【正文】 仲裁員或調(diào)解 員。 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 。 但在消費(fèi)方面，可能有更廣泛的 與 公共政策 相關(guān)的 問題 。如果 將來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 。顯然，這種說法只適用于具有約束力的網(wǎng)上仲裁， 因?yàn)?網(wǎng)上調(diào)解不產(chǎn)生權(quán)威性的裁決。 然而 可以預(yù)期 到 供應(yīng)商將抵制 出版成果。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 。 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)。當(dāng)前，多數(shù) 在線解決糾紛的 服務(wù) 僅僅提供英語服務(wù)， 僅 非常少量 提供者擁有 雙語或多語種服務(wù)。 網(wǎng)上解決 糾紛機(jī)制 通常依靠 各團(tuán)體提交的書面意見書面 (基于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)或電子郵件 )?！?聽證會(huì)’ 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 。 在許多情況下， 消費(fèi)者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。 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)。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 。 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。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)。 7 因此， 在線解決糾紛的方法 可以這么去衡量 ： 解決越高額和越復(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) 。 標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的產(chǎn)生 （刪除） 6. 結(jié)論 從消費(fèi)者 ODR 的 討論可以清楚的得出兩個(gè) 結(jié)論 。 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 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 。 然而更加困難和仍 未解決的問題是 由誰來將程序標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化并嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行 。 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)合作與發(fā)展消費(fèi)者組織范圍內(nèi)的相關(guān)規(guī)定 。 然而 同時(shí)也應(yīng)該看到，現(xiàn)在 去 談?wù)?規(guī)制一種還沒有完全形成的東西是不成熟的 。 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 this area of redress may mean that consumers do not engage in emerce . Another problem specific to crossborder 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 geographical area, ODR mechanisms can provide a forum equally convenient and accessible to either party . Furthermore especially for international consumer dispute resolution, cultural and linguistic differences must be taken into account. Although the consumer buys ‘on the Inter’ 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 shop. This is a factor to be considered when discussing consumer ODR. Finally, another factor making consumer disputes different from other disputes is the (real or perceived) unequal bargaining power of consumers when pared 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 the case, the supplier demands prepayment. Because of this latter factor, in many instances the claimant will be the consumer. To the extent that ODR provides affordable and effective dispute resolution mechanisms, it may contribute to achieving the aim of creating trust in emerce and viable redress for consumers. There are several different mechanisms for ODR to which we turn next. 2. ODR Mechanisms Used for Consumer Disputes ODR can have several meanings. Here we shall take ODR to be information munication technologies (ICT) or ‘online technology’ applied to alternative dispute resolution. The term alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in this context refers to dispute resolution (other than litigation) in the courts, and includes first experiments in extrajudicial ODR were made during 1996/1997 in the US and Canada . Most of these were initially university projects evolving into mercial 10 ventures. In Europe, governments and most notably the European Commission have strongly advocated the use of ODR systems fo