浅析在线纠纷解决制度(ODR)在中国的发展——以淘宝网争议处理模式为例

传统的争议处理模式已经不适应电子商务的发展,在线纠纷解决制度(ODR)能够成为电子商务纠纷处理的重要途径。文章以淘宝网的争议处理模式为例,分析了ODR在中国运用的广泛前景,并从企业、政府、法律规制等方面,对ODR在中国的进一步发展提出了建议。     

浅议ODR解决B2C电子商务纠纷的优势

网上纠纷解决机制(ODR)具有高效,公平,快捷,成本低廉的优势,适应了全球B2C电子商务环境对纠纷解决的要求.本文将具体探讨ODR解决B2C电子商务纠纷的优势所在,及在B2C电子商务模式下建构我国ODR的必要性.     

论B2C电子商务模式下ODR的构建

对于不断增长的B2C电子商务模式来说，一个合理的、简便易行的纠纷解决机制是十分必要的。B2C模式下的电子商务纠纷呈现出其独特的特点。ODR以其高效、公平、快捷、低成本的特点，不仅弥补了传统司法体制的不足，也迎合了B2C电子商务模式发展的需要。B2C模式下，把技术作为纠纷解决的“第四方”，有效的ODR制度的构建要把握三个要素：参与者、网络技术和程序，并辅之建立在线诚信体系的相关配套措施。     

电子商务中在线纠纷解决机制初探——以信息技术应用和消费者保护为视角

基于信息技术的在线纠纷解决机制(ODR)在电子商务领域得到了良好的发展,它具有以利益为导向的创造性解决消费者纠纷的潜力.在线协商、在线调解和在线仲裁等都应秉承保护消费者的基本原则,并依赖于不同类别信息技术的保障和推动.ODR优势和障碍并存,多数障碍可随信息技术的发展和法律制度的完善逐渐得以克服.     

论ODR平台的多元规制系统

在“互联网+”的浪潮中,传统的替代性纠纷解决机制(ADR),不仅被嵌入互联网这一基因,而蜕化成为在线纠纷解决机制(ODR),还被注入资本的血液,而成长为在线纠纷解决平台(ODR平台)。两类高度活跃的因素,让ODR平台在提供高效解纷服务的同时,也同时带来了新型的风险。本文笔者以ODR平台的上述两大类性质为基础,分析ODR平台二维度风险,并在此基础上主张构建一个多元规制系统,以实现自由与安全的平衡。     

论争议的在线解决

ODR是ADR的在线形式,两者所涉问题并无多大差异,但ODR却更为便捷,有时更是一种唯一切实可行的争议解决模式;ODR同样符合法律所要求的质量与公平的最低标准,但也难以克服其固有的缺憾,如独立性、语言障碍、可执行性等方面的问题;诉讼ODR在提高司法审判效益的同时,也将对诉讼证据规则及法庭的权威和判断力形成某种冲击。     

ODR——多元化解决电子商务版权纠纷新机制

在“互联网+”时代,共享型经济电子商务新模式的蓬勃发展以及农村和跨境电商新政策的大力实施,必将在新的行业、新的地区带来大量的电商版权纠纷;移动互联网技术的不断更新必然增加盗版的机会.面对这些挑战,我国应该加快探索ODR机制,多元化解决电商版权纠纷:加强“网上法庭”对电商版权侵权的“审查”责任;借鉴国外的“网上法院”经验,完善我国的电商网上法庭;采取“众包式ODR”,防止电商版权侵权活动的蔓延;建立涉外ODR机制,解决跨境电商版权纠纷.     

我国网络争端解决机制的发展之路

网络争端解决机制,简称ODR,是一种新兴的且正在世界范围内迅速发展的新型纠纷解决机制。伴随着电子商务行业的迅速普及,我国的网络争端解决机制也将迎来其高速发展时期。但由于我国的高端信息技术还不够发达,网络争端解决机制的公众普及程度较低,我国网络争端解决机制的完善仍然面临诸多问题。因此,只有积极引进相关技术,鼓励私营企业投入,同时推行由政府主导向间接调控转变的网络争端解决机制,才是长久发展之道。     

ODR裁决书强制执行机制研究

ODR机制是人类由物理世界"面对面"的纠纷解决方式向虚拟世界"屏对屏"的解决方式之飞跃。对ODR机制的总体规划应该是"网上纠纷、网上解决、网上执行"。为应对ODR裁决书执行难的困境,应设计三类执行方式:ODR裁决书的网络力量执行、ODR裁决书的社会力量执行、ODR裁决书的司法力量执行。只有前一种执行力量无法达到执行目的时,才应考虑利用后一种执行力量。     

域名纠纷在线解决机制研究

域名纠纷是网络民事纠纷的一种,使用诉讼和ADR来解决域名纠纷将面临“纠纷解决的会面成本较高”等缺陷,同时域名纠纷的责任要件的认定有时借助网络就可以完成而无需当事人双方会面.为此域名管理机构创立了专门解决域名纠纷的域名ODR机制,以便快捷、廉价的解决域名纠纷.为鼓励当事人选用域名ODR来解决域名纠纷,域名管理机构把域名ODR设置为附条件的诉讼前置程序以保证域名ODR有充足的案源,另外裁决结果易于执行性、专家裁判、裁判快捷高效、费用低廉等优势成就了域名ODR,但是域名ODR也面临着困境.     

ODR的管辖权问题探析

ODR虽以当事人协议选择为基础,能绕过法院无法针对网络空间发生的争议进行管辖的困境,但ODR管辖权本身却存在合法性、合意性、有效性、可执行力以及与诉讼关系不明确等诸多问题。因此,必须有法律的明确认可与保障,才能保证ODR作为一种高效的争议解决机制,发挥其应有的作用。     

电子商务仲裁法律问题研究

电子商务的迅速发展使仲裁解决其纠纷成为必要,但和一般的民商事仲裁相比,电子商务仲裁有许多法律问题需要解决。本文即对电子商务仲裁所面临的若干法律问题,诸如电子仲裁协议的法律效力、电子商务证据效力、电子商务仲裁适用的法律等进行了深入的研究。     

Developing regulatory standards for the concept of security in online dispute resolution systems

Online dispute resolution (ODR) has improved access to justice in the digital world. ODR users benefit from faster and cheaper dispute resolution mechanisms compared to traditional litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution. There are few and quite varied regulatory systems for ODR.This research aims to develop a set of standards to measure the concept of security and to increase the consistency of security in ODR systems. An exploratory mixed method approach is used, involving a quantitative (survey) and mainly qualitative approach (face-to-face interviews) for gathering data. We identify three elements of information security, privacy, and authentication as standards for an appropriate ODR legal framework. Finally, these findings led to practical implications for policy makers and regulators.     

The use of technology in the transformation of business dispute resolution

The use of technology in dispute resolution mechanism can be viewed from two perspectives: first, as an aid in the conventional dispute resolution system, and second, as an online dispute resolution mechanism via the Internet. Online dispute resolution (ODR) is transforming the way disputes are being resolved, in particular, in business to consumer (B2C) transactions. ODR offers a more successful means of resolving e-commerce disputes. In fact, there is a new move by the Malaysian judiciary to transform its court system. Previously, the judiciary has been very conventional in its administration of justice, and the system is said to be slow and outdated. The court system in Malaysia has been frequently criticised because of its dilatoriness in resolving disputes, resulting in a large backlog of cases. To overcome these problems, the judiciary has introduced a new system called the e-court. New methods including as e-filing, electronic case management, queue management, and court recording and transcribing form the complete e-court mechanism.     

西南民族地区多元纠纷解决机制研究

在市场经济的大潮冲击下,西南民族地区社会纠纷解决机制呈现出数量繁多、机制复杂,传统解决机制作用弱化等现象。在新时期,西南少数民族地区多元纠纷解决机制的构建中,应该坚持调解组织与法院审判两大体系为中心,具体是人民调解组织必须坚持运作机制上的非国家性,纠纷解决过程和形式上要体现非司法特点;司法机关运作机制上要体现国家性,解决过程中遵循严格形式主义和法治主义;治安调解机制应采取严格的"法治"主义,即"严格的依法而为"。在传统纠纷解决机制上应正视、承认传统纠纷解决机制的补充作用,采用不同途径和机制让传统纠纷解决机制成为此地区纠纷解决有机部分。     

Smoothing Some Wrinkles in Online Dispute Resolution

This paper describes a persistent problem in online disputeresolution, namely substandard ODR presentations made by inarticulateand lesser dispute-wise disputants make the bargaining conditionsuneven. Three innovations are introduced to address the problem:the SSF design solution, expert-peer online assessment, anda formula for expert-peer assessment. The innovations buildon previous work, and have been modified to accommodate thelimitations and requirements of online dispute resolution andaddress the problem in section 1. The paper is organized infive sections. Section 1 describes the uneven condition favoringthe reputable disputants in online dispute resolution, thataffects inarticulate and disadvantaged, lesser dispute-wisedisputants. Section 2 is a review of the literature of threecommon solutions to the problem: structured argument solutions,technology-intensive solutions and design presentation solutions.The four research questions addressed at the end of Section2 are concerned only with the factors contributing to the statedproblem. Section 3 is an introduction to the SSF design solutionfor online dispute presentations to address the uneven conditionsfor less dispute-wise claimants and respondents. Section 4 introducesa method of presenting communications in online dispute resolutioncalled expert-peer online assessment, and an expert-peer formulafor evaluating online dispute presentations. Section 5 is adiscussion of the research questions introduced in section 2over the concerns expressed about ODR, and a considered reviewof the innovations in light of the literature on ODR.     

在线纠纷解决机制的困境和对策

ODR机制作为一种新生的纠纷解决方式，其在解决小额的、当事人间物理距离遥远的网络民事纠纷方面具有特别优势。而ODR机制存在着受理案件的有限性、提供救济方式的有限性、技术工具的双刃性等价值定位缺陷；存在着信任性不足、接近性难等实务利用缺陷；存在着程序被滥用、实践标准混乱等制度设计缺陷。ODR机制价值定位存在的缺陷是ODR本身所固有的，无法克服；实务利用缺陷和制度设计缺陷则可以通过相应的对策予以消减甚至消除。     

The importance of teaching dispute resolution in a twenty-first-century law school

Civil justice reviews over the past 20 years have encouraged the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and particularly mediation. Mediation is arguably now becoming more mainstream in terms of dispute resolution process choice. In some instances law changes have been introduced requiring parties in dispute to consider using mediation; similarly, lawyers have an ethical responsibility to provide advice to their clients about the range of dispute resolution processes available. What is lacking however is a corresponding appreciation of the changing attitudes to the teaching of dispute resolution in the majority of UK law schools, where the promotion of adversarialism within the curriculum appears to remain the focus as the primary and only method of dispute resolution. The article argues that this is unreflective of current attitudes and thinking towards dispute resolution in most common law countries, where litigation is no longer necessarily the primary dispute resolution process of choice. Whilst there was token appreciation of the importance of mediation advocacy and its inclusion recommended within the Bar Practice Training Course (BPTC), the recent Legal Education and Training Review was silent on any suggestions about the inclusion of dispute resolution based curriculum content at any stage of legal education in England and Wales. The article will explore the historical development of lawyers’ attitudes to dispute resolution within the civil justice arena and academics’ teaching of curriculum associated with it in UK law schools. The article will pose questions on why recent legal history suggests that law schools should now perhaps take a more socio-legal approach to their curriculum content and embrace the teaching of dispute resolution as a defined subject area for the twenty-first-century law school.     

构建中国本土化ADR制度的思考

在当代,随着社会主体在价值观和文化传统及利益冲突上的多元性,多元化纠纷解决机制的建立已经成为一个世界性的课题.各国通常把法院以外的各种非诉讼纠纷解决方式统称为替代性纠纷解决方式(ADR).ADR的研究和利用已经成为一种方兴未艾的时代潮流,并发展成为多元化纠纷解决机制的重要组成部分.当代中国的ADR与世界各国一样,处在日新月异的发展之中,同时,中国的ADR及整个纠纷解决机制还面临和经历着特殊的重构过程.西方国家成熟的ADR制度或许可以为我们提供某些技术设计层面的参考,然而,中国目前首先需要解决的问题是:我国在现阶段应用和倡导ADR制度是否合乎时宜?我们应该如何构建一个既兼顾法律文化传统又符合当今司法理念的中国化的ADR制度?将结合上述问题进行研究和探讨.     

Families in Circle Process: Restorative Justice in Family Law

This article explores the use of “circle process”—a form of restorative justice—in family law and places this effort within a larger movement within the law toward law as a healing profession, or the “comprehensive law movement.” It explores the features and underpinnings of circle process and its relationship to original forms of dispute resolution such as those used in African‐style mediation and indigenous people's dispute resolution in North America. Values expressed by these forms of dispute resolution are argued to be particularly relevant in family law. Finally, it focuses on an innovative and exciting court‐sponsored program begun in Chicago in 2008, using circle process with families in conflict, in the Cook County Parentage and Child Support Court. This program's results suggest potential benefits and cautions of using circle process in family law.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Restorative justice, in particular, circle process, can be used to resolve family law cases.
• Circle process widens the group of participants in alternative dispute resolution of family law matters.
• Circle process brings more voices to the table, namely, extended family, friends, and supporters, thus enhancing the group's decisionmaking.
• Judges will want to be sure the families in question are appropriate for circle process before referring them to this method of resolving disputes.
• Circle processes can result in improved communication and relations among families in conflict.
• Circle process reflects the values of “original dispute resolution,” which often in turn reflects ubuntu, the idea that all humankind is interconnected.
• Circle process is part of a greater movement towards law as a healing profession/the comprehensive law movement, which includes therapeutic jurisprudence.