The court of arbitration for sport: Law-making and the question of independence
The court of arbitration for sport: Law-making and the question of independence
复制标题
体育仲裁法院：立法和独立性问题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Antanas Vaitiekūnas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Antanas Vaitiekūnas
CAS 由国际奥委会于 1983 年成立，现已成为世界领先的体育仲裁法庭。许多评论家声称，CAS 正在制定自己的判例，即“体育法”。然而，CAS 判例的性质仍存在争议。对一些人来说，CAS 的体育法是一个自治的全球法律秩序，而另一些人则不同程度地对此提出质疑。独立性是立法者的标志。本书批判性地审视了 CAS 是否具有足够的独立性，使其判例被视为法律。首先，本书根据司法独立标准评估了 CAS 的独立性。可以说，CAS 的独立性标准越接近适用于司法部门的标准，CAS 的体育法构成法律的主张就越有说服力。该书提议进行改革，使 CAS 完全独立于奥林匹克运动，并允许 CAS 被承认为合法的立法机构。其次，本书探讨了 CAS 独立于州法律的情况，以及 CAS 是否拥有最终决策权。这是参考瑞士法律、纽约公约和欧盟法律进行的。该书表明，尽管CAS在裁决争议时在很大程度上独立于国家法律，但其独立性并不是无限的。国家公共政策以及欧盟竞争和迁徙自由法是限制 CAS 独立性以及 CAS 最终权威的关键领域。
Established in 1983 by the International Olympic Committee, CAS has become the world's leading sports arbitration tribunal. A number of commentators claim that CAS is developing its own jurisprudence, a 'lex sportiva'. However, the nature of CAS's jurisprudence is a source of debate. For some, CAS's lex sportiva is an autonomous global legal order, while others dispute this to varying degrees. Independence is a hallmark of a law-maker. This book critically examines whether CAS has sufficient independence for its jurisprudence to be regarded as law. First, the book assesses CAS's independence as against judicial standards of independence. Arguably, the closer CAS's standards of independence are to those that apply to the judiciary, the stronger may be the claim that CAS's lex sportiva constitutes law. The book proposes reforms to give CAS complete independence from the Olympic Movement and to allow CAS to be recognised as a legitimate law-making body. Second, the book examines CAS's independence from state law and whether CAS exercises final authority in its decision-making. This is done with reference to Swiss law, the New York Convention and EU law. The book shows that, although CAS has a large measure of independence from national laws in determining disputes, its independence is not unlimited. State public policy and EU competition and freedom of movement laws are key areas limiting CAS's independence and hence CAS's final authority.