發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-24 12:42

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 仲裁權(quán) 國(guó)際體育仲裁院 邊界　出處：《湘潭大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：隨著全球性體育運(yùn)動(dòng)的普及和發(fā)展，國(guó)際體育賽事增多，體育爭(zhēng)議與糾紛也相伴而增。國(guó)際體育仲裁院（CAS）作為體育糾紛解決的權(quán)威性和專門(mén)性機(jī)構(gòu)，發(fā)揮著日益重要的作用。本文以CAS仲裁權(quán)行使為中心，圍繞CAS本身的性質(zhì)，探討其裁決權(quán)行使的“邊界”問(wèn)題，對(duì)指導(dǎo)CAS的仲裁實(shí)踐具有一定的創(chuàng)新價(jià)值。 文章開(kāi)篇圍繞CAS本質(zhì)屬性的界定問(wèn)題，通過(guò)與傳統(tǒng)商事仲裁的比較和對(duì)CAS已判案例的剖析，得出結(jié)論：CAS是特別（準(zhǔn)司法）仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)。它一方面表明CAS仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)的本性——其權(quán)力行使有時(shí)需要借助當(dāng)事人間的合意；另一方面又強(qiáng)調(diào)了其司法化趨勢(shì)與傳統(tǒng)商事仲裁的異同。仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)的本性要求其仲裁權(quán)受到當(dāng)事人意思自治等原則的制約，司法化趨勢(shì)又要求CAS的裁決應(yīng)尊重體育組織內(nèi)部的自治。該機(jī)構(gòu)性質(zhì)的兩面性決定了界定CAS仲裁權(quán)邊界的難度。 隨后，文章從大量案例中尋求CAS仲裁實(shí)踐的軌跡。通過(guò)對(duì)案例的比較、歸納、總結(jié)，可以得出，CAS在現(xiàn)階段的仲裁實(shí)踐存在一定問(wèn)題。如外部問(wèn)題——CAS與IOC和IFS關(guān)系混亂，內(nèi)部問(wèn)題——CAS自身裁決權(quán)過(guò)分?jǐn)U張等。這些問(wèn)題表現(xiàn)在CAS的仲裁實(shí)踐中，尚未引起學(xué)界和體育界專家的廣泛關(guān)注，但這些問(wèn)題若不加以妥善解決，將阻礙CAS仲裁制度進(jìn)一步發(fā)揮應(yīng)有作用，從根本上影響體育糾紛的合理解決。 接下來(lái)，文章提出對(duì)CAS進(jìn)行機(jī)構(gòu)改革的內(nèi)在動(dòng)力——行業(yè)自治理論和外在動(dòng)力——仲裁權(quán)基本理論。它們共同說(shuō)明CAS仲裁權(quán)應(yīng)當(dāng)受到合理限制。另外，，司法束縛主義、體育特殊性等均構(gòu)成促進(jìn)CAS實(shí)現(xiàn)職能完善的強(qiáng)大力量。 最后，筆者提出了針對(duì)上述問(wèn)題的改革措施——CAS職能分化和機(jī)構(gòu)改革是解決實(shí)踐中存在問(wèn)題的必由之路。該措施包括總括性原則和具體規(guī)則兩個(gè)部分。筆者的建議是粗淺的，但希望“CAS仲裁權(quán)邊界”這一選題能得到學(xué)界相關(guān)專家的關(guān)注和重視，希望CAS在改革后能更公正、更科學(xué)、更恰當(dāng)?shù)靥幚眢w育糾紛。
[Abstract]:With the popularity and development of global sports, the number of international sports events, sports disputes and disputes are also increasing. The International Sports Arbitration Court (CAS) as an authoritative and specialized body for sports dispute resolution. This paper centers on the exercise of CAS arbitration right and discusses the "boundary" of CAS's adjudication power around the nature of CAS itself. It has certain innovation value to guide the arbitration practice of CAS. At the beginning of the article, the author focuses on the definition of the essential attribute of CAS, through the comparison with the traditional commercial arbitration and the analysis of the cases that have been decided by CAS. It is concluded that: cas is a special (quasi-judicial) arbitration institution. On the one hand, it shows the nature of the CAS arbitration institution-its power sometimes needs to be exercised by the agreement of the parties; On the other hand, it emphasizes the similarities and differences between the judicial trend and the traditional commercial arbitration. The nature of the arbitration institution requires its arbitration right to be restricted by the principle of party autonomy. The trend of judicature also requires that the ruling of CAS should respect the autonomy within the sports organization. The dual character of the organization determines the difficulty of defining the boundary of the arbitration right of CAS. Subsequently, the article from a large number of cases to seek the track of CAS arbitration practice. Through the comparison of cases, induction, summary, can be drawn. There are some problems in the arbitration practice of CAS at the present stage, such as external problems, such as the confusion of the relationship between IOC and IFS. The internal problems, such as the excessive expansion of the adjudication power of CAS itself, have not yet aroused the extensive attention of scholars and sports experts, but these problems have not been properly resolved. Will hinder the CAS arbitration system further play its due role, fundamentally affect the reasonable settlement of sports disputes. Next. In this paper, the author puts forward the theory of industry autonomy and the basic theory of extrinsic power- arbitration right, which show that the CAS arbitration right should be restricted reasonably. Judicial bondage doctrine, sports particularity and so on all constitute the powerful force to promote the CAS to realize the function consummation. Finally. The author puts forward the reform measures to solve the above problems-CAS function differentiation and institutional reform are the only way to solve the existing problems in practice. This measure includes two parts: the omnibus principle and the concrete rules. The discussion is superficial. However, it is hoped that the topic of "the boundary of CAS arbitration right" will be paid attention to by relevant experts in academic circles, and that CAS can deal with sports disputes more fairly, scientifically and appropriately after the reform.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 宋軍生;論強(qiáng)制性體育仲裁中的法律沖突[J];北京體育大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2004年11期

2 黃世席;仲裁解決體育爭(zhēng)議初探[J];北京體育大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2004年12期

3 孫麗巖;;體育自治組織參與行政管理的可行性探討[J];北京體育大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2007年03期

4 郭樹(shù)理;論司法對(duì)體育行會(huì)內(nèi)部糾紛的干預(yù)[J];北京市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年03期

5 黃世席;;國(guó)際體育仲裁中的管轄權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年04期

6 叢雪蓮;羅楚湘;;仲裁訴訟化若干問(wèn)題探討[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2007年06期

7 湯衛(wèi)東,沈建華;論體育仲裁協(xié)議的強(qiáng)制性特征[J];法學(xué);2004年11期

8 郭樹(shù)理;王蓉;;奧運(yùn)會(huì)體育仲裁中的臨時(shí)措施探討[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

9 姜世波;;當(dāng)代商人習(xí)慣法理論的發(fā)展述評(píng)[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2011年02期

10 張浩;論綠色體育的和諧性內(nèi)涵[J];解放軍體育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張成元;法治觀念下的體育行業(yè)自治研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 陳江峰;國(guó)際奧委會(huì)的法律性質(zhì)及運(yùn)作規(guī)則初探[D];外交學(xué)院;2004年

2 夏驕陽(yáng);國(guó)際奧委會(huì)與國(guó)家?jiàn)W委會(huì)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2008年

3 李倩;CAS國(guó)際體育仲裁機(jī)制的司法化趨勢(shì)研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：1460070