Lost in translation? The European Convention on Human Rights at the Court of Arbitration for Sport
International Sports Law Journal, ISSN: 2213-5154, Vol: 22, Issue: 2, Page: 132-151
2022
- 13Citations
- 3Captures
- 2Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Most Recent Blog
How the CJEU Should Supervise the Court of Arbitration for Sport
On 16 January 2025, Advocate General Ćapeta rendered her Opinion in the Seraing case which could have profound effects for transnational governance of sports. In
Article Description
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is not known as a human rights court. Instead, its primary focus is on applying and interpreting the regulations of international (and sometimes national) sport governing bodies (SGBs). It is only recently that the intersection between the CAS jurisprudence and human rights has become of interest in the academic literature and public debates. In particular, the Mutu and Pechstein decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in October 2018 made clear that the CAS does not escape the indirect scrutiny of the Strasbourg court. Nevertheless, until today, very few publications have been dedicated to the interplay between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the CAS. This paper aims to contribute to remedying this want by charting the CAS awards in which a reference to the ECHR or a decision of the ECtHR was made and tracing the impact and function of such references in the CAS jurisprudence. The findings highlight the various functions of the references to the ECHR in CAS awards, the discrepancies between some of the interpretations of the ECHR advanced by the CAS and the ECtHR’s own understanding of the Convention, and the limited success of appellants to challenge SGBs’ decisions on the basis of the ECHR. The paper concludes by arguing that the CAS would need to be institutionally reformed in order for human rights to act as an effective check on the transnational power of SGBs in CAS proceedings.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know