法律英语第五部分分工合作

徐建英：C.GettingtheBenefitsofBothSystemsAsnotedabove,theU.S.approachtopartyautonomyandconsumerprotectionincross-bordertransactionsweighsinfavorofenforcingchoiceofforumandchoiceoflawprovisions,evenwhenthoseprovisionsareunilaterallydictatedbythestrongerpartyintherelationship.TheEUapproach,ontheotherhand,assumesthatallrelationshipsinwhichthereisaweakerparty(especiallyconsumercontracts)willresultinunconscionableconductbythestrongerpartyindictatingbothchoiceofforumandchoiceoflaw.TheresultinEuropeisatendencytowardscompleteprohibitionofpre-disputeagreementonchoiceofforum.70Theproblemwithacompleteprohibitiononpre-disputeagreementstoachoiceofforum,andparticularlyaprohibitiononpre-disputeagreementtoarbitrationattheconclusionoftheODRprocessbeingconsideredinUNCITRALWorkingGroupIII,isthat,whileitmayprotectconsumersfromhavingbaddisputeresolutionmechanismsimposedonthem,italsopreventsconsumersfromenteringintoagreementstogotogooddisputeresolutionmechanisms.TheentirepurposeoftheUNCITRALODRprojectistocreateagooddisputeresolutionmechanism.Moreover,itistocreateagooddisputeresolutionmechanismwherenonecurrentlyexistsasapracticalmatter.Ifthesameprocessresultsintheapplicationofrulesthatpreventparties,particularlyconsumers,fromusingthesystembeingcreated,itwillbeafailure.71Itmustbenotedthat,whiletheBrusselsIRegulationeffectivelyprovidessucha70prohibitioninthecontextofchoiceofcourt,theNewYorkConvention,towhichallEUMemberStatesareparties,doesnotprovidesuchaprohibitioninthecontextofarbitration.TheEuropeanCourtofJusticehas,however,appliedtheEuropeanConsumerProtectionDirectivetosupportnationalprohibitionsofpre-disputearbitrationagreementsinconsumercontractsonacase-by-casebasis.万文凯：SeesupraPartIII.B.5.ThereisinconsumerprotectioncirclesthebeliefthatprovisionssuchasArticle6ofthe71EuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)requiresthatcertainparties,particularlyconsumers,alwayshaveaccesstotheirownnationalcourts,thuspreventinguseofeffectivealternativedisputeresolution.Article6providesthat“[i]nthedeterminationofhiscivilrightsandobligationsorofanycriminalchargeagainsthim,everyoneisentitledtoafairandpublichearingwithinareasonabletimebyanindependentandimpartialtribunalestablishedbylaw.”ItisbothnonsenseandcontradictorytobeginanUNCITRALprojectwiththefoundationalassumptionthat,forlow-valuehigh-volumeonlinetransactions,accesstocourtsisnotaccesstojustice(whichisthebasicassumptionunderlyingtheentirenegotiations),andthentoblockanyprogresstowardsrealjusticebyinsertingrulesthatrequirethatcertainparties(consumersinparticular)alwaysretainaccesstotheirhomecourts.IfprovisionslikeArticle6oftheECHR26Itisnotenoughtosaythatconsumersshouldhaveanoptiontousethedisputeresolutionsystem,whilemerchantsshouldbeboundtouseit.Thatremovesnoneoftheunpredictabilityandriskcurrentlyfacedbymerchants.Theresponsetothattypeofriskbymerchants,particularlyinEurope,hasbeeneithertoraisepricesortooptoutofcross-bordertransactionsaltogether.Thatdoesnothelpconsumers.72Bycreatingafairsystem,andatthesametimemakingitself-containedsothattherecanbenoreferencetonationalorregionalrulesthatwillpreventitseffectiveuse,UNCITRALWorkingGroupIIIcangetthebestofboththecurrentU.S.approachandthecurrentEUapproach,whileavoidingthedisadvantagesofeitherofthem.Suchasystemcanreducetheriskofmultiple-forumandmultiple-lawlitigationformerchants,thusenticingthemtoparticipateincross-borderonlinecommerce.Atthesametime,theresultshouldbelowerpricesandgreaterproductandserviceavailabilityforallbuyers,includingconsumers.Itwillalsomeanthat,whenadisputearises,thebuyer/consumerisfullyprotectedbyhavingasimple,efficient,effective,transparent,andfairsystemfortheresolutionofthatdispute–asystemthatcanresultinanenforceable,bindingresult.洪叶子：Inotherwords,whereaccesstocourtshasnotprovidedaccesstojustice,theUNCITRALsystemcanproviderealaccesstojustice.Itmaybethatunlimited“respect”forpartyautonomyrunstheriskofimpositionofunfairchoiceofforumbythestrongerpartyontheweakerpartytoatransaction.Thelogicalresponsetothisriskisnot,however,toprohibitallpre-disputechoiceofforumagreements.Acompleteprohibitionislikerespondingtothefactthatsomeconsumersgetcheatedwhentheybuyausedcarbyprohibitingallconsumersfrombuyingusedcars.Sucharulewillpreventallowingaconsumertobecheatedwithabadusedcardeal,butitwillalsopreventaconsumerfrommakingagooddealonausedcar.Weshouldnotbecreatingagoodsystemfordisputeresolutionwhiledenyingtheclassofpersonswhocanmostbenefitfromittherighttouseit.Thepossibilityexistsforgivingallpartiesbothpredictabilityatthetransactionstageandaneffectiveforumatthedisputesettlementstage.Thiswillremovetheriskofuncertaintycreatedbythepotentialformultiple-forumandmultiple-lawlitigationforthemerchant,and,asaresult,shouldmakeproductsandservicesbothmoreavailableandlowerpricedfortheconsumer.Becausemostonlinetransactionsareaccomplishedwithup-frontpaymentmechanisms,itwillalsoprovideconsumers/buyerswithaneffectiveremedywherenonenowexistsatthedisputesettlementstage.Itcanonlyhappen,however,iftheissueofpartyautonomyisproperlyaddressedandifthesystemcanbedesignedtopreventtheappl