州法院和私人法庭之间的竞争

Horst Eidenmueller
{"title":"州法院和私人法庭之间的竞争","authors":"Horst Eidenmueller","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3534025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, I investigate the competition between state courts and private tribunals for dispute resolution. I distinguish between different market segments: B2B and B2C transactions and, in each case, small-, medium- and high-stakes disputes. The analysis is informed by a survey of the dispute resolution preferences of “case placers” carried out in 2015. I find that competition between state courts and arbitral tribunals is currently most intense with respect to high-stakes B2B disputes. A significant portion of the total dispute resolution volume in this market segment goes to arbitration. If parties decide to arbitrate, they do so primarily because of the effective international enforceability of an award, the autonomy to choose competent and neutral arbitrators and the confidentiality of the proceedings. Speed and costs of the proceedings are much less relevant. Commercial arbitrations are usually administered by an arbitral institution. The choice of institution is primarily influenced by its reputation as a professional case manager and by prior positive experiences of the parties. I argue that access to arbitration should be made easier with respect to B2C small- and medium-stakes disputes. The trend in the European Union of promoting conciliation/mediation for the resolution of these disputes should be reversed. Arbitration is less “dangerous” for consumers because it is a legal process governed by fundamental due process guarantees. By contrast, conciliations/mediations are not subject to these guarantees, and they are not well suited for the enforcement of mandatory consumer rights. No compelling case can be made to increase access of businesses to arbitration in medium-stakes B2B disputes. Arbitral institutions have high-powered incentives to design new and efficient procedures for these types of disputes. Technological innovations will reinforce the trend towards privatizing dispute resolution. This poses unique regulatory challenges for the protection of weaker parties, especially consumers.","PeriodicalId":149361,"journal":{"name":"Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag am 23.10.2020","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competition between State Courts and Private Tribunals\",\"authors\":\"Horst Eidenmueller\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3534025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this essay, I investigate the competition between state courts and private tribunals for dispute resolution. I distinguish between different market segments: B2B and B2C transactions and, in each case, small-, medium- and high-stakes disputes. The analysis is informed by a survey of the dispute resolution preferences of “case placers” carried out in 2015. I find that competition between state courts and arbitral tribunals is currently most intense with respect to high-stakes B2B disputes. A significant portion of the total dispute resolution volume in this market segment goes to arbitration. If parties decide to arbitrate, they do so primarily because of the effective international enforceability of an award, the autonomy to choose competent and neutral arbitrators and the confidentiality of the proceedings. Speed and costs of the proceedings are much less relevant. Commercial arbitrations are usually administered by an arbitral institution. The choice of institution is primarily influenced by its reputation as a professional case manager and by prior positive experiences of the parties. I argue that access to arbitration should be made easier with respect to B2C small- and medium-stakes disputes. The trend in the European Union of promoting conciliation/mediation for the resolution of these disputes should be reversed. Arbitration is less “dangerous” for consumers because it is a legal process governed by fundamental due process guarantees. By contrast, conciliations/mediations are not subject to these guarantees, and they are not well suited for the enforcement of mandatory consumer rights. No compelling case can be made to increase access of businesses to arbitration in medium-stakes B2B disputes. Arbitral institutions have high-powered incentives to design new and efficient procedures for these types of disputes. Technological innovations will reinforce the trend towards privatizing dispute resolution. This poses unique regulatory challenges for the protection of weaker parties, especially consumers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":149361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag am 23.10.2020\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag am 23.10.2020\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3534025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Festschrift für Roderich C. Thümmel zum 65. Geburtstag am 23.10.2020","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3534025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我调查了州法院和私人法庭在纠纷解决方面的竞争。我区分了不同的细分市场:B2B和B2C交易,以及每种情况下的小、中、高风险纠纷。该分析的依据是2015年对“案件调解人”的争议解决偏好进行的调查。我发现,就高风险的B2B纠纷而言,州法院和仲裁庭之间的竞争目前最为激烈。在这一细分市场中,争议解决总量的很大一部分是通过仲裁解决的。如果当事方决定进行仲裁,他们这样做的主要原因是裁决具有有效的国际可执行性,可以自主选择有能力和中立的仲裁员,以及诉讼程序的保密性。诉讼的速度和费用就不那么重要了。商事仲裁通常由仲裁机构管理。机构的选择主要受其作为专业案例管理机构的声誉以及各方之前的积极经验的影响。我认为,在B2C中小利害关系纠纷方面,应该更容易获得仲裁。欧洲联盟促进和解/调解以解决这些争端的趋势应予扭转。仲裁对消费者来说不那么“危险”,因为它是一个受基本正当程序保证支配的法律程序。相比之下,和解/调解不受这些保证的约束,它们不太适合强制执行消费者权利。没有令人信服的案例可以增加企业在中等利害关系的B2B纠纷中获得仲裁的机会。仲裁机构有很强的动机为这类争端设计新的和有效的程序。技术革新将加强解决争端私有化的趋势。这给保护弱势方(尤其是消费者)带来了独特的监管挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Competition between State Courts and Private Tribunals
In this essay, I investigate the competition between state courts and private tribunals for dispute resolution. I distinguish between different market segments: B2B and B2C transactions and, in each case, small-, medium- and high-stakes disputes. The analysis is informed by a survey of the dispute resolution preferences of “case placers” carried out in 2015. I find that competition between state courts and arbitral tribunals is currently most intense with respect to high-stakes B2B disputes. A significant portion of the total dispute resolution volume in this market segment goes to arbitration. If parties decide to arbitrate, they do so primarily because of the effective international enforceability of an award, the autonomy to choose competent and neutral arbitrators and the confidentiality of the proceedings. Speed and costs of the proceedings are much less relevant. Commercial arbitrations are usually administered by an arbitral institution. The choice of institution is primarily influenced by its reputation as a professional case manager and by prior positive experiences of the parties. I argue that access to arbitration should be made easier with respect to B2C small- and medium-stakes disputes. The trend in the European Union of promoting conciliation/mediation for the resolution of these disputes should be reversed. Arbitration is less “dangerous” for consumers because it is a legal process governed by fundamental due process guarantees. By contrast, conciliations/mediations are not subject to these guarantees, and they are not well suited for the enforcement of mandatory consumer rights. No compelling case can be made to increase access of businesses to arbitration in medium-stakes B2B disputes. Arbitral institutions have high-powered incentives to design new and efficient procedures for these types of disputes. Technological innovations will reinforce the trend towards privatizing dispute resolution. This poses unique regulatory challenges for the protection of weaker parties, especially consumers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Can a Non-signatory to an International Arbitration Agreement to Which German Law Applies Be Compelled to Arbitrate Under United States Law Der Arme Konrad, das Württembergische Hofgericht zu Tübingen und die Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit The Rise of International Commercial Courts – A Threat to Arbitration? Das Haager Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommen von 2019 und die internationale Anerkennungszuständigkeit Schiedsklauseln in gesellschaftsrechtlichen Auseinandersetzungen nach „Schiedsfähigkeit II“ und „Schiedsfähigkeit III“
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1