中文体育类核心期刊

中国人文社会科学期刊AMI综合评价(A刊)核心期刊

《中文社会科学引文索引》(CSSCI)来源期刊

美国《剑桥科学文摘》(CSA)收录期刊

中国高校百佳科技期刊

国际体育仲裁院先例制度的构建与中国镜鉴

Construction of the Precedential System in the Court of Arbitration for Sport and China's Reference

  • 摘要: 国际体育仲裁院(CAS)在仲裁中持续援引先例却并未承认先例的地位,这一矛盾立场导致援引先例缺乏统一标准及类案裁决结果不一,使后续仲裁与运动员理解规则陷入困境。从理论角度探索CAS先例制度的构建:①宏观层面的依据包括全球体育法理论及体育仲裁的准司法性理论。②微观层面的构成要件可以分为实质要素与规范要素,前者包含判断标准与判断方法,后者包含裁决要点与裁决理由。此外,还需相应的配套制度作为制约机制保障先例制度在适用中具备灵活性。CAS先例制度的运作并不要求仲裁庭必须援引先例,而是致力于以独特的形式增强案件仲裁过程与结果的公平公正。CAS先例制度的构建能够为中国体育仲裁委员会在制度和实践方面提供参考,并且为中国仲裁当事方在维权能力提升和证据准备方面带来启示。

     

    Abstract: The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has continuously used precedents in arbitration, but it never recognizes the status of precedents. This contradictory position has led to the lack of unified standards for using precedents and the differences in the results of similar cases, which has made it difficult for subsequent arbitration and athletes to understand the rules. Therefore, this study tries to construct the CAS precedential system from a two-level theoretical perspective. One is the macro level, including the theory of the Lex Sportiva and the quasi-judicial nature of sports arbitration. The second is the micro level, that is, the constituent elements of the system, which can be divided into substantive elements and normative elements: the former contains judgment standards and methods, while the latter contains ruling points and reasons. In addition, there are corresponding supporting systems as a restrictive mechanism to ensure the flexibility of the precedential system in the application. The operation of the CAS precedential system does not require the arbitration tribunal to use precedents, but is committed to enhancing the fairness and justice of the arbitration process and results in a unique form. In addition, the construction of the CAS precedent system can provide reference for the China Commission of Arbitration for Sport in terms of system and practice, and provide inspiration for the arbitration parties in China in improving their rights protection ability and preparing evidence.

     

/

返回文章
返回