線上仲裁程序的程序公平性問題--以線上消費仲裁為例

Abstract Procedural fairness is a prerequisite in online arbitral proceedings. The principle of procedural fairness is derived from the notion of natural justice and the doctrine of due process of law. To satisfy procedural fairness the following elements should be implemented in online arbitration: the impartiality and independence of the arbitrators, reasonable notice of the process, the right to present evidence, access to relevant information, the right to a hearing, and transparency of the process. With regard to the impartiality and independence of the arbitrators, disclosure and challenge procedures must be available to the parties. These procedures are stipulated intensively under most national legislations, including the Taiwanese Arbitration Act. The parties' right to present their case could be assisted with the use of various online communication tools. The conducting of discovery, hearing and evidence presentation over the Internet are practicable and should be allowed on the basis of reasonable procedural cost. As online arbitration is still in its infancy, under certain jurisdictions, such as Taiwan, where there is neither arbitration provision nor arbitral rule concerning the conducting of online arbitration, the actual implementation of procedural fairness might raise doubt. The provision of legal assistance in online arbitral proceedings is crucial as some disputants' ability to invoke certain procedures may be undermined due to their lack of legal expertise. Pro bono services, procedural guidelines and instructions can help mitigate this disadvantage. In Taiwan, for example, pro bono services provided by various bar associations, arbitration institutions, and legal clinics of the law schools can be helpful.The implementation of procedural fairness is primarily self-regulating. The actual implementation of these procedural standards must be supervised. Internal self-monitoring and external government supervision are not satisfactory. An external supervisory body comprised of relevant stake-holders could be a competent entity to develop further procedural standards and monitor the implementation of such standards.