Abstract: Smart contracts, featuring self-resolution, excludes law in their operation. However, there is still a need to strengthen technological trust, and the “non-learning” legal norms need to be adjusted in the face of smart technology. In essence, there exists a two-way demand for law and technology for judicial intervention in smart contract disputes, that is, the law of smart contracts and smart contracts based on the rule of law. The boundary of judicial intervention should adhere to the value considerations of efficiency and justice, make new adjustments to the four connotations of the principle of proportionality in line with the resolution of smart contract disputes, and apply the principle of proportionality to different types of smart contract disputes. Based on the size and scale of smart contract disputes, judicial intervention can be online or offline dispute resolution such as arbitration and litigation. In addition, the judicial procedure should adjust itself through the three stages of jurisdiction, trial and execution to coordinate the resolution of smart contract disputes, and provide re-remedy procedures for the resolution of the two types of disputes.