在引入美国式集团诉讼的时机到来之前,面临迫切的投资者保护和救济问题,中国大陆证券市场急需发展群体性纠纷的多元化处理机制。从比较法角度考察美国之外各市场针对欺诈行为的民事诉讼和争议仲裁模式,发现德国的证券投资者示范诉讼和我国台湾地区以非营利组织主导的证券团体诉讼较为可取,英国、加拿大及韩国所采取的集体诉讼机制,虽然解决了美国式制度中的滥诉风险,却同时使得投资者诉讼在现实中活力不足,其经验教训值得关注。比较而言,合并仲裁和集团仲裁面临着理论和实践方面的现实困难,不易发展成为解决大规模证券群体争议的重要模式。 Before the advent of the U.S.-style group litigation, the urgent need for investor protection and relief is urgently needed in mainland China’s securities market to develop a diversified handling mechanism for mass disputes. From the perspective of comparative law, this paper examines the civil litigation and dispute arbitration models of fraud in various markets outside the United States and finds that it is preferable for the German securities investors demonstration litigation and the non-profit-dominated securities group litigation in Taiwan of China. Britain, Canada and South Korea Although the collective litigation mechanism adopted has solved the risk of abuse of appetite in the U.S.-style system, at the same time, the litigation of investors has become less active in reality and its lessons are worth noting. In comparison, merger arbitration and group arbitration face practical difficulties both theoretically and practically, and are not easy to develop into an important mode to solve the disputes over large-scale securities colony.