• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권1호
• /
• pp.159-179
• /
• 2014

Currently disputes related to sports arise in various ways. Moreover, as the awareness of the rights of the people in the field of sports grows the chances of disputes occurring increases. Therefore, the number of sports disputes which will be dealt with by courts will increase. On the other hand, there are demands for fast and efficient legal resolutions for diverse sports disputes. However, as a dispute resolution system, the current domestic arbitration for sports disputes exposed several problems: the lack of professional arbitrators for sports disputes, procedural elements of delay, and the lack of promotion of the arbitration system. This study will first analyze the system for the resolution of domestic sports disputes. Then this study will review of the system for the resolution of international sports disputes and propose the establishment of an arbitration system for the resolution of domestic sports disputes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.43-75
• /
• 2018

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was created to focus on the procedural complexity in the resolution of sports-related disputes, confidentiality, the matter of expenses, and the necessity of prompt settlement in the field of international sports. The CAS had originally launched as one of bodies of International Olympic Committee (IOC), but later it became properly operational as an independent organization to facilitate sports-related disputes when the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which came into force in accordance with the Paris Agreement in 1984 and has acted in place of IOC, took responsibility for the administration and financing of the CAS. The CAS is composed of four divisions, the Ordinary Arbitration Division and the Appeals Arbitration Division, the Ad hoc Division created later in 1996 and the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) established as from 2016 only to conduct proceedings and to issue decisions on an alleged anti-doping rule violation, and two (Sydney and New York) permanent decentralized offices. The head office of the CAS is Lausanne, Switzerland. Since CAS ADD was established, CAS Ad hoc Division has had jurisdiction over the appeal case against a decision pronounced by the IOC, an NOC, an international Federation or an Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games. Although there are so many virtues of CAS as a resolution authority for sports-related disputes in terms of its organization, arbitration rules and procedures, it is also true that the CAS has not been showing the consistency. The CAS should overcome these issues through much more advanced system and its instant and fair decisions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2016

There is a need for disputes in sports to be settled by arbitration rather than a court ruling, taking the unique characteristics of sports into consideration. Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). A dispute resolution system is regarded as: an arbitrator is selected by the agreement between the parties, and a binding decision is made, which the parties obey, consequently resulting in a final resolution. To resolve a dispute upon arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement upon the free will of the parties. In relation to the arbitration agreement, however, there are some cases in which sports organizations have an arbitration clause in the articles of association, regulations or player registration application that call for settling disputes by arbitration. In such cases, the validity of the arbitration agreement may create doubt whether or not this sort of arbitration has been made by mutual agreement. Consequently this is required to be legally examined. The activities of a sports organization are recognized as part of private autonomy, and they include even the rights that establish regulations or rules. Nonetheless, the powers that such sport organizations are able to establish are not allowed without limit. However, sports activities and autonomy shall be protected as themselves. Therefore, if we give priority to arbitration upon the independent arbitrator and fair process by establishing an independent arbitral organization in charge of sports disputes to handle the effective resolution of disputes and protect sports autonomy and ask for a court decision if one party disobeys the arbitration, or the sports arbitration prepositive principle, it seems helpful to resolve the unfairness of compulsory jurisdiction and the clause for sports arbitration and protect the player's right of choice and of claims for trial.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• pp.77-97
• /
• 2018

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been adjudicating on sports-related disputes since 1984. CAS can be regarded as world supreme court for sports settling down about 4200 cases including doping issues. Doping disputes are generally processed by CAS Appeals division and Anti-Doping Division. An appeal against the decision by sports-related bodies may be filed with CAS Appeals Division. Doping issues concerning Olympic games are on Anti-Doping Division, introduced from 2016 Olympic games and invested with complete authority by IOC. The Award of Maria Sharapova finds a player is responsible if found to have committed any Anti-Doping Rule Violation regardless of his/her intention or fault. It offers detailed jurisprudence on imposing such a specific period of ineligibility in view of the totality of the circumstances. The award of Xinyi Chen also confirms the Strict Liability Rule on anti-doping disputes. The player appealed there could be either accidental contamination of drinks, or doping laboratories' mistakes that affected the test results. But, all of them were rejected. Though dealing with doping disputes in a timely manner is important for seasonal sports events like Olympic games, it is necessary to prepare the acceptable and fair process for the players in the future.