本文選題：里約奧運會 + 體育仲裁　； 參考：《湘潭大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：第31屆奧運會在里約熱內盧成功舉辦,奧運會舉辦期間國際體育仲裁院在里約熱內盧設立了臨時仲裁機構。作為奧運會期間體育爭議的解決機構,臨時仲裁機構在往屆奧運會專指特別仲裁庭。但是在里約奧運會,臨時仲裁機構的內容得以豐富,不僅包括特別仲裁庭,還包括反興奮劑仲裁庭。兩個仲裁庭共同負責解決奧運會期間產生的體育糾紛。反興奮劑仲裁庭作為新設立的體育糾紛解決機構,其適用的規(guī)則為《反興奮劑仲裁庭仲裁規(guī)則》,該仲裁規(guī)則為國際體育仲裁理事會專門制定,與特別仲裁庭的仲裁規(guī)則既一脈相承又各具特點。在里約奧運會期間兩個仲裁庭共審理仲裁案件36起,反興奮劑仲裁庭審理案件8起,特別仲裁庭審理案件28起。特別仲裁庭審理的案件中,參賽資格案件23起,興奮劑案件2起,比賽裁判結果案件2起和紀律案件1起。反興奮劑仲裁庭審理的案件中,興奮劑案件7起,參賽資格案件1起,其中審理的參賽資格案件被裁決無管轄權。兩個仲裁庭在案件的管轄權上存在明顯的區(qū)別。反興奮劑仲裁庭對案件的管轄有更多的限制,必須是興奮劑案件,由國際奧委會宣布存在違反反興奮劑規(guī)則的行為并由其作為申請人提起仲裁,反興奮劑仲裁庭才對案件擁有管轄權。而特別仲裁庭審理的案件只要是奧運會期間或與奧運會有關的爭議均擁有管轄權。里約奧運會的體育仲裁實踐有值得肯定的一面,如:遵循了以往的裁判規(guī)則、設立了新的反興奮劑仲裁機構,也反映出了目前奧運會體育仲裁所存在的問題,如:案件受理審查的缺陷、案件移送管轄法律規(guī)定的缺失。通過對里約奧運會體育仲裁案件的整體思考,得出對運動員、國際單項體育組織,我國國家奧委會的啟示。
[Abstract]:The 31 st Olympic Games were successfully held in Rio de Janeiro. During the Olympic Games, the International Court of Sports Arbitration set up an interim arbitration institution in Rio de Janeiro. As the sports dispute settlement organization during the Olympic Games, the ad hoc arbitration institution referred to the special arbitration tribunal in the past Olympic Games. But at the Rio Olympics, the ad hoc arbitration body was enriched, including not only the ad hoc tribunal, but also the anti-doping tribunal. The two arbitral tribunals are jointly responsible for resolving sports disputes arising during the Olympic Games. As a newly established sports dispute settlement body, the rules applicable by the Anti-Doping Arbitration Tribunal are the Arbitration rules of the Anti-Doping Arbitration Tribunal, which are specially formulated by the International Sports Arbitration Council, And the arbitration rules of the special arbitration tribunal are in the same line and have their own characteristics. During the Rio Olympics, the two arbitral tribunals heard 36 arbitration cases, the anti-doping tribunal heard 8 cases, and the special tribunal heard 28 cases. Among the cases heard by the Special Arbitration Tribunal, there were 23 cases of eligibility, 2 cases of doping, 2 cases of results of competition decisions and 1 case of discipline. Among the cases heard by the Anti-Doping Arbitration Tribunal, there were seven cases of doping and one case of eligibility for participation, in which the cases heard were ruled without jurisdiction. There is a clear difference between the two arbitral tribunals in the jurisdiction of the case. The anti-doping tribunal has more restrictions on the jurisdiction of the case. It must be a doping case. The IOC declares the violation of the anti-doping rules and initiates the arbitration as an applicant. The anti-doping tribunal has jurisdiction over the case. The ad hoc tribunal has jurisdiction as long as it is during or related to the Olympic Games. The practice of sports arbitration in Rio Olympic Games has some positive aspects, such as following the previous rules and setting up a new anti-doping arbitration institution, which also reflects the problems existing in the Olympic sports arbitration at present. Such as: the defects of the case acceptance review, the absence of the law on the transfer of the case to jurisdiction. Through the overall consideration of the arbitration cases of the Rio Olympic Games, the enlightenment to athletes, international individual sports organizations and the National Olympic Committee of China is obtained.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.7

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前8條

1 周青山;;倫敦奧運會體育仲裁案件述評[J];體育科學;2012年10期

2 宋軍生;;論體育行業(yè)自治與司法管轄[J];體育科學;2012年05期

3 徐祥峰;沈友青;彭建軍;;體育科技發(fā)展中的利弊共存現象——基于興奮劑與反興奮劑視角[J];武漢體育學院學報;2012年03期

4 張志銘;;中國法院案例指導制度價值功能之認知[J];學習與探索;2012年03期

5 張春良;;論國際體育仲裁協議的自治性——特別述及國際體育仲裁院之規(guī)則與實踐[J];天津體育學院學報;2011年06期

6 姜世波;;Lex Sportiva:全球體育法的興起及其理論意義[J];天津體育學院學報;2011年03期

7 周青山;;對國際體育仲裁院裁決“奧斯卡案”的法理思考[J];體育學刊;2010年11期

8 郭樹理;;北京奧運體育仲裁的理論與實踐[J];法治研究;2010年02期

相關碩士學位論文 前9條

1 曾昭源;安德森等訴國際奧委會案評析[D];湖南師范大學;2016年

2 宋雅馨;論“一事不再罰原則”在興奮劑處罰中的適用[D];湘潭大學;2015年

3 楊磊;論國際體育仲裁院的實體法律適用[D];湘潭大學;2013年

4 張琪;體育仲裁中的當事人適格制度[D];湘潭大學;2011年

5 喬一涓;奧運會運動員參賽資格的法律問題研究[D];湘潭大學;2011年

6 張淼;國際體育仲裁院奧運會臨時仲裁庭的管轄權研究[D];中國政法大學;2010年

7 王蓉;體育仲裁中的臨時措施探討[D];湘潭大學;2009年

8 茅燕;奧運會臨時仲裁制度研究[D];華東政法大學;2007年

9 周小英;CAS奧運會特別仲裁管轄權問題的理論與實踐[D];湘潭大學;2006年

，

本文編號：1851666