Abstract
More than thirty years have passed since CAS was created. During those three decades, CAS has evolved from a relatively marginal arbitration institution to the international “supreme court” for sports that decides many of the most important cases in sports and in doing so has a profound effect on sports more generally. CAS is also one of the key actors driving the establishment and continued development of arguably one of the best examples of a transnational legal order , the lex sportiva . This warrants an in-depth analysis of CAS as an institution, the actors involved in its activities, and its decisions. This chapter introduces CAS and the book. It describes the questions that the book seeks to answer and the theoretical framework from which it departs. It then goes on to describe the data and the methods used to study that data. This includes, in particular, a brief introduction to some of the key concepts of network analysis .
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
CAS also has an alternate but equally official French name, le Tribunal arbitral du sport or TAS. For consistency and clarity, I will only refer to the institution’s English name, including when citing its decisions.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Mbaye 2006, p. 19.
- 5.
Cf. Casini 2011, pp. 1321–1322.
- 6.
See further Sect. 3.3.
- 7.
Quoted in Mbaye 2002, p. xii. See also SFT ’s decision 27 May 2003 in case 4P.267–270/2002, 129 ATF 445 (Lazutina & Danilova v. IOC), para 3.3.3.3.
- 8.
IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch ’s opening speech at the 85th session of the IOC.
- 9.
- 10.
In accordance with Juan Antonio Samaranch ’s vision, Kéba Mbaye was recruited from the International Court of Justice .
- 11.
Mbaye 2006, p. 19.
- 12.
However, this book focuses on the first 30 years, i.e. the period between 1984 and 2014. See further below Sect. 1.5.
- 13.
That being said, this book does not represent the first endeavor to evaluate CAS’s progress. See e.g., in chronological order, Mbaye 2002, pp. xi–xii (concluding after eighteen years that the CAS had made remarkable, extraordinary, and rapid progress towards its goals); Yi 2006, p. 339 (“After twenty-two years, Juan Antonio Samaranch ’s dream is reaching fruition.”); Reilly 2012, p. 80 (“Having celebrated its 25th birthday in 2009, the CAS is today firmly established as the Supreme Court for sport internationally.”).
- 14.
As explained in greater detail below, this book seeks to cover the development from CAS’s inception to the end of 2014.
- 15.
There are, however, noteworthy exceptions, e.g. Drahozal and Naimark 2002; Hansford and Spriggs II 2008; Segal et al. 2005. My own previous research includes several studies where empirical data was used to describe and analyze the jurisprudence and method of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). See e.g. Derlén et al. 2013; Derlén and Lindholm 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017a. Where appropriate, this book draws on the experiences of previous empirical research of other judicial institutions, including for the purpose of comparison.
- 16.
See above Sect. 1.1.
- 17.
Cf. McLaren 2001, pp. 380–381 (specifically discussing the role of CAS when it comes to combating doping ).
- 18.
Associations, corporations etc. that organize and govern sport through regulations, decisions, and agreements, e.g. national federations, international federations, the IOC , national Olympic Committees, and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA ).
- 19.
See further Chap. 10.
- 20.
Cf. McArdle 2015, pp. 19–35.
- 21.
Even if the use of a combination of more traditional legal methods and empirical methods to carry out that examination may perhaps be less familiar to some.
- 22.
See Chap. 9.
- 23.
Schill 2012.
- 24.
See above Sect. 1.1.
- 25.
Drahozal 2003.
- 26.
Blackaby et al. 2015, p. 30.
- 27.
- 28.
See below Sect. 1.5.
- 29.
While I will be drawing on existing research of other arbitration institutions for understanding and evaluating CAS, I generally leave to experts on other arbitration institutions to determine whether the findings made here regarding CAS are generalizable or valid for those other institutions.
- 30.
However, as explained in more detail immediately below, the term lex sportiva is somewhat problematic as it is ambiguous and used in various ways.
- 31.
See generally Jansen and Michaels 2008.
- 32.
See e.g. Teubner 2002.
- 33.
See e.g. Michaels 2007.
- 34.
See e.g. Jansen and Michaels 2008.
- 35.
See e.g. Foster 2003, p. 2.
- 36.
Teubner 1997.
- 37.
- 38.
In CAS 98/200, AEK Athens, quoted immediately below, CAS also expressly invokes lex mercatoria .
- 39.
- 40.
As some of the findings made herein may be applicable to other private legal orders as well.
- 41.
Yi 2006, p. 290.
- 42.
- 43.
Casini 2011, p. 1319.
- 44.
Which of these verbs most accurately captures reality depends on the particular situation and perhaps also on the perspective of the observer. See further Chap. 7.
- 45.
CAS 98/200, para 156.
- 46.
CAS 2002/O/373, Scott, para 14 (“CAS jurisprudence has notably refined and developed a number of principles of sports law, such as the concepts of strict liability (in doping cases) and fairness , which might be deemed part of an emerging ‘lex sportiva ’.”). Whether any relevant distinction can be made between lex sportiva and lex ludica has been the subject of scholarly discussion, see e.g. Foster 2006; Parrish 2012; Siekmann 2011. Foster uses the term “lex ludica” to refer to sporting rules in a narrow sense, “the actual rules of the game ”, including formal rules and regulations and “equitable principles of sports”. Foster 2006, para 8.
- 47.
See e.g. CAS 2002/O/410, GFA v. UEFA, p. 4; CAS 2002/A/417, Witteveen, para 84; CAS 2004/A/707, Millar, para 53; CAS 2004/A/776, FCP v. FIRS, para 16; CAS 2007/A/1424, FEB v. FIQ, para 17; CAS 2008/O/1455, Boxing Australia v. AIBA, para 42; CAS 2010/A/2268, I v. FIA, para 75; CAS 2011/A/2646, Club Randewrs de Talca, para C.1.ii.
- 48.
- 49.
Cf. Reeb 1998, p. xxxi (“Centralizing the resolution of sports disputes within the CAS should encourage the harmonization of certain major legal principles which are still applied haphazardly by the top sports bodies…”).
- 50.
See e.g. CAS 98/200, AEK Athens, para 156 (“Certainly, general principles of law drawn from a comparative or common denominator reading of various domestic legal systems and, in particular, the prohibition of arbitrary or unreasonable rules and measures can be deemed to be part of such lex ludica .”). See further Chap. 7.
- 51.
- 52.
See e.g. Beloff 2005, p. 53 (“one of [lex sportiva ’s] key objectives is to immunise sport from the reach of the law, to create in other words a field of autonomy within which even appellate sports tribunals should not trespass.”).
- 53.
- 54.
See e.g. Erbsen 2006 (“CAS’s nominally unique Lex Sportiva is really an amalgam of general due process and equity norms tailored to sporting disputes…” Ibid. p. 454.).
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
Latty 2007, p. 323.
- 58.
CAS 2001/A/317, Aanes, para 24.
- 59.
Whether this only includes principles that are unique to sports or also a broader range of principles varies.
- 60.
- 61.
Buy et al. 2015, pp. 140–141.
- 62.
See e.g. CAS 2006/A/1082 & 1104, Barreto Càceres, para 36 (“…il convient de passer outre les règles étatiques internes qui seraient contraires aux principes et au cadre juridique des règles que la FIFA a pour but d’instaurer. Dans le domaine particulier du droit du sport, il est important de pouvoir recourir à des normes transcendant tel ou tel système étatique particulier. Cette possibilité de développer des règles dégagées, dans la mesure du possible, de toute référence à un système de normes étatiques particulières, répond en effet à un besoin spécifique découlant de l’organisation du sport.”).
- 63.
Rigozzi 2005, p. 628.
- 64.
Foster 2006, para 6.
- 65.
CAS 2002/A/373, Scott, para 14.
- 66.
See e.g. CAS 2005/C/841, CONI, para 44 (“based on the WADC , which constitutes more and more a fundamental ‘lex sportiva ’, a sanction is possible if there is an anti-doping rule violation…”); CAS 2008/A/1545, Anderson, paras 65–66.
- 67.
Foster 2006, para 6.
- 68.
Cf. Nafziger 2015, pp. 161–162.
- 69.
See e.g. Teubner 2002.
- 70.
Tuori 2011, pp. 296–304 (“The most serious challenges to links between law and state arise from legal relationships transcending nation-state boundaries. Phenomena questioning the state’s internal sovereignty, such as self-regulation of the economy and sports, also tend to have a transnational background and transnational links.” Ibid. p. 296).
- 71.
Teubner 2008.
- 72.
See e.g. Anter 2014, pp. 173–188 (regarding the connection between the state’s legitimate monopoly on force and its legal monopoly).
- 73.
OLG Frankfurt’s decision 18 April 2001 in case 13 U 66/01 (Baumann v. DLV), para 56 (“eine von jedem staatlichen Recht unabhängige lex sportiva gibt es nicht.”).
- 74.
SFT ’s decision 20 December 2005 in case 4C.1/2005, BGE 132 III 285 (X. AG v. Y), pp. 288–289 (“Von privaten Verbänden aufgestellte Bestimmungen stehen vielmehr grundsätzlich zu den staatlichen Gesetzen in einem Subordinationsverhältnis und können nur Beachtung finden, so weit das staatliche Recht für eine autonome Regelung Raum lässt… Sie bilden kein ‘Recht’ im Sinne von Article 116 Abs. 1 IPRG und können auch nicht als ‘lex sportiva transnationalis’ anerkannt werden, wie dies von einer Lehrmeinung befürwortet wird”).
- 75.
See Foster 2003, p. 14.
- 76.
- 77.
The often repeated “fact” that bumblebees should not be able to fly according to the laws of physics, is in fact a myth. See e.g. Zetie 2003.
- 78.
See also Paulsson 2011, pp. 315–317.
- 79.
- 80.
In the second, broader sense of the term. For a similar reasoning, see e.g. Panagiotopoulos 2011.
- 81.
See also Sect. 7.2.
- 82.
It is, however, equally obvious that unlike national legal orders, lex sportiva , as a “specialized legal order” neither needs nor aims to be “complete” in the sense that it contains a rule for every situation.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
See Chap. 6.
- 87.
See Chap. 9.
- 88.
See Chap. 10.
- 89.
To state that the law is one thing or the other is to make a factual or empirical statement or, one could argue, a prediction.
- 90.
See Sect. 9.2.2.
- 91.
- 92.
Although it takes a slightly different approach and asks some quite different questions, this book is in part inspired by Segal et al. 2005 who empirically examine the role of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS ) in the American legal system.
- 93.
Epstein and King 2002, p. 3.
- 94.
See generally Cane and Kritzer 2010.
- 95.
See Sect. 3.3.
- 96.
See Sect. 5.3.
- 97.
- 98.
See e.g. Cane and Kritzer 2010.
- 99.
- 100.
Posner 1995, p. 3.
- 101.
Heise 1999, pp. 813–814.
- 102.
- 103.
- 104.
See above Sect. 1.2.
- 105.
- 106.
Article S19 CAS Code (“CAS arbitrators and mediators are bound by the duty of confidentiality , which is provided for in the Code and in particular shall not disclose to any third party any facts or other information relating to proceedings conducted before CAS.”).
- 107.
See further Sect. 2.2.
- 108.
Article R43 CAS Code.
- 109.
Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 312.
- 110.
CAS, Statistics 2016.
- 111.
See further Sect. 2.2.
- 112.
Article R59 CAS Code.
- 113.
See Blackshaw 2012, p. 7.
- 114.
http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org. Accessed 7 September 2018.
- 115.
According to statistics released by CAS it issued 2,695 decisions between 1986 and 2014. CAS, Statistics 2016.
- 116.
See further Chap. 4.
- 117.
When such references are discussed in the context of network analysis , they are referred to as “out-of-network references”. This is the reason why certain reference to CAS decisions are below named “Unknown”.
- 118.
See Sect. 4.5.
- 119.
See above Fig. 1.1 Dataset Representativeness.
- 120.
The dataset consists to 81% of decisions written in English and to 18% of decisions written in French. This compares well with the composition of CAS decisions overall where 72% are in English and 21% are in French. Mavromati 2012, p. 48.
- 121.
In its official statistics, CAS does not break down issued decisions by procedure. However, assuming that the ratio of issued decisions to incoming requests is the same for all procedure types (64%), CAS should have issued approximately 294 decisions in cases brought under ordinary arbitration procedure during the time studied. In total, the data includes information about 53 of those decisions. This portion, 18%, is significantly lower than the overall inclusion rate of 42%.
- 122.
CAS, Statistics 2016.
- 123.
An average of 3.3 citations per award compared to 2.8.
- 124.
The mean decision year of these awards are 2004 and 2008 respectively.
- 125.
See Sect. 3.5.
- 126.
An average of 1.2 references per award compared to 3.1.
- 127.
Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 274.
- 128.
See further Sect. 8.10.
- 129.
Bersagel 2012, p. 199.
- 130.
See Sect. 10.4.
- 131.
On average 3.0 times per published decision compared to on average 2.0 times per unpublished decision.
- 132.
In this regard, it is surprising and somewhat worrisome that CAS panels do quite frequently cite unpublished decisions. See further Sect. 4.5.
- 133.
Euler 1741 is generally claimed to constitute the origin of graph theory.
- 134.
Edges are sometimes also referred to as links or arcs and vertices as nodes.
- 135.
A popular example is the game Six degrees of Kevin Bacon where players try to connect any actor to Kevin Bacon through chains of association based on movies in which actors have appeared together.
- 136.
This is for example the basis for the Google search engine.
- 137.
Any situation where the parties referred to a previous decision as part of their arguments is excluded, as are references contained in quotes. That a decision contains multiple references to the same previous decision is not given any consideration.
- 138.
For example, the data includes eight CAS decisions where both UCI and WADA appears as parties, most often on the same side of the dispute.
- 139.
For more discussions on different meanings of importance in precedent and the possibility of using network analysis to capture these, see Derlén and Lindholm 2014.
- 140.
When two arbitrators appear on more than one panel together, these edges can be simplified as a single edge with higher weight with the same result.
- 141.
- 142.
See further Sect. 6.3.2.
- 143.
To use a similar example from the university context, a student paper that cites three well-argued and novel research articles is arguably better supported than one that cites a hundred Wikipedia articles.
- 144.
Equal to the number of decisions it cites.
- 145.
See further Derlén and Lindholm 2017b.
- 146.
The chance of a teleport at each vertex explored, in the algorithm expressed as the damping factor (d), affects how many edges backwards the random walker will explore. Because of the comparatively limited size of the network, in this study I use a factor of 0.5 (50% chance of a teleport), compare to the original of 0.85 (15% chance of a teleport).
- 147.
- 148.
In a directed network, the random walker follows edges from originating vertices to target vertices. In an undirected network, by comparison, the random walker can follow the edge in either direction.
- 149.
- 150.
PageRank is here used instead of authority score.
- 151.
Kleinberg 1999.
- 152.
In the HITS algorithm, “importance” is measured as authority score and calculated on the basis of the judgments citing it. A good authority is a vertex pointed to by many good hubs and a good hub is a vertex that points to many good authorities.
- 153.
- 154.
Barabási and Réka 1999.
- 155.
See e.g. Sect. 5.2.
- 156.
The mechanisms behind this distribution can frequently be described as a “rich-get-richer” phenomenon. See e.g. Barabási and Réka 1999.
- 157.
As the inclusion or exclusion of a single member may have a massive impact on the group’s mean score.
- 158.
- 159.
Fortunato 2010, pp. 76–77.
- 160.
Girvan and Newman 2002, p. 7821.
- 161.
See Chap. 6.2.
References
Anter A (2014) Max Weber’s Theory of the Modern State: Origins, Structure and Significance. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Barabási A-L, Réka A (1999) Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science 286:509–512
Barents R (2004) The Autonomy of Community Law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Beloff M (2005) Is there a lex sportiva? International Sports Law Review 3:49–60
Beloff M, Kerr T, Demetriou M, Beloff R (2012) Sports Law, 2nd edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Berger B (2013) The Legal Framework: Rights and Obligations of Arbitrators in the Deliberations. In: Berger B, Schneider M (eds) Inside the Black Box: How Arbitral Tribunals Operate and Reach Their Decisions. Juris Publishing, New York, pp. 7–12
Bersagel A (2012) Is There a Stare Decisis Doctrine in the Court of Arbitration for Sport? An Analysis of Published Awards for Anti-Doping Disputes in Track and Field. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 12:189–207
Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M (2015) Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Blackshaw I (2012) Introductory Remarks. In: Wild A (ed) CAS and Football: Landmark Cases, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 5–10
Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30:107–117
Brower CN, Schill SW (2009) Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law? Chicago Journal of International Law 9(2):471–498
Buy F, Maramyou J-M, Poracchi D, Rizzo F (2015) Droit du Sport, 4nd edn. LGDJ, Paris
Cahoy D (2010) Considerations in the Rise of Empirical Legal Scholarship. American Business Law Review 47:v–ix
Cane P, Kritzer H (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford
CAS (2016) Statistics 2016. http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_statistics_2016_pdf. Accessed 7 September 2018
Casini L (2011) The Making of Lex Sportiva by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. German Law Journal 12(5):1317–1340
Derlén M, Lindholm J (2014) Goodbye van Gend en Loos, Hello Bosman? Using Network Analysis to Measure the Importance of Individual CJEU Judgments. European Law Journal 20(5):667–687
Derlén M, Lindholm J (2015) Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions. German Law Journal 16(5):1073–1098
Derlén M, Lindholm J (2016) Bosman: A Legacy Beyond Sports. In: Duval A, Van Rompuy B (eds) The Legacy of Bosman. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 31–49
Derlén M, Lindholm J (2017a) Peek-a-boo, It’s a Case Law System. German Law Journal 18(3):647–686
Derlén M, Lindholm J (2017b) Is It Good Law? Network Analysis and the CJEU’s Internal Market Jurisprudence. Journal of International Economic Law 20(2):257–277
Derlén M, Lindholm J, Mirshahvalad A, Rosvall M (2013) Coherence Out of Chaos: Mapping European Union Law by Running Randomly Through the Maze of CJEU Case Law. Europarättslig Tidskrift 16(3):517–535
Drahozal C (2003) Of Rabbits and Rhinoceri: A Survey of Empirical Research on International Commercial Arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration 20(1):23–34
Drahozal C, Naimark R (2002) Towards a Science of International Arbitration: Collected Empirical Research. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Duval A (2013) Lex Sportiva: A Playground for Transnational Law. European Law Journal 19(6):822–842
Emerson F (1970) History of Arbitration Practice and Law. Cleveland State Law Review 19(1):155–164
Epstein L, King G (2002) The Rules of Inference. University of Chicago Law Review 69:1–133
Erbsen A (2006) The Substance and Illusion of Lex Sportiva. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 441–454
Euler L (1741) Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis. Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 8:128–140
Fortunato S (2010) Community Detection in Graphs. Physics Reports 486:75–174
Foster K (2003) Is There a Global Sports Law. Entertainment Law 2(1):1–18
Foster K (2006) Lex Sportiva and Lex Ludica: The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s Jurisprudence. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 3(2)
Fowler J, Johnson T, Spriggs II J, Jeon S, Wahlbeck P (2007) Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Analysis 15:324–346
Franck S (2007) Empirically Evaluating Claims About Investment Treaty Arbitration. North Carolina Law Review 86:1–88
Franck S, van Aaken A, Freda J, Guthrie C, Rachlinski J (2017) Inside the Arbitrator’s Mind. Emory Law Journal 66(5):1115–1173
George T (2006) An Empirical Study of Empirical Legal Scholarship: The Top Law Schools. Indiana Law Journal 81:141–160
Girvan M, Newman M (2002) Community Structure in Social and Biological Networks. PNAS 99(12):7821–7826
Hansford T, Spriggs II J (2008) The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Heise M (1999) The Importance of Being Empirical. Pepperdine Law Review 26:807–834
Hess B (2015) The Development of Lex Sportiva by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In: Vieweg K (ed) Lex Sportiva, Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, pp. 59–76
Jansen N, Michaels R (2008) Beyond the State? Rethinking Private Law: Introduction to the Issue. American Journal of Comparative Law 56(3):527–539
Kleinberg J M (1999) Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment. Journal of the ACM 46:604–632
Latty F (2007) La lex sportiva: Recherche sur le droit transnational. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Latty F (2011) Transnational Sports Law. The International Sports Law Journal 2011(1–2):34–38
Lupu Y, Voeten E (2011) Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science 42:413–439
MacCormick N (1999) Questioning Sovereignty. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Malatesta A, Sali R (eds) (2013) The Rise of Transparency in International Arbitration. JurisNet, Huntington
Mavromati D (2012) Language of procedure before CAS: Practice, criteria and impact of the language on the outcome of the case. CAS Bulletin 2012(1):39–48
Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Mbaye K (2002) Foreword. In: Reeb M (ed) Digest of CAS Awards 1998–2000. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp. xi–xii
Mbaye K (2006) Une nouvelle institution d’arbitrage: le tribunal arbitral du sport (TAS). Annuaire français de droit International XXX:409 (1984). Reprinted in: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 6–20
McArdle D (2015) Dispute Resolution in Sport: Athletes, Law and Arbitration. Routledge, Oxon
McLaren R (2001) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: An Independent Arena for the World’s Sports Disputes. Valparaiso University Law Review 35:379–405
Michaels R (2007) The True Lex Mercatoria: Law Beyond the State. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 14(2):447–468
Mitten M J, Opie H (2010) ‘Sports Law’: Implications for the Development of International, Comparative, and National Law and Global Dispute Resolution. Tulane Law Review 85:269–322
Nafziger J (2004) Lex Sportiva. The International Sports Law Journal 2004(1–2):3–8
Nafziger J (2015) Defining the Scope and Structure of International Sports Law: Four Conceptual Issues. In: Vieweg K (ed) Lex Sportiva. Duncker and Humblot, Berlin, pp. 161–178
Noussia K (2010) Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of the Position under English, US, German and French Law. Springer Verlag, Berlin
Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T (1998) The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web, 29 January 1998. http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018
Paulsson J (2011) Arbitration in Three Dimensions. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 60(2):291–323
Panagiotopoulos D (2011) Lex Sportiva and International Legitimacy Governing: Protection of Professional Players. US-China Law Review 8:121–136
Panagiotopoulos D (2013) Sporting Jurisdictional Order and Arbitration. US-China Law Review 10:130–140
Parrish R (2012) Lex sportiva and EU sports law. European Law Review 37(6):716–733
Posner R (1995) Overcoming Law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Radicchi F, Castellano C, Cecconi F, Loreto V, Parisi D (2004) Defining and identifying communities in networks. PNAS 101(9):2658–2663
Reeb M (1998) The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In: Reeb M (ed) Digest of CAS Awards I. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp. xxiii–xxxi
Reilly L (2012) An Introduction to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Role of National Courts in International Sports Disputes. Journal of Dispute Resolution 2012(1):63–81
Rigozzi A (2005) L’arbitrage international en matière de sport. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel
Rogers C (2006) Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration. Kansas University Law Review 54:1301–1345
Schill S (2012) International Arbitrators as System-Builders. American Society of International Law 106:295–297
Schultz T (2014) Transnational Legality: Stateless Law and International Arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Segal J, Spaeth H, Benesh S (2005) The Supreme Court in the American Legal System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Siekmann R (2011) What is Sports Law? Lex Sportiva and Lex Ludica: A Reassessment of Content and Terminology. The International Sports Law Journal 2011(3-4):3–13
Smeureanu I (2011) Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Teubner G (ed) (1997) Global Law Without a State. Dartmouth, Andover
Teubner G (2002) Breaking Frames: Economic Globalization and the Emergence of Lex Mercatoria. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2):199–217
Teubner G (2008) State Policies in Private Law. American Journal of Comparative Law 56:835–843
Tucker T (2016) Inside the Black Box: Collegial Patterns on Investment Tribunals. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 7:183–204
Tuori K (2011) Ratio and Voluntas: The Tension Between Reason and Will in Law. Ashgate, Farnham
van de Kerchove M, Ost F (1994) Legal Systems Between Order and Disorder. Stewart I trans., Oxford University Press, Oxford
Vieweg K, Staschik P (2015) The Lex Sportiva: The Phenomenon and its Meaning in the International Sporting Arena. In: Vieweg K (ed) Lex Sportiva. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 17–58
Wax A (2015) Public International Sports Law and the Lex Sportiva. In: Vieweg K (ed) Lex Sportiva, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 145–160
Wolaver E (1934) The Historical Background of Commercial Arbitration. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 83(2):132–146
Yi D (2006) Turning Medals into Metal: Evaluating the Court of Arbitration for Sport as an International Tribunal. Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law 6:289–341
Zetie K (2003) Getting a buzz from flight. Physics Education November 2003:476 Education November 2003:476
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lindholm, J. (2019). Cour Suprême du Sport Mondial. In: The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-285-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-285-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-284-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-285-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)