· Gökçen Özkan
Why Globally Interoperable eBLs Still Get Printed at the Destination Port?
Short answer. Because a platform rulebook binds only its members. When an eBL reaches a jurisdiction whose law does not treat it as equivalent to a paper bill of lading — Türkiye today — the customs officer, the terminal, the court and often the local bank are outside the rulebook. The local agent then switches to paper to get the cargo released. Technical interoperability does not cure this; only national law does.
The maritime industry has achieved a monumental milestone: technical interoperability. Led by DCSA standards, platforms can now exchange electronic Bills of Lading (eBLs) seamlessly across digital borders. Yet, a glaring paradox remains. When a vessel arrives at its destination, those highly interoperable digital tokens frequently hit a concrete wall, forcing local agents to print the digital data onto paper and sign it with wet ink.
Why does this happen? The answer lies in the Sovereign Bottleneck.
The Illusion of the Rulebook
Most eBL platforms operate on private, multiparty agreements known as Rulebooks. Within this closed network, participants agree to treat the digital token as a valid document of title.
The Reality of Statutory Law
Local customs authorities and national courts do not operate on private Rulebooks; they operate on statutory law. When a digital document crosses into a strict national jurisdiction, the platform's private agreement loses its authority.
Without a recognized legal anchor, an interoperable eBL is viewed by local authorities simply as "data," not as a binding legal document. To prevent the release of cargo without proper legal cover, risk-averse agents revert to paper.
What actually closes the gap
Interoperability is a technical achievement; enforceability is a legal requirement. A qualified electronic signature does not close this gap on its own. Under Turkish law, a QES gives a signature the legal effect of a handwritten one (Law No. 5070, Art. 5/1), and TTK Art. 1526(2) allows the signature and entries on a bill of lading to be made electronically where the law of the issuing country permits it. What is still missing is the rule that makes an electronic record transferable as a document of title: exclusive control and singularity, recognised by statute. That is what MLETR-aligned legislation provides, and Türkiye has not enacted it yet.
Until it does, the realistic path has two steps. Today: qualified signatures, timestamps and verifiable evidence packages on the documents around the eBL, such as letters of indemnity, survey reports and agency documents, which Maresign supplies through its ArkSigner partnership. Next: a registry layer that meets the reliable-system test, which Maresign is designing in R&D and which will only carry statutory weight once the law recognises it.
Related reading
Primary sources
DCSA — eBL interoperability standards → https://dcsa.org
UNCITRAL MLETR adoption status (why national law still matters) → https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_transferable_records/status
UK Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023 → https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/38
Türkiye eBL Legal Status Tracker → https://www.maresign.com/insights/turkiye-ebl-yasal-durum