【正文】 s plaint and assess the evidence for fraud or nondelivery. Thus it acts as an adjudicator between the parties. Many countries regulate when charge back mechanisms should be available to consumers. Having briefly discussed the different mechanisms for consumer ODR, the next section will look at the effectiveness of these mechanisms in the emerce environment and examine what role these mechanisms have in increasing consumer confidence. 3. Online Dispute Resolution and Confidence in Consumer ECommerce (omitted) 4. Legal Issues Arising From Consumer ODR Due Process This section of the paper examines which requirements of due process consumer ODR should ply with. The first part focuses on identifying these requirements, whereas the second part discusses whether these requirements should always apply to consumer ODR. Requirements of Due Process The starting point for the discussion is the standards contained in two EC Commission Remendations. These are the Remendation on the Principles Applicable to the Bodies Responsible for OutofCourt Settlement of Consumer Disputes (98/257/EC) and the Remendation on the Principles for OutofCourt 14 Bodies Involved in the Consensual Resolution of Consumer Disputes (2020/310/EC). The 1998 Remendation only applies to binding arbitration procedures, whereas the 2020 Remendation is applicable to consensual, nonbinding forms of consumer dispute worth mentioning in this context is the Due Process Protocol for Mediation and Arbitration of Consumer Disputes drawn up by the AAA . This Protocol sets minimum standards of due process in consumer main issues in this respect can be summarised as follows. Independence and Impartiality 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 impartial, free from any vested interests . 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 achieve. The business usually pays directly (subscription fees, user fees for the actual dispute) or indirectly (membership fee) for the dispute resolution , it is unavoidable that the supplier provides the funding. This factor should be pensated by additional safeguards, such as an independent third party supervising the scheme and representation of consumer interests on the board of the scheme. Unfortunately, these requirements are rarely implemented in the existing schemes . Furthermore, the individual arbitrators or mediators should be obliged 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 impartiality . Information as to pliance with these requirements should be provided to the user . Finally, the allocation of third party arbitrators/mediators should be made randomly. One party should not be allowed to choose the individual arbitrator or mediator. Publicity and Transparency Traditionally, secrecy and confidentiality have been an important factor in favour of the parties39。 8 外文翻譯原搞： Abstract： A large number of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) schemes are concerned with the resolution of consumer disputes arising from emerce transactions conducted on the Inter. Such schemes and the issues involved shall be discussed in this paper. The first section will explain why emerce disputes involving a consumer are a challenge. The main focus is on the difficulty of pursuing crossborder disputes 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 puter technology and distance munication can change these ADR procedures. Thirdly, the effectiveness of ODR and the related question of consumer confidence in redress mechanisms will be examined. The next section will look at the need for due process requirements in consumer ODR. The fifth section will discuss the efforts made regarding a regulatory framework. This paper will conclude that a careful regulatory framework should eventually be put in place to ensure due process, but that it might be too early to do this at present. Key words: Consumer protection, emerce, crossborder, alternative dispute resolution, arbitration, mediation, settlement, credit card charge back, online dispute resolution, due process, regulation of emerce, trustmarks, emerce marketplaces. 1. Introduction: The Nature of Consumer Disputes Arising from Electronic Commerce Emerce by its very nature results in an increasing number of distance (or even crossborder) interactions and thus, disputes between parties 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 translation costs). This means that only redress for very large claims can be obtained in this way . By contrast, at present, emerce transactions undertaken by consumers are 9 often very small value, 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 Inter. Thus, at least for the time being, for most consumer emerce disputes the cost of legal redress by litigation is not proportionate to the value of the claim. Therefore, for such claims costeffective Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) schemes are the only viable means of redress. A lack of trust in th