The dispute would be between the State and the Dapp.
That would be handled in State courts. A ruling or order from the State court would then be forwarded to ECAF under 5.4 External Courts . Then, see @samupaha's response above - firstly ECAF would have to accept and forward the order, then the BPs would have to accept and execute the order, then the Community would have to accept and not referendum / vote out the BPs.
Lots of checks and balances.
The fact that a state court has a single entity in which to engage with weakens the whole decentralized structure we aimed to build. We can talk about the few checks and balances (such as BPs ignoring ECAF/EMAC orders), but the truth is, having ECAF as the centralized arbiter on the protocol layer makes it way easier for a state to request censorship - ECAF builds an accessible door in which hostile states may enter.
I'm not being marginally theoretical either - many states all over the world deny their citizens access to information and employs a practice of censorship upon them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Granted. It all depends on who your enemy is. If your enemy is the state, you might like Bitcoin better. If however your enemy is the thief, this system works better.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's doubtful ECAF could gather all the necessary evidence together and rule in time to stop a thief.
If ECAF employed a practice of freezing accounts prior to making a ruling then that opens up a whole other can of worms.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
...and so we loop back to the issues I raised in the above article.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit