The Legal Validity of Electronic Signatures: "A Comparative Study"

Abstract

The rapid expansion of e-commerce via the Internet, combined with the growing reliance on digital transactions, has made electronic signatures a crucial tool for completing commercial contracts and conducting online transactions. Often, these transactions may also involve artificial intelligence algorithms. Consequently, legal scholars have debated whether electronic signatures should be recognized as valid evidence, examining both their form and substance, and whether they can be considered equivalent to traditional handwritten signatures. This debate is reflected in the different approaches taken by various states. Legal systems vary not only in their recognition of electronic signatures but also in the requirements they set for their validity—particularly regarding the technologies employed and the security standards needed. The issue becomes more complicated due to the lack of comprehensive cybersecurity laws in many jurisdictions, despite their importance as a basic legal safeguard for the reliability of electronic signatures as evidence. Additional concerns are raised in cross-border situations, especially when a country that does not recognize electronic signatures refuses to accept them as proof in contractual disputes, even when the parties have explicitly agreed to their use. These challenges highlight the urgent need for a unified international legal framework governing electronic signatures and electronic transactions. In response, several countries, including Iraq, have enacted legislation in this area. Iraq’s Electronic Signature and Electronic Transactions Law of 2012, followed by implementing instructions issued in 2025, represents an effort to align national law with international standards and comparative legal practices. Nevertheless, both the Iraqi law and its implementing regulations still require further amendment. This includes the need to clarify the scope of the law’s application. Besides, to enact explicit provisions on cybersecurity to ensure the full evidentiary recognition of electronic signatures. Furthermore, the implementing instructions appear to have been adopted somewhat hastily, as they do not clearly specify the criteria for recognizing certification authorities, whether domestic or foreign, nor do they address the importance of international accreditation and reputation. What is the jurisdiction of the courts? Uncertainty also persists regarding the applicable law, legal liability, penalties, and compensation mechanisms in cases of non-compliance. It may therefore be advisable to consider accrediting multiple certification authorities, one designated for e-commerce and another for overseeing government digital transactions, in accordance with legislative policy.