外文翻譯---消費者電子商務交易的在線糾紛解決

1、<p>　　消費者電子商務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）：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、在線糾紛解決機制所涉及的是解決在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上進行電子商務交易時產(chǎn)生的消費糾紛。本文將討論這個機制及其所涉及的問題。</p><p>　　第一部分將解釋為什么涉及消費者的電子商務糾紛是一個挑戰(zhàn)，這一部分將主要關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制的方式，并將說明計算機技術和遠程通信可以改變這些自主解決機制。第三，將審查、研究在線糾紛解決的效力和與此相關的消費者

4、對這種糾正機制的信心問題。第四部分將探討在線解決消費糾紛所要求的正當程序。第五部分將討論為制定監(jiān)管框架所應做出的努力。本文的結論是應最終建立嚴格的規(guī)范架構，以確保正當程序的適用，但目前還很難做到這一點。 </p><p>　　關鍵詞：消費者保護，電子商務，跨國界，解決糾紛的替代方式，仲裁，調(diào)解，和解，信用卡費用收回，在線糾紛解決，正當程序，電子商務規(guī)范，信用，電子商務市場。</p><p>

5、;　　1.簡介：產(chǎn)生于電子商務中的消費糾紛特點</p><p>　　電子商務由于其本身的性質(zhì)導致了越來越遠距離（甚至跨邊界）的交易，因此，糾紛當事方之間通常相隔甚遠。通過法院訴訟和執(zhí)行這類糾紛由于增加的費用（如雇用當?shù)芈蓭?，旅行和翻譯費用）而大大增加了中小型糾紛索賠的訴訟成本。這就是說，只有數(shù)額非常大的索賠才適宜采取這種方式。</p><p>　　然而，目前來說，消費者所進行的電子商務交易

6、往往是非常小的價值，如物品、書籍、音樂、軟件和其他消費品，但這可能會影響未來消費者在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上購買汽車等價值較高貨物及購買金融等服務的信心。至少在目前，相對于大多數(shù)消費者的電子商務糾紛的訴訟成本來說，是不相稱的價值索賠。因此，對這類糾紛的解決，網(wǎng)上解決糾紛計劃是唯一可行的補救手段。在電子商務領域缺乏信任的解決機制的話將使消費者不再進入這一消費領域。</p><p>　　另一個問題是難以確定跨國交易的具體的適當?shù)墓茌?/p>

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

8、lt;/p><p>　　最后，消費糾紛不同于其他糾紛的另一個方面是消費糾紛雙方地位不平等，消費者討價還價的地位明顯低于生產(chǎn)商和服務商。平衡雙方地位是特別必要的，而供應商依賴于標準條款和條件，因為通常情況下，供應商要求預先付款。由于這個因素，在許多情況下，消費者是索賠人。基于此，在線糾紛解決機制建立可承擔得其的和有效的糾紛解決機制，使消費者得以補償，從而建立消費者對電子商務的信任。接下來我們將討論解決糾紛的幾種不同機制

9、。 </p><p>　　2. 消費者糾紛的在線糾紛解決機制</p><p>　　在線糾紛解決可以有若干含義，在這里，我們應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。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年在美國和加拿大在第一次提出了在線糾紛解決的司法試驗。其中大部分項目由最初的大學試驗變成商業(yè)活動。在歐洲，

10、各國政府和最為引人注目的歐盟委員會已經(jīng)強烈主張使用網(wǎng)上糾紛解決系統(tǒng)來解決消費糾紛。最近幾年也看到了相當多的私人創(chuàng)業(yè)活動。 此外，傳統(tǒng)的解決機制也關注由于電子技術發(fā)展所帶來的可能性。在2002年初的約30個作者提到在線糾紛解決計劃。在線糾紛解決機制使用不同的程序和方法進行了不同的實驗。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解決消費糾紛已有相當長的時間。消費者文件規(guī)定仲裁只適用于雙方在實際情況已基本調(diào)查清楚的基礎上提交書面意見的糾紛。然而，盡管網(wǎng)上調(diào)解是非常適合仲裁，然而網(wǎng)上消費者仲裁，不是在線調(diào)解（和其他形式的ADR ）是很少見的。</p><p>　　一個問題是，為確保協(xié)議的另一方當事人，有約束力的仲裁通常產(chǎn)生于爭議出現(xiàn)之后。然而，在一些計劃，電子商務供應商首先向客戶提出仲裁條款（包括網(wǎng)上仲裁），以在

12、市場中增進信任和增強品牌。對于這樣的電子商務提供商糾紛的解決是他們提供給消費者的一項消費服務。 </p><p>　　雖然這樣可以強制執(zhí)行供應商的承諾，但它可能對消費者不具有約束力。應當指出，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準合同中，消費者將爭議交于仲裁可能會被視為不公平的。出于這個原因，執(zhí)行一個標準的仲裁條款不能對消費者不利。因此，仲裁條款的，僅僅對業(yè)務房具有約束力，而消費者是可以選擇的。 &l

13、t;/p><p>　　相比之下，在美國，消費仲裁條款通常是強制執(zhí)行。美國法院將只在對消費者不利的情況下拒絕執(zhí)行一項有約束力的仲裁條款，認為這樣才合乎情理。如果強制執(zhí)行仲裁條款的話，可能剝奪了消費者維護自己權利的權利。法院裁決的幾項決定中，根據(jù)消費合同中的仲裁協(xié)議條款由消費者承擔過多的仲裁費是不合理的。例如，在v Gateway公司關于瀏覽器等的特殊案件中，如果購買一臺計算機和相關軟件發(fā)生糾紛，根據(jù)仲裁條款應提請國際商

14、事仲裁法院予以仲裁。國際商事法院的預付款金額是4,000美元，其中 2000美元是不退還的。紐約上訴法院認為，仲裁協(xié)議應當強制執(zhí)行，并將該案發(fā)回了下級法院，期望各方找到一個適當?shù)男☆~索賠的仲裁庭。 </p><p>　　在美國，美國仲裁協(xié)會（ AAA ）已為消費糾紛提出了具體的收費標準。同樣，國家仲裁體系設有特殊的小額索賠庭。 </p><p>　　美國的案例表明，對于消費糾紛仲裁的收費必

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

16、;p>　　在線評估是一項技術，類似于仲裁，由中立的第三方根據(jù)雙方當事人提交的書面意見和書面證據(jù)做出決定，只是該項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，由陪審團通過網(wǎng)絡平臺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進行民事審判。

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原因所決定的。首先，在線調(diào)解程序靈活。他幫助各方進行溝通，在協(xié)商一致的基礎上達成解決協(xié)議。這種高度自愿的程序使各方充分表達自己的意志和主張。第二，由于自愿為前提能真實表達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，對于以從未如此低的折扣買的東西或類似的投訴，應當做出相適應的處理。 最后，一些消費糾紛，特別是那些從電子商務交易中產(chǎn)生的小額糾紛，與其說是權利的沖突不如說是售后服務的糾紛。通常情況下，這些糾紛是微不足道的純粹事實的糾紛，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系。對于一些人來說，可能只是極少次從某個供應

19、商那購買甚至僅僅是一次。因此，調(diào)解的成功取決于當事人之間存在連續(xù)的的關系，在線調(diào)解卻可能無法有效的解決一次性消費糾紛。另一個問題是，在線調(diào)解方式對于小額糾紛而言，這一程序可能過于昂貴，一般而言，開始收費的范圍20-200美元。 </p><p>　　2.5自動結算系統(tǒng) </p><p>　　自動結算系統(tǒng)是在線解決糾紛的一個高度創(chuàng)新的方式，適用于金錢債權（即不具有爭議的責任，但只賠償處于危險

20、中的數(shù)額，如某些保險案例）。在另一種糾紛解決程序中，自動結算系統(tǒng)也可能被用來作為談判的工具。這是一種當事人連續(xù)盲目出價的程序。這意味著，競標價格并未披露給另一方當事人。一旦競標價格在對方能接受的一定范圍內(nèi)（例如30 ％ ），能自動達成雙方一致接受的數(shù)額的解決協(xié)議。這個過程是由軟件完成，沒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)的機密。電子郵件和基于網(wǎng)絡的平臺等通訊工具和技術支加速這一解決方式的進程。

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

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

23、執(zhí)行。因此，許多國家規(guī)范收費機制時，發(fā)卡銀行的仲裁服務應當向消費者提供。 </p><p>　　在簡短地討論了不同的解決消費糾紛的機制之后，接下來的一節(jié)將討論這些機制的有效性和這些機制在提高消費者對電子商務的信心方面的作用。 </p><p>　　3．消費者對電子商務的信心和在線解決糾紛 （刪除）</p><p>　　4．消費者在線解決糾紛中的重要問題——正當程序

24、</p><p>　　本節(jié)的主要闡述解決消費糾紛應當遵守的正當程序。第一部分著重于確定這些要求，而第二部分討論了消費糾紛是否應該一直適用這些要求。 </p><p>　　4.1正當程序的要求 </p><p>　　討論的出發(fā)點是載于兩個歐共體委員會建議中的標準。這些建議中的原則適用于庭內(nèi)機構負責的庭外解決消費者糾紛的（ 98/257/EC ）和庭外機構參與的協(xié)商一致

25、的解決消費者糾紛 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糾紛調(diào)解和仲裁的正當程序在議定書中的擬定為AAA級。本議定書中所規(guī)定的正當程序的最低標準這方面的主要問題可歸納如下。 </p><p>　　4.1.1獨立性和公正性 </p><p>　　這是民事司法中的一個核心概念：雙方糾紛的服

26、務供應商和個人仲裁員/調(diào)解員必須是獨立和公正的，不受任何既得利益的影響。 </p><p>　　對于糾紛中的服務供應商，其資金和董事會結構應是中立的。在實踐中，這可能難以實現(xiàn)。企業(yè)通常直接（實際過程中訂購費、使用費）或間接（會員費）的提供糾紛解決服務。因此，該供應商提供了資金是不可避免的。這應該是消費者得到賠償?shù)念~外保障措施，如設置一個獨立的第三方監(jiān)督和代表消費者利益的董事。不幸的是，現(xiàn)有機制很少執(zhí)行這些要求。&

27、lt;/p><p>　　此外，個別仲裁員或調(diào)解員應遵守職業(yè)道德。這樣的守則迫使他們不透露任何個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)定應遵守這些要求的資料應當提供給消費者。</p><p>　　最后，第三方仲裁員/調(diào)解員應隨機分配。不應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重要原因。同樣的道理，當事人期望解決糾紛機制中制定保密程序。因此，在解決并不涉及公共利益的私人糾紛時，同樣應該允許保密制度和堅持保密性。 </p><p>　　但在消費方面，可能有更廣泛的與公共政策相關的問題。例如，在眾多電子商務市場瀆職的商業(yè)案件中，市民應有權知道。如果將來在線解決糾紛成為解決電子商務糾紛的主要形式，在線仲裁決定則應該

29、成為主要的方式，相應的法院判決將很少應用，當事人的權利和義務在電子商務卻難以確定?？梢哉f，電子商務管理法不會進一步發(fā)展，并沒有透明公開，除非決定出版。顯然，這種說法只適用于具有約束力的網(wǎng)上仲裁，因為網(wǎng)上調(diào)解不產(chǎn)生權威性的裁決。 </p><p>　　除非有足夠的透明度，然而，問題在于何種程度上的公布是可行的。然而可以預期到供應商將抵制出版成果。對于在線調(diào)解的公開而言，由于是在非正式討論的基礎上達成解決方案，可能僅

30、限于一般性的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)，如數(shù)量和種類的糾紛。在理想的世界，網(wǎng)上進行消費糾紛仲裁，但是，應公布仲裁決定。 </p><p>　　實際上，大多數(shù)糾紛提供商并沒有執(zhí)行所公布的結果，當然，他們沒有任何法律義務去執(zhí)行。</p><p>　　最后為了達到公開的目的，在線糾紛解決機制還必須制定明確的應與遵守的規(guī)則、標準或法律（如法律規(guī)定，公平，行為守則）以服務為基礎。</p><p&g

31、t;<b>　　4.1.3語言障礙</b></p><p>　　僅有少量在線解決糾紛的提供者對文化和語言區(qū)別的給與了充分的關注。當前，多數(shù)在線解決糾紛的服務僅僅提供英語服務，僅非常少量提供者擁有雙語或多語種服務。 </p><p>　　4.1.4意見被聽取以及回應的權利——公平的聽證會</p><p>　　公平的聽證權利意味著必須舉行聽證會，

32、即提供給不同利益團體公開旁聽并發(fā)表自己主張和意見的機會。網(wǎng)上解決糾紛機制通常依靠各團體提交的書面意見書面(基于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)或電子郵件)。應該給與各團體公平的時間去交流各自的意見?！犠C會’在某種程度上通常只以書面方式，而喪失了語言交流的部分。 </p><p>　　4.2正當程序要求的適用性</p><p>　　這部分討論的是一個實質(zhì)的問題即正當程序的高標準要求是否現(xiàn)實可行。在許多情況下，消費者

33、糾紛是小額的和直接的，因此在線解決糾紛機制必須是非常便宜的和高效率的。為確保公平和正義，解決糾紛的費用應該與案件索賠費用相適應。與訴訟機制和自主解決糾紛機制相比，成本因素是在線解決糾紛機制的一個顯著優(yōu)點。網(wǎng)絡的技術的應用大大減少了糾紛解決的成本。然而，對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，因為，明顯地，專業(yè)的和有經(jīng)驗豐富的調(diào)解人和仲裁人將對他們的服務而收取費用。 在這些事例中，在線調(diào)解和投訴援助是簡單適當?shù)?/p>

34、解決糾紛方式。 高度自動化的投訴援助程序和‘金錢保證’與支持供應商的保險公司也許是解決小額糾紛的唯一可行方式。</p><p>　　因此，對于簡單的小額糾紛和復雜的高額糾紛應分別遵守不同的正當程序標準。前者應遵守高度自動化和不拘形式的程序，后者則應該遵守嚴格的正當程序標準。在高額和復雜的糾紛中，程序的嚴密性是必須的。 </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、和越復雜的消費糾紛，應該遵守本文所提到的越嚴密的正當程序標準。本文至少可以得出這樣一個結論在線解決糾紛機制應當遵守正當程序標準，而下個問題則是應該怎樣實施這些標準。</p><p>　　5.消費者在線解決爭議的標準的產(chǎn)生（刪除）</p><p><b>　　6. 結論</b></p><p>　　從消費者ODR的討論可以清楚的得出兩個結論。首先

36、，它可以結束ODR計劃構成保證的部分或使ODR計劃更加有效。第二，小數(shù)額電子商務消費者糾風不可能由昂貴的解決糾紛規(guī)程來解決，并且100美元以下的糾紛應該使用高度自動化的做法和為顧客服務的機制。然而在上限值消費者區(qū)段，ODR應該合并某些如上所述的程序要求來保證正當程序。然而更加困難和仍未解決的問題是由誰來將程序標準化并嚴格執(zhí)行。它比極小額糾紛正當程序要簡單些，這在國際上廣泛達成一致意見。這樣一個公眾輿論的先例達到了消費者保護法在經(jīng)濟合作與

37、發(fā)展消費者組織范圍內(nèi)的相關規(guī)定。 雖然只規(guī)定極小的標準，目前在29個國家之間已達成協(xié)議標志著公眾輿論作用的發(fā)揮已達到國際水平。 然而同時也應該看到，現(xiàn)在去談論規(guī)制一種還沒有完全形成的東西是不成熟的?，F(xiàn)有的消費者在線解決爭議的計劃仍在一個實驗性階段，因此現(xiàn)在把它定義為一種規(guī)范模式可能還為時過早。</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