外文翻譯---消費(fèi)者電子商務(wù)交易的在線糾紛解決

1、<p>　　消費(fèi)者電子商務(wù)交易的在線糾紛解決</p><p>　　Online Dispute Resolution in Business to Consumer E-commerce Transactions</p><p>　　作者：朱莉婭 Julia Hörnle</p><p>　　出版日期（期刊號(hào)）：The Journal of I

2、nformation, Law and Technology (JILT) 2002 (2).U.K. Aug.2002 </p><p>　　出版單位：http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/02-2/hornle.html.pdf</p><p><b>　　外文翻譯譯文： </b></p><p>　　摘要：大量的

3、在線糾紛解決機(jī)制所涉及的是解決在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上進(jìn)行電子商務(wù)交易時(shí)產(chǎn)生的消費(fèi)糾紛。本文將討論這個(gè)機(jī)制及其所涉及的問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　第一部分將解釋為什么涉及消費(fèi)者的電子商務(wù)糾紛是一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)，這一部分將主要關(guān)注追求跨境糾紛解決的最低成本和增加得到公正的審判的途徑所遇到的困難。下一步將一一討論自主解決機(jī)制的方式，并將說(shuō)明計(jì)算機(jī)技術(shù)和遠(yuǎn)程通信可以改變這些自主解決機(jī)制。第三，將審查、研究在線糾紛解決的效力和與此相關(guān)的消費(fèi)者

4、對(duì)這種糾正機(jī)制的信心問(wèn)題。第四部分將探討在線解決消費(fèi)糾紛所要求的正當(dāng)程序。第五部分將討論為制定監(jiān)管框架所應(yīng)做出的努力。本文的結(jié)論是應(yīng)最終建立嚴(yán)格的規(guī)范架構(gòu)，以確保正當(dāng)程序的適用，但目前還很難做到這一點(diǎn)。 </p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：消費(fèi)者保護(hù)，電子商務(wù)，跨國(guó)界，解決糾紛的替代方式，仲裁，調(diào)解，和解，信用卡費(fèi)用收回，在線糾紛解決，正當(dāng)程序，電子商務(wù)規(guī)范，信用，電子商務(wù)市場(chǎng)。</p><p>

5、;　　1.簡(jiǎn)介：產(chǎn)生于電子商務(wù)中的消費(fèi)糾紛特點(diǎn)</p><p>　　電子商務(wù)由于其本身的性質(zhì)導(dǎo)致了越來(lái)越遠(yuǎn)距離（甚至跨邊界）的交易，因此，糾紛當(dāng)事方之間通常相隔甚遠(yuǎn)。通過(guò)法院訴訟和執(zhí)行這類糾紛由于增加的費(fèi)用（如雇用當(dāng)?shù)芈蓭煟眯泻头g費(fèi)用）而大大增加了中小型糾紛索賠的訴訟成本。這就是說(shuō)，只有數(shù)額非常大的索賠才適宜采取這種方式。</p><p>　　然而，目前來(lái)說(shuō)，消費(fèi)者所進(jìn)行的電子商務(wù)交易

6、往往是非常小的價(jià)值，如物品、書籍、音樂(lè)、軟件和其他消費(fèi)品，但這可能會(huì)影響未來(lái)消費(fèi)者在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上購(gòu)買汽車等價(jià)值較高貨物及購(gòu)買金融等服務(wù)的信心。至少在目前，相對(duì)于大多數(shù)消費(fèi)者的電子商務(wù)糾紛的訴訟成本來(lái)說(shuō)，是不相稱的價(jià)值索賠。因此，對(duì)這類糾紛的解決，網(wǎng)上解決糾紛計(jì)劃是唯一可行的補(bǔ)救手段。在電子商務(wù)領(lǐng)域缺乏信任的解決機(jī)制的話將使消費(fèi)者不再進(jìn)入這一消費(fèi)領(lǐng)域。</p><p>　　另一個(gè)問(wèn)題是難以確定跨國(guó)交易的具體的適當(dāng)?shù)墓茌?/p>

7、范圍。有一個(gè)不可避免的矛盾是原告和被告的管轄。網(wǎng)上解決糾紛機(jī)制便是在沒(méi)有特定地理區(qū)域內(nèi)設(shè)定一個(gè)管轄機(jī)構(gòu)，該機(jī)構(gòu)可給任何一方提供便利。 </p><p>　　此外，在 解決糾紛時(shí)必須考慮到糾紛雙方主體在文化和語(yǔ)言上的差異，特別是跨國(guó)交易雙方。消費(fèi)者雖然是在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上購(gòu)買貨物，但對(duì)消費(fèi)可能有著在當(dāng)?shù)噩F(xiàn)實(shí)的商店里購(gòu)買的同樣的期望，希望有優(yōu)質(zhì)的服務(wù)和完善的消費(fèi)者保護(hù)。在討論消費(fèi)糾紛解決機(jī)制時(shí)，這也是一個(gè)需要考慮的因素。 &

8、lt;/p><p>　　最后，消費(fèi)糾紛不同于其他糾紛的另一個(gè)方面是消費(fèi)糾紛雙方地位不平等，消費(fèi)者討價(jià)還價(jià)的地位明顯低于生產(chǎn)商和服務(wù)商。平衡雙方地位是特別必要的，而供應(yīng)商依賴于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)條款和條件，因?yàn)橥ǔＧ闆r下，供應(yīng)商要求預(yù)先付款。由于這個(gè)因素，在許多情況下，消費(fèi)者是索賠人?；诖?，在線糾紛解決機(jī)制建立可承擔(dān)得其的和有效的糾紛解決機(jī)制，使消費(fèi)者得以補(bǔ)償，從而建立消費(fèi)者對(duì)電子商務(wù)的信任。接下來(lái)我們將討論解決糾紛的幾種不同機(jī)制

9、。 </p><p>　　2. 消費(fèi)者糾紛的在線糾紛解決機(jī)制</p><p>　　在線糾紛解決可以有若干含義，在這里，我們應(yīng)采取解決糾紛的替代方式去適用信息通訊技（ ICT ）或'在線技術(shù)。替代性解決糾紛一詞在這方面是指在法庭上（除訴訟）解決糾紛，包括仲裁。 1996/1997年在美國(guó)和加拿大在第一次提出了在線糾紛解決的司法試驗(yàn)。其中大部分項(xiàng)目由最初的大學(xué)試驗(yàn)變成商業(yè)活動(dòng)。在歐洲，

10、各國(guó)政府和最為引人注目的歐盟委員會(huì)已經(jīng)強(qiáng)烈主張使用網(wǎng)上糾紛解決系統(tǒng)來(lái)解決消費(fèi)糾紛。最近幾年也看到了相當(dāng)多的私人創(chuàng)業(yè)活動(dòng)。 此外，傳統(tǒng)的解決機(jī)制也關(guān)注由于電子技術(shù)發(fā)展所帶來(lái)的可能性。在2002年初的約30個(gè)作者提到在線糾紛解決計(jì)劃。在線糾紛解決機(jī)制使用不同的程序和方法進(jìn)行了不同的實(shí)驗(yàn)。以下概述所使用的方法： </p><p><b>　　2.1仲裁 </b></p><p&

11、gt;　　文件表明采用仲裁來(lái)解決消費(fèi)糾紛已有相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間。消費(fèi)者文件規(guī)定仲裁只適用于雙方在實(shí)際情況已基本調(diào)查清楚的基礎(chǔ)上提交書面意見(jiàn)的糾紛。然而，盡管網(wǎng)上調(diào)解是非常適合仲裁，然而網(wǎng)上消費(fèi)者仲裁，不是在線調(diào)解（和其他形式的ADR ）是很少見(jiàn)的。</p><p>　　一個(gè)問(wèn)題是，為確保協(xié)議的另一方當(dāng)事人，有約束力的仲裁通常產(chǎn)生于爭(zhēng)議出現(xiàn)之后。然而，在一些計(jì)劃，電子商務(wù)供應(yīng)商首先向客戶提出仲裁條款（包括網(wǎng)上仲裁），以在

12、市場(chǎng)中增進(jìn)信任和增強(qiáng)品牌。對(duì)于這樣的電子商務(wù)提供商糾紛的解決是他們提供給消費(fèi)者的一項(xiàng)消費(fèi)服務(wù)。 </p><p>　　雖然這樣可以強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行供應(yīng)商的承諾，但它可能對(duì)消費(fèi)者不具有約束力。應(yīng)當(dāng)指出，在大多數(shù)歐洲司法管轄區(qū)，在仲裁條款具有約束力的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)合同中，消費(fèi)者將爭(zhēng)議交于仲裁可能會(huì)被視為不公平的。出于這個(gè)原因，執(zhí)行一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的仲裁條款不能對(duì)消費(fèi)者不利。因此，仲裁條款的，僅僅對(duì)業(yè)務(wù)房具有約束力，而消費(fèi)者是可以選擇的。 &l

13、t;/p><p>　　相比之下，在美國(guó)，消費(fèi)仲裁條款通常是強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行。美國(guó)法院將只在對(duì)消費(fèi)者不利的情況下拒絕執(zhí)行一項(xiàng)有約束力的仲裁條款，認(rèn)為這樣才合乎情理。如果強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行仲裁條款的話，可能剝奪了消費(fèi)者維護(hù)自己權(quán)利的權(quán)利。法院裁決的幾項(xiàng)決定中，根據(jù)消費(fèi)合同中的仲裁協(xié)議條款由消費(fèi)者承擔(dān)過(guò)多的仲裁費(fèi)是不合理的。例如，在v Gateway公司關(guān)于瀏覽器等的特殊案件中，如果購(gòu)買一臺(tái)計(jì)算機(jī)和相關(guān)軟件發(fā)生糾紛，根據(jù)仲裁條款應(yīng)提請(qǐng)國(guó)際商

14、事仲裁法院予以仲裁。國(guó)際商事法院的預(yù)付款金額是4,000美元，其中 2000美元是不退還的。紐約上訴法院認(rèn)為，仲裁協(xié)議應(yīng)當(dāng)強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行，并將該案發(fā)回了下級(jí)法院，期望各方找到一個(gè)適當(dāng)?shù)男☆~索賠的仲裁庭。 </p><p>　　在美國(guó)，美國(guó)仲裁協(xié)會(huì)（ AAA ）已為消費(fèi)糾紛提出了具體的收費(fèi)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。同樣，國(guó)家仲裁體系設(shè)有特殊的小額索賠庭。 </p><p>　　美國(guó)的案例表明，對(duì)于消費(fèi)糾紛仲裁的收費(fèi)必

15、須與其債權(quán)價(jià)值相當(dāng)。 由于仲裁必然要求一個(gè)合格的和有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的仲裁員的參與，然而消費(fèi)者的索賠大多是小額糾紛，出于這個(gè)原因，中小額糾紛解決的首選方式并不是仲裁。 </p><p>　　然而，在在線解決機(jī)制中，解決消費(fèi)糾紛的最后手段是在線仲裁。在該機(jī)制中各方首先進(jìn)行談判，談判不成則進(jìn)入調(diào)解，只有調(diào)解失敗后，才訴諸仲裁。 </p><p>　　2.2評(píng)價(jià)（不具約束力） </p><

16、;p>　　在線評(píng)估是一項(xiàng)技術(shù)，類似于仲裁，由中立的第三方根據(jù)雙方當(dāng)事人提交的書面意見(jiàn)和書面證據(jù)做出決定，只是該項(xiàng)決定不具有法律約束力。 </p><p><b>　　2.3模擬審訊 </b></p><p>　　模擬審判是這樣一種技術(shù)，由陪審團(tuán)通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)做出不具約束力的決定。因此，由一些志愿人員（互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶）組成中立的第三方，由他們組成在線陪審團(tuán)進(jìn)行民事審判。

17、 </p><p><b>　　2.4調(diào)解 </b></p><p>　　在線調(diào)解是解決小額糾紛的主要方法是由以下四個(gè)原因所決定的。首先，在線調(diào)解程序靈活。他幫助各方進(jìn)行溝通，在協(xié)商一致的基礎(chǔ)上達(dá)成解決協(xié)議。這種高度自愿的程序使各方充分表達(dá)自己的意志和主張。第二，由于自愿為前提能真實(shí)表達(dá)自己的意志而不需妥協(xié)使各方愿意選擇該種方式。第三，糾紛的解決并不局限于金錢賠償。在

18、線調(diào)解使各方采取創(chuàng)造性的方式解決糾紛。例如，對(duì)于以從未如此低的折扣買的東西或類似的投訴，應(yīng)當(dāng)做出相適應(yīng)的處理。 最后，一些消費(fèi)糾紛，特別是那些從電子商務(wù)交易中產(chǎn)生的小額糾紛，與其說(shuō)是權(quán)利的沖突不如說(shuō)是售后服務(wù)的糾紛。通常情況下，這些糾紛是微不足道的純粹事實(shí)的糾紛，因此，這一種善意的調(diào)解可以解決這一糾紛。在線調(diào)解的一個(gè)缺陷是不具有約束力的程序。調(diào)解的成效在很大程度上取決于企業(yè)與客戶所保持的良好關(guān)系。對(duì)于一些人來(lái)說(shuō)，可能只是極少次從某個(gè)供應(yīng)

19、商那購(gòu)買甚至僅僅是一次。因此，調(diào)解的成功取決于當(dāng)事人之間存在連續(xù)的的關(guān)系，在線調(diào)解卻可能無(wú)法有效的解決一次性消費(fèi)糾紛。另一個(gè)問(wèn)題是，在線調(diào)解方式對(duì)于小額糾紛而言，這一程序可能過(guò)于昂貴，一般而言，開始收費(fèi)的范圍20-200美元。 </p><p>　　2.5自動(dòng)結(jié)算系統(tǒng) </p><p>　　自動(dòng)結(jié)算系統(tǒng)是在線解決糾紛的一個(gè)高度創(chuàng)新的方式，適用于金錢債權(quán)（即不具有爭(zhēng)議的責(zé)任，但只賠償處于危險(xiǎn)

20、中的數(shù)額，如某些保險(xiǎn)案例）。在另一種糾紛解決程序中，自動(dòng)結(jié)算系統(tǒng)也可能被用來(lái)作為談判的工具。這是一種當(dāng)事人連續(xù)盲目出價(jià)的程序。這意味著，競(jìng)標(biāo)價(jià)格并未披露給另一方當(dāng)事人。一旦競(jìng)標(biāo)價(jià)格在對(duì)方能接受的一定范圍內(nèi)（例如30 ％ ），能自動(dòng)達(dá)成雙方一致接受的數(shù)額的解決協(xié)議。這個(gè)過(guò)程是由軟件完成，沒(méi)有第三方人的直接參與，因此能很大程度的節(jié)約成本。該軟件不斷提供直到他們的范圍內(nèi)的機(jī)密。電子郵件和基于網(wǎng)絡(luò)的平臺(tái)等通訊工具和技術(shù)支加速這一解決方式的進(jìn)程。

21、 </p><p><b>　　2.6投訴援助 </b></p><p>　　投訴援助的締約方提供可以進(jìn)行有效溝通的工具。至少，它可以幫助消費(fèi)者提出申訴和根據(jù)答辯提出自己的請(qǐng)求。投訴援助還包括提供一般援助，如提供信息（如法律咨詢），目的是幫助消費(fèi)者采取自助手段。投訴援助作為一種在線法律服務(wù)中心。 </p><p>　　2.7信用卡費(fèi)用收回 &l

22、t;/p><p>　　雖然嚴(yán)格來(lái)說(shuō)，信用卡費(fèi)用收回機(jī)制不屬于糾紛解決機(jī)制，但是在消費(fèi)方面，他們履行這一職能的有效方式。信用卡發(fā)卡行允許消費(fèi)者根據(jù)所制定的程序用信用卡取消支付購(gòu)買價(jià)款。即如果銀行認(rèn)為，消費(fèi)者的申訴理由是合理的，這將重新計(jì)算信貸消費(fèi)的用戶支付的價(jià)格，而企業(yè)將不會(huì)獲得付款。這實(shí)際上是使信用卡發(fā)卡銀行處于中立的第三方地位去仲裁消費(fèi)者和企業(yè)的消費(fèi)糾紛。信用卡發(fā)卡銀行將去調(diào)查消費(fèi)者的投訴和評(píng)估所提供證據(jù)以決定是否

23、執(zhí)行。因此，許多國(guó)家規(guī)范收費(fèi)機(jī)制時(shí)，發(fā)卡銀行的仲裁服務(wù)應(yīng)當(dāng)向消費(fèi)者提供。 </p><p>　　在簡(jiǎn)短地討論了不同的解決消費(fèi)糾紛的機(jī)制之后，接下來(lái)的一節(jié)將討論這些機(jī)制的有效性和這些機(jī)制在提高消費(fèi)者對(duì)電子商務(wù)的信心方面的作用。 </p><p>　　3．消費(fèi)者對(duì)電子商務(wù)的信心和在線解決糾紛 （刪除）</p><p>　　4．消費(fèi)者在線解決糾紛中的重要問(wèn)題——正當(dāng)程序

24、</p><p>　　本節(jié)的主要闡述解決消費(fèi)糾紛應(yīng)當(dāng)遵守的正當(dāng)程序。第一部分著重于確定這些要求，而第二部分討論了消費(fèi)糾紛是否應(yīng)該一直適用這些要求。 </p><p>　　4.1正當(dāng)程序的要求 </p><p>　　討論的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是載于兩個(gè)歐共體委員會(huì)建議中的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這些建議中的原則適用于庭內(nèi)機(jī)構(gòu)負(fù)責(zé)的庭外解決消費(fèi)者糾紛的（ 98/257/EC ）和庭外機(jī)構(gòu)參與的協(xié)商一致

25、的解決消費(fèi)者糾紛 2001/310/EC ）。1998年建議書僅適用于具有約束力的仲裁程序，而2001年的建議適用于合意和不具約束力的解決方式。還值得一提的是消費(fèi)糾紛調(diào)解和仲裁的正當(dāng)程序在議定書中的擬定為AAA級(jí)。本議定書中所規(guī)定的正當(dāng)程序的最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)這方面的主要問(wèn)題可歸納如下。 </p><p>　　4.1.1獨(dú)立性和公正性 </p><p>　　這是民事司法中的一個(gè)核心概念：雙方糾紛的服

26、務(wù)供應(yīng)商和個(gè)人仲裁員/調(diào)解員必須是獨(dú)立和公正的，不受任何既得利益的影響。 </p><p>　　對(duì)于糾紛中的服務(wù)供應(yīng)商，其資金和董事會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)應(yīng)是中立的。在實(shí)踐中，這可能難以實(shí)現(xiàn)。企業(yè)通常直接（實(shí)際過(guò)程中訂購(gòu)費(fèi)、使用費(fèi)）或間接（會(huì)員費(fèi)）的提供糾紛解決服務(wù)。因此，該供應(yīng)商提供了資金是不可避免的。這應(yīng)該是消費(fèi)者得到賠償?shù)念~外保障措施，如設(shè)置一個(gè)獨(dú)立的第三方監(jiān)督和代表消費(fèi)者利益的董事。不幸的是，現(xiàn)有機(jī)制很少執(zhí)行這些要求。&

27、lt;/p><p>　　此外，個(gè)別仲裁員或調(diào)解員應(yīng)遵守職業(yè)道德。這樣的守則迫使他們不透露任何個(gè)人的利益從而避免利益沖突。就業(yè)安全和第三方支付必須足以保證公正公平。規(guī)定應(yīng)遵守這些要求的資料應(yīng)當(dāng)提供給消費(fèi)者。</p><p>　　最后，第三方仲裁員/調(diào)解員應(yīng)隨機(jī)分配。不應(yīng)該允許任何一方選擇特定仲裁員或調(diào)解員。</p><p>　　4.1.2公開性和透明度 </p>

28、;<p>　　傳統(tǒng)上，保密制度和保密是雙方更愿選擇庭外程序的一個(gè)重要原因。同樣的道理，當(dāng)事人期望解決糾紛機(jī)制中制定保密程序。因此，在解決并不涉及公共利益的私人糾紛時(shí)，同樣應(yīng)該允許保密制度和堅(jiān)持保密性。 </p><p>　　但在消費(fèi)方面，可能有更廣泛的與公共政策相關(guān)的問(wèn)題。例如，在眾多電子商務(wù)市場(chǎng)瀆職的商業(yè)案件中，市民應(yīng)有權(quán)知道。如果將來(lái)在線解決糾紛成為解決電子商務(wù)糾紛的主要形式，在線仲裁決定則應(yīng)該

29、成為主要的方式，相應(yīng)的法院判決將很少應(yīng)用，當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利和義務(wù)在電子商務(wù)卻難以確定?？梢哉f(shuō)，電子商務(wù)管理法不會(huì)進(jìn)一步發(fā)展，并沒(méi)有透明公開，除非決定出版。顯然，這種說(shuō)法只適用于具有約束力的網(wǎng)上仲裁，因?yàn)榫W(wǎng)上調(diào)解不產(chǎn)生權(quán)威性的裁決。 </p><p>　　除非有足夠的透明度，然而，問(wèn)題在于何種程度上的公布是可行的。然而可以預(yù)期到供應(yīng)商將抵制出版成果。對(duì)于在線調(diào)解的公開而言，由于是在非正式討論的基礎(chǔ)上達(dá)成解決方案，可能僅

30、限于一般性的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)，如數(shù)量和種類的糾紛。在理想的世界，網(wǎng)上進(jìn)行消費(fèi)糾紛仲裁，但是，應(yīng)公布仲裁決定。 </p><p>　　實(shí)際上，大多數(shù)糾紛提供商并沒(méi)有執(zhí)行所公布的結(jié)果，當(dāng)然，他們沒(méi)有任何法律義務(wù)去執(zhí)行。</p><p>　　最后為了達(dá)到公開的目的，在線糾紛解決機(jī)制還必須制定明確的應(yīng)與遵守的規(guī)則、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或法律（如法律規(guī)定，公平，行為守則）以服務(wù)為基礎(chǔ)。</p><p&g

31、t;<b>　　4.1.3語(yǔ)言障礙</b></p><p>　　僅有少量在線解決糾紛的提供者對(duì)文化和語(yǔ)言區(qū)別的給與了充分的關(guān)注。當(dāng)前，多數(shù)在線解決糾紛的服務(wù)僅僅提供英語(yǔ)服務(wù)，僅非常少量提供者擁有雙語(yǔ)或多語(yǔ)種服務(wù)。 </p><p>　　4.1.4意見(jiàn)被聽取以及回應(yīng)的權(quán)利——公平的聽證會(huì)</p><p>　　公平的聽證權(quán)利意味著必須舉行聽證會(huì)，

32、即提供給不同利益團(tuán)體公開旁聽并發(fā)表自己主張和意見(jiàn)的機(jī)會(huì)。網(wǎng)上解決糾紛機(jī)制通常依靠各團(tuán)體提交的書面意見(jiàn)書面(基于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)或電子郵件)。應(yīng)該給與各團(tuán)體公平的時(shí)間去交流各自的意見(jiàn)?！犠C會(huì)’在某種程度上通常只以書面方式，而喪失了語(yǔ)言交流的部分。 </p><p>　　4.2正當(dāng)程序要求的適用性</p><p>　　這部分討論的是一個(gè)實(shí)質(zhì)的問(wèn)題即正當(dāng)程序的高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)要求是否現(xiàn)實(shí)可行。在許多情況下，消費(fèi)者

33、糾紛是小額的和直接的，因此在線解決糾紛機(jī)制必須是非常便宜的和高效率的。為確保公平和正義，解決糾紛的費(fèi)用應(yīng)該與案件索賠費(fèi)用相適應(yīng)。與訴訟機(jī)制和自主解決糾紛機(jī)制相比，成本因素是在線解決糾紛機(jī)制的一個(gè)顯著優(yōu)點(diǎn)。網(wǎng)絡(luò)的技術(shù)的應(yīng)用大大減少了糾紛解決的成本。然而，對(duì)于小額糾紛即使是在線解決(介入一位調(diào)解人或仲裁人)可能仍是昂貴的，因?yàn)?，明顯地，專業(yè)的和有經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的調(diào)解人和仲裁人將對(duì)他們的服務(wù)而收取費(fèi)用。 在這些事例中，在線調(diào)解和投訴援助是簡(jiǎn)單適當(dāng)?shù)?/p>

34、解決糾紛方式。 高度自動(dòng)化的投訴援助程序和‘金錢保證’與支持供應(yīng)商的保險(xiǎn)公司也許是解決小額糾紛的唯一可行方式。</p><p>　　因此，對(duì)于簡(jiǎn)單的小額糾紛和復(fù)雜的高額糾紛應(yīng)分別遵守不同的正當(dāng)程序標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。前者應(yīng)遵守高度自動(dòng)化和不拘形式的程序，后者則應(yīng)該遵守嚴(yán)格的正當(dāng)程序標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在高額和復(fù)雜的糾紛中，程序的嚴(yán)密性是必須的。 </p><p>　　因此，在線解決糾紛的方法可以這么去衡量：解決越高額

35、和越復(fù)雜的消費(fèi)糾紛，應(yīng)該遵守本文所提到的越嚴(yán)密的正當(dāng)程序標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。本文至少可以得出這樣一個(gè)結(jié)論在線解決糾紛機(jī)制應(yīng)當(dāng)遵守正當(dāng)程序標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，而下個(gè)問(wèn)題則是應(yīng)該怎樣實(shí)施這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。</p><p>　　5.消費(fèi)者在線解決爭(zhēng)議的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的產(chǎn)生（刪除）</p><p><b>　　6. 結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　從消費(fèi)者ODR的討論可以清楚的得出兩個(gè)結(jié)論。首先

36、，它可以結(jié)束ODR計(jì)劃構(gòu)成保證的部分或使ODR計(jì)劃更加有效。第二，小數(shù)額電子商務(wù)消費(fèi)者糾風(fēng)不可能由昂貴的解決糾紛規(guī)程來(lái)解決，并且100美元以下的糾紛應(yīng)該使用高度自動(dòng)化的做法和為顧客服務(wù)的機(jī)制。然而在上限值消費(fèi)者區(qū)段，ODR應(yīng)該合并某些如上所述的程序要求來(lái)保證正當(dāng)程序。然而更加困難和仍未解決的問(wèn)題是由誰(shuí)來(lái)將程序標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化并嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行。它比極小額糾紛正當(dāng)程序要簡(jiǎn)單些，這在國(guó)際上廣泛達(dá)成一致意見(jiàn)。這樣一個(gè)公眾輿論的先例達(dá)到了消費(fèi)者保護(hù)法在經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與

37、發(fā)展消費(fèi)者組織范圍內(nèi)的相關(guān)規(guī)定。 雖然只規(guī)定極小的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，目前在29個(gè)國(guó)家之間已達(dá)成協(xié)議標(biāo)志著公眾輿論作用的發(fā)揮已達(dá)到國(guó)際水平。 然而同時(shí)也應(yīng)該看到，現(xiàn)在去談?wù)撘?guī)制一種還沒(méi)有完全形成的東西是不成熟的。現(xiàn)有的消費(fèi)者在線解決爭(zhēng)議的計(jì)劃仍在一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)性階段，因此現(xiàn)在把它定義為一種規(guī)范模式可能還為時(shí)過(guò)早。</p><p><b>　　外文翻譯原搞：</b></p><p>　　A

38、bstract：A large number of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) schemes are concerned with the resolution of consumer disputes arising from e-commerce transactions conducted on the Internet. Such schemes and the issues involve

39、d shall be discussed in this paper.</p><p>　　The first section will explain why e-commerce disputes involving a consumer are a challenge. The main focus is on the difficulty of pursuing cross-border disputes

40、 cost effectively and thereby increasing access to justice. Next the various ADR mechanisms deployed in dispute resolution will be discussed and this will illustrate how computer technology and distance communication can

41、 change these ADR procedures. Thirdly, the effectiveness of ODR and the related question of consumer confidence in red</p><p>　　Key words: Consumer protection, e-commerce, cross-border, alternative dispute r

42、esolution, arbitration, mediation, settlement, credit card charge back, online dispute resolution, due process, regulation of e-commerce, trustmarks, e-commerce marketplaces.</p><p>　　1. Introduction: The N

43、ature of Consumer Disputes Arising from Electronic Commerce</p><p>　　E-commerce by its very nature results in an increasing number of distance (or even cross-border) interactions and thus, disputes between p

44、arties located far from each other. Litigating and enforcing such disputes through the courts can be disproportionately expensive for smaller and medium claims due to added costs (such as hiring local lawyers, travel and

45、 translation costs). This means that only redress for very large claims can be obtained in this way .</p><p>　　By contrast, at present, e-commerce transactions undertaken by consumers are often very small va

46、lue, covering items such as books, music, software and other consumer goods, albeit this may change in the future if consumers feel confident to buy higher value goods such as cars or financial services over the Internet

47、. Thus, at least for the time being, for most consumer e-commerce disputes the cost of legal redress by litigation is not proportionate to the value of the claim. Therefore, for such c</p><p>　　Another probl

48、em specific to cross-border transactions is the difficulty of determining the appropriate forum. There is an inevitable conflict between the forum of the claimant and the respondent. Being located in no particular geogra

49、phical area, ODR mechanisms can provide a forum equally convenient and accessible to either party .</p><p>　　Furthermore especially for international consumer dispute resolution, cultural and linguistic diff

50、erences must be taken into account. Although the consumer buys ‘on the Internet’ he/she may have the same expectation as to quality of service and consumer protection as he/she has when buying in his local real world sho

51、p. This is a factor to be considered when discussing consumer ODR. </p><p>　　Finally, another factor making consumer disputes different from other disputes is the (real or perceived) unequal bargaining power

52、 of consumers when compared to the seller of products and services. A balancing of unequal bargaining power is particularly necessary, where the supplier relies on standard terms and conditions and where, as is usually t

53、he case, the supplier demands pre-payment. Because of this latter factor, in many instances the claimant will be the consumer. To the extent that ODR </p><p>　　2. ODR Mechanisms Used for Consumer Disputes<

54、;/p><p>　　ODR can have several meanings. Here we shall take ODR to be information communication technologies (ICT) or ‘online technology’ applied to alternative dispute resolution. The term alternative dispute

55、resolution (ADR) in this context refers to dispute resolution (other than litigation) in the courts, and includes arbitration.The first experiments in extra-judicial ODR were made during 1996/1997 in the US and Canada .

56、Most of these were initially university projects evolving into commercial ventur</p><p>　　2.1 Arbitration</p><p>　　Documents-only arbitration has been used for a considerable time to solve consu

57、mer disputes. Consumer documents-only arbitration being largely a fact-finding process, based on the written submissions of the parties, lends itself to ODR . However, although the online medium is very suitable to docum

58、ents-only arbitration, online consumer arbitration, as opposed to online mediation (and other forms of ADR) is not very common. </p><p>　　One problem is to secure the agreement of the other party, usually th

59、e business, to binding arbitration after the dispute has arisen . However, in some schemes, the e-commerce provider subscribes to an ODR scheme (including online arbitration) in advance and markets this fact to its custo

60、mers in order to enhance trust and branding. For such e-commerce providers ODR is part of the customer services they offer to the consumer.</p><p>　　While such a commitment can be enforced against the subscr

61、ibing supplier, it may not be binding on the consumer. It should be noted, that in most European jurisdictions, an arbitration clause contained in standard contract terms which binds the consumer to submit a dispute to a

62、rbitration is likely to be viewed as unfair. For this reason, a standard arbitration clause cannot be enforced against a consumer. Thus, the arbitration clause would only be binding on the business, but optional for the

63、co</p><p>　　By contrast, in the US, consumer arbitration clauses are usually enforceable. The US courts will only refuse to enforce a binding arbitration clause against a consumer where it would be unconscio

64、nable to do so. This would be the case if enforcing the arbitration clause deprived the consumer of access to a forum to vindicate his rights. The courts have held in several decisions that an arbitration agreement in a

65、 consumer contract that forces the consumer to incur excessive arbitration fees is un</p><p>　　In the US, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) has introduced specific fee schedules for consumer dispute

66、s . Likewise the National Arbitration Forum has a special small claims fee .</p><p>　　As the US cases demonstrate, the fees for consumer arbitration must be proportionate to the value of the claim. Since arb

67、itration requires the intervention of a qualified and experienced human decision-maker, but consumer claims are mostly of small value, this may be difficult to achieve. For this reason, too, arbitration may not be the fi

68、rst choice for small and medium value consumer disputes. </p><p>　　However, under some schemes, online arbitration is used as the last resort layer of a scaled approach to ODR. In such schemes the parties st

69、art with negotiation and if this fails they move on to mediation and only if this fails will they resort to arbitration .</p><p>　　2.2 Evaluation (non-binding)</p><p>　　Like arbitration, online

70、evaluation is an ODR technique involving the neutral third party making a decision on the basis of the written submissions and documentary evidence provided by the parties. However in the case of evaluation this decision

71、 takes the form of a non-binding recommendation. </p><p>　　2.3 Mock Trials</p><p>　　Mock trials (also: summary jury trials) are an ODR technique whereby a jury of peers makes a non-binding deter

72、mination of the issues via a web-based platform. Thus the neutral third party is replaced by a number of volunteers (Internet users) acting as if they were an online jury in a civil trial. </p><p>　　2.4 Medi

73、ation</p><p>　　Online mediation seems to be the primary ODR method for small consumer disputes . There are four reasons for this primacy of online mediation. First, the process is flexible. The mediator esse

74、ntially uses his skill to help the parties to communicate and reach their own solution. This high degree of party control means that the parties are likely to feel comfortable with the online procedure. Secondly, the fac

75、t that participation is voluntary means that the parties are more willing to participate</p><p>　　2.5 Automated Settlement Systems </p><p>　　Automated Settlement Systems are a highly innovative

76、form of ODR, suitable for monetary claims (i.e. where liability is not disputed, but only the amount of compensation is at stake, such as certain insurance cases). Automated Settlement Systems may also be used as a negot

77、iation tool as part of another dispute resolution procedure. The process involves the parties making successive blind bids. This means that the bids are not disclosed to the other party. Once the bids are within a certai

78、n range</p><p>　　2.6 Complaints Assistance </p><p>　　Complaints Assistance provides the parties with tools allowing for effective communication. At a minimum, it allows a consumer to make a comp

79、laint and communicate a demand for redress to the respondent. Complaints Assistance also involves the provision of general assistance such as the provision of information (such as legal advice) for the purpose of self-he

80、lp. Complaints Assistance works as kind of online law centre.</p><p>　　2.7 Credit Card Charge Back</p><p>　　Although credit card charge back mechanisms are not strictly speaking dispute resoluti

81、on mechanisms, in the consumer context they fulfil this function and do so in an effective manner. A credit card charge back is a procedure set up by the credit card issuer allowing the consumer to cancel the payment of

82、the purchase price effected by a credit card. If the bank considers the consumer's complaint justified, it will re-credit the consumer's account with the price paid and the business will not obt</p><p&

83、gt;　　Having briefly discussed the different mechanisms for consumer ODR, the next section will look at the effectiveness of these mechanisms in the e-commerce environment and examine what role these mechanisms have in in

84、creasing consumer confidence. </p><p>　　3. Online Dispute Resolution and Confidence in Consumer E-Commerce (omitted)</p><p>　　4. Legal Issues Arising From Consumer ODR - Due Process </p>

85、<p>　　This section of the paper examines which requirements of due process consumer ODR should comply with. The first part focuses on identifying these requirements, whereas the second part discusses whether these r

86、equirements should always apply to consumer ODR. </p><p>　　4.1 Requirements of Due Process</p><p>　　The starting point for the discussion is the standards contained in two EC Commission Recommen

87、dations. These are the Recommendation on the Principles Applicable to the Bodies Responsible for Out-of-Court Settlement of Consumer Disputes (98/257/EC) and the Recommendation on the Principles for Out-of-Court Bodies I

88、nvolved in the Consensual Resolution of Consumer Disputes (2001/310/EC). The 1998 Recommendation only applies to binding arbitration procedures, whereas the 2001 Recommendation is applic</p><p>　　4.1.1 Indep

89、endence and Impartiality </p><p>　　This is a concept at the very heart of civil justice: both the ODR service provider and the individual arbitrator/mediator must be, and must be seen to be, independent and

90、impartial, free from any vested interests . </p><p>　　For the ODR service provider, this means in particular that its funding and board structure should be neutral. In practice this might be difficult to ach

91、ieve. The business usually pays directly (subscription fees, user fees for the actual dispute) or indirectly (membership fee) for the dispute resolution service.Therefore, it is unavoidable that the supplier provides the

92、 funding. This factor should be compensated by additional safeguards, such as an independent third party supervising the scheme</p><p>　　Furthermore, the individual arbitrators or mediators should be obliged

93、 to observe a code of professional ethics. Such a code should oblige them to disclose any personal interests and to avoid conflicts of interest. The job security and pay of third parties must be sufficient to guarantee i

94、mpartiality . Information as to compliance with these requirements should be provided to the user .</p><p>　　Finally, the allocation of third party arbitrators/mediators should be made randomly. One party sh

95、ould not be allowed to choose the individual arbitrator or mediator. </p><p>　　4.1.2 Publicity and Transparency</p><p>　　Traditionally, secrecy and confidentiality have been an important factor

96、in favour of the parties' choice of an out-of-court procedure. By the same token, therefore, the parties may expect that the ODR proceedings are kept confidential. To the extent that ODR enables the settlement of pri

97、vate disputes and no adverse public interests are involved, ODR should equally allow for secrecy and confidentiality.</p><p>　　However in the consumer context, there may be wider public policy concerns invol

98、ved. For example, in cases of widespread business malpractice on the mass consumer e-commerce market, the public should have a right to know. Equally, looking to the future, if ODR becomes the dominant form of dispute re

99、solution in e-commerce disputes, ODR arbitration decisions should form a body of law as there will be few court decisions and otherwise the rights and obligations of parties in e-commerce will be unce</p><p>

100、;　　Unless there is sufficient transparency ，Nevertheless the question arises to what extent publication of results is practicable. It is to be expected that suppliers will resist the publication of results. For online me

101、diation, because of the informality of the discussions and solutions reached, publication probably has to be limited to general statistics such as the number and kind of disputes . In the ideal world, in the case of cons