电商在线纠纷解决中的执行问题研究
Research on Enforcement Issues in Online Dispute Resolution for E-Commerce
DOI: 10.12677/ds.2025.112059, PDF,   
作者: 庞怡楠:青岛大学法学院,山东 青岛
关键词: 在线纠纷电子商务执行ODROnline Disputes E-Commerce Enforcement ODR
摘要: 在线纠纷解决机制(ODR)作为顺应数字时代需求的新业态,协同性、多样性、高效率是其显著优势。但不可否认的是,追求效率的过程中势必会使得程序正义受到一定程度的减损,也正因此,电子商务平台内置的在线调解、在线和解对双方当事人基本没有约束力,故而,执行问题仍然是亟待解决的问题,如果得不到及时地解决,可能会成为制约ODR发展的瓶颈。当前,私力执行主要通过信誉体系与支付系统运作,但其中也存在着自律机制作用有限、执行结果不到位、平台本身的公正性等问题。究其原因,大致可以分为非司法ODR裁决无法强制执行、当事人信任度不高、执行方式单一、缺乏对平台的有效监管这四种。因此,本文将促进行业自律与平台治理相结合作为总体的优化路径,针对性地提出建议,包括更新各种自律机制、推进司法确认制度、协调自我规制与外部监管,以期构建更为合理、有序的执行体系。
Abstract: As a new business form that meets the demands of the digital age, the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) mechanism is characterized by its synergy, diversity, and high efficiency. However, it is undeniable that the pursuit of efficiency will inevitably lead to a certain degree of reduction in procedural justice. For this reason, the online mediation and settlement built into e-commerce platforms have little binding force on both parties. Therefore, the issue of enforcement remains an urgent problem that needs to be solved. If not addressed promptly, it may become a bottleneck restricting the development of ODR. Currently, private enforcement mainly operates through the credit system and payment system, but there are also problems such as the limited role of self-regulatory mechanisms, inadequate enforcement results, and the fairness of the platform itself. The reasons for this can be roughly divided into four categories: non-judicial ODR decisions cannot be enforced, low trust among parties, single enforcement methods, and the lack of effective supervision over the platform. Therefore, this article takes promoting industry self-discipline and platform governance as the overall optimization path and puts forward targeted suggestions, including updating various self-regulatory mechanisms, promoting the judicial confirmation system, and coordinating self-regulation and external supervision, in order to build a more reasonable and orderly enforcement system.
文章引用:庞怡楠. 电商在线纠纷解决中的执行问题研究[J]. 争议解决, 2025, 11(2): 168-176. https://doi.org/10.12677/ds.2025.112059

参考文献

[1] 第53次《中国互联网络发展状况统计报告》[EB/OL].
https://www.cnnic.cn/n4/2024/0322/c88-10964.html, 2024-08-01.
[2] 新华网. 海淘催生新纠纷 广州互联网法院发布网购审判白皮书[EB/OL].
https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2020/03/id/4848759.shtml, 2024-09-10.
[3] 马晟誉. 我国互联网仲裁发展之困境解决机制探究——以电子商务纠纷裁决执行为视角[J]. 法制与社会, 2020(28): 134-135.
[4] 郑世保. ODR裁决书强制执行机制研究[J]. 法学评论, 2014, 32(3): 164-166.
[5] 周翔. 描述与解释: 淘宝纠纷解决机制——ODR的中国经验观察[J]. 上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, 29(4): 98-100.
[6] 吴如巧, 杨志弘, 林静. “一带一路”视野下ODR机制的新发展[J]. 青海民族研究, 2018, 29(2): 96-99.
[7] 魏婷婷. 跨境电商纠纷解决机制的优化与创新[J]. 人民论坛, 2020(15): 180-181.
[8] 王玉薇, 王田. 网络平台权力的异化风险与规制方案[J]. 哈尔滨师范大学社会科学学报, 2023, 14(5): 60-64.
[9] 高薇. 弱者的武器: 网络呼吁机制的法与经济学分析[J]. 政法论坛, 2020, 38(3): 84-87.
[10] 郑世保. 在线解决纠纷机制(ODR)研究[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2012: 201-218.
[11] [美]伊森∙凯什, [以色列]奥娜∙拉比诺维奇∙艾尼. 数字正义: 当纠纷解决遇见互联网科技[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2019: 45-50.
[12] 谢鹏远. 在线纠纷解决的信任机制[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报) , 2022, 40(2): 181-185.
[13] 肖红军, 阳镇, 商慧辰. 平台监管的多重困境与范式转型[J]. 中国人民大学学报, 2022, 36(4): 24-39.
[14] 于浩, 蒋云凤. 通向“数字正义”的路径探索——线上纠纷解决机制(ODR)的构建与完善[J]. 辽宁公安司法管理干部学院学报, 2023(5): 36-42.
[15] 胡晓霞. 我国在线纠纷解决机制发展的现实困境与未来出路[J]. 法学论坛, 2017, 32(3): 100-104.
[16] 徐静婷. 众包型在线争议解决的制度解析[J]. 时代法学, 2022, 20(6): 56-57.
[17] 韩烜尧. 我国非司法ODR的适用与完善——以闲鱼小法庭为例[J]. 北京工商大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 35(5): 119-122.
[18] 刘宇琪, 秦宗文. 平台内部纠纷解决机制的信任危机与路径优化——以ChatGPT时代为背景[J]. 理论探讨, 2023(4): 157-162.
[19] 黄文艺, 孙喆玥. 论互联网平台治理的元规制进路[J]. 法学评论, 2024, 42(4): 111-114.
[20] 徐骁琦. 我国网络购物在线纠纷解决机制探究[J]. 中北大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 38(1): 68-69.
[21] Rikken, O., Janssen, M. and Kwee, Z. (2019) Governance Challenges of Blockchain and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations. Information Polity, 24, 397-417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef