本文選題：里約奧運(yùn)會(huì) + 體育仲裁�。� 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：第31屆奧運(yùn)會(huì)在里約熱內(nèi)盧成功舉辦,奧運(yùn)會(huì)舉辦期間國(guó)際體育仲裁院在里約熱內(nèi)盧設(shè)立了臨時(shí)仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)。作為奧運(yùn)會(huì)期間體育爭(zhēng)議的解決機(jī)構(gòu),臨時(shí)仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)在往屆奧運(yùn)會(huì)專指特別仲裁庭。但是在里約奧運(yùn)會(huì),臨時(shí)仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)的內(nèi)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(gè)仲裁庭共同負(fù)責(zé)解決奧運(yùn)會(huì)期間產(chǎn)生的體育糾紛。反興奮劑仲裁庭作為新設(shè)立的體育糾紛解決機(jī)構(gòu),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(guó)際體育仲裁理事會(huì)專門(mén)制定,與特別仲裁庭的仲裁規(guī)則既一脈相承又各具特點(diǎn)。在里約奧運(yùn)會(huì)期間兩個(gè)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(jié)果案件2起和紀(jì)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(wú)管轄權(quán)。兩個(gè)仲裁庭在案件的管轄權(quán)上存在明顯的區(qū)別。反興奮劑仲裁庭對(duì)案件的管轄有更多的限制,必須是興奮劑案件,由國(guó)際奧委會(huì)宣布存在違反反興奮劑規(guī)則的行為并由其作為申請(qǐng)人提起仲裁,反興奮劑仲裁庭才對(duì)案件擁有管轄權(quán)。而特別仲裁庭審理的案件只要是奧運(yùn)會(huì)期間或與奧運(yùn)會(huì)有關(guān)的爭(zhēng)議均擁有管轄權(quán)。里約奧運(yùn)會(huì)的體育仲裁實(shí)踐有值得肯定的一面,如:遵循了以往的裁判規(guī)則、設(shè)立了新的反興奮劑仲裁機(jī)構(gòu),也反映出了目前奧運(yùn)會(huì)體育仲裁所存在的問(wèn)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(guò)對(duì)里約奧運(yùn)會(huì)體育仲裁案件的整體思考,得出對(duì)運(yùn)動(dòng)員、國(guó)際單項(xiàng)體育組織,我國(guó)國(guó)家?jiàn)W委會(huì)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(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】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.7

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 周青山;;倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)體育仲裁案件述評(píng)[J];體育科學(xué);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(xué);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(xiàn)象——基于興奮劑與反興奮劑視角[J];武漢體育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年03期

4 張志銘;;中國(guó)法院案例指導(dǎo)制度價(jià)值功能之認(rèn)知[J];學(xué)習(xí)與探索;2012年03期

5 張春良;;論國(guó)際體育仲裁協(xié)議的自治性——特別述及國(guó)際體育仲裁院之規(guī)則與實(shí)踐[J];天津體育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);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(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年03期

7 周青山;;對(duì)國(guó)際體育仲裁院裁決“奧斯卡案”的法理思考[J];體育學(xué)刊;2010年11期

8 郭樹(shù)理;;北京奧運(yùn)體育仲裁的理論與實(shí)踐[J];法治研究;2010年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前9條

1 曾昭源;安德森等訴國(guó)際奧委會(huì)案評(píng)析[D];湖南師范大學(xué);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(xué);2015年

3 楊磊;論國(guó)際體育仲裁院的實(shí)體法律適用[D];湘潭大學(xué);2013年

4 張琪;體育仲裁中的當(dāng)事人適格制度[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

5 喬一涓;奧運(yùn)會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)員參賽資格的法律問(wèn)題研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

6 張淼;國(guó)際體育仲裁院奧運(yùn)會(huì)臨時(shí)仲裁庭的管轄權(quán)研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

7 王蓉;體育仲裁中的臨時(shí)措施探討[D];湘潭大學(xué);2009年

8 茅燕;奧運(yùn)會(huì)臨時(shí)仲裁制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

9 周小英;CAS奧運(yùn)會(huì)特別仲裁管轄權(quán)問(wèn)題的理論與實(shí)踐[D];湘潭大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1851666