ferris, Switching from Paper to Electronic Bills of Lading: Fundamental Sociological Structure, Distributed Ledger Technology and Legal Difficulties – Part 2, 25 J. Int’l Mar. L., 371, 373 (2019).

[31] See Lickbarrow v. Mason (1794) 101 Eng. Rep. 380 (Eng.); see U.C.C. § 7-501 (Am. L. Inst. & Unif. L. Comm’n 2003).

[32] See Lickbarrow v. Mason (1794) 101 Eng. Rep. 380, 382 (Eng.); see U.C.C. § 7-106 cmt. para. 2. (Am. L. Inst. & Unif. L. Comm’n 2003).

[33] See Sun & He, supra note 16, at 4.

[34] Id.

[35] IQAX eBL Frequently Asked Questions, IQAX, https://www.iqax.com/en/ebl-faq (last visited Jan. 4, 2026).

[36] U.C.C. § 3-104(a) (Am. L. Inst. & Unif. L. Comm’n 2002); See Nick Grandage and Adam Sanitt, Law Commission Proposal on Electronic Trade Documents, Norton Rose Fulbright (May 3, 2022) https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/inside-disputes/blog/202205-law-commission-proposal-on-electronic-trade-documents (“For instance, if the registrar in a central registry is temporarily unavailable, no transfer could be registered for documents in that registry and, during that time, those documents would fail to satisfy one of the requirements for being capable of possession.”).

[37] U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, Electronic Commerce and International Transport Services, 15, U.N. Doc TD/B/COM.3/EM.12/2 (July 31, 2001).

[38] See IQAX eBL Frequently Asked Questions, IQAX, https://www.iqax.com/en/ebl-faq (last visited Jan. 4, 2026); see Sun & He supra note 16, at 6.

[39] Sun & He, supra note 16, at 2.