nav emailalert searchbtn searchbox tablepage yinyongbenwen piczone journalimg journalInfo journalinfonormal searchdiv searchzone qikanlogo popupnotification paper paperNew
2017, 03, v.32;No.147 238-244
国际体育仲裁院兴奋剂案件仲裁程序的反思及完善——以反兴奋剂部门的设立和佩希施泰因案为切入点
基金项目(Foundation): 厦门大学研究生国(境)外交流访学项目
邮箱(Email):
DOI: 10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2017.03.010
摘要:

佩希施泰因案侵犯了平等、正确、迅速、经济等仲裁制度的基本价值目标,引发各界对CAS兴奋剂案件仲裁程序合理性的担忧。虽然,目前并无其他纷争解决方式能够予以替代,但对仲裁程序进行改革已成为共识。CAS新设反兴奋剂部门被视为兴奋剂仲裁程序改革之起点,当前有必要突破原有路径束缚,重新建构仲裁程序以平衡运动员与对方当事人的利益关系,通过富有针对性的修正路径倒逼CAS仲裁体系的根本性变革。认为应以平等、正确、经济为兴奋剂案件仲裁程序的总体价值架构,认采部分普世法原则,同时辅以妥适的制度设计。具体而言,在现有兴奋剂案件仲裁体系下,应强化平等理念,推进从规则的形式平等至裁决过程的实质平等;确立职权探知主义、协同主义,促进多方共同参与程序推进互动模式的形成,维护当事人有合理、公平参与及异议的权利;认采武器均等原则,完善程序扶助制度,在一定程度上使兴奋剂案件仲裁程序从形式平等转化为实质平等;落实仲裁平等权保障程序安定,满足当事人对于案件的结果控制性或期待可能性,以获裁决公信力。

Abstract:

Pechstein Case violates the basic values of an equal,correct,rapid,economic and other arbitration system,raising concerns about the rationality ofthe proceedings of the CAS doping cases,although there is no other dispute resolution system that can be replaced,but there is consensus on the reform of the ar-bitration procedure for doping cases. The new anti-doping division of CAS has been regarded as the starting point for the reform of the doping procedure. It isnecessary to break through the original path and rebuild the arbitration procedure to balance the interests of the athletes and the other parties. This paper arguedthat the general value structure of the arbitral proceedings should be based on equality,correctness and economy,and some principles of universal law should beadopted,supplemented by proper system design. Specifically,under the existing doping arbitration system,the concept of equality should be strengthened to pro-mote the equality of the rules from the rules to the substantive equality of the ruling process. Establish the authority of the probe,synergy,promote multi-partyparticipation in the process of promoting the formation of interactive mode,to protect the parties have a reasonable,fair participation and objection. Establish theprinciple of equalization of weapons and perfect the system of subsidy to a certain extent so that the arbitration procedure of the doping case is transformed fromformal equality to substantive equality. Fully guarantee the stability of the proceedings,to meet the parties to the outcome of the case control or expect the possi-bility to be awarded the credibility of the ruling.

参考文献

[1]联合国国际贸易法委员会.承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约状况[EB/OL].http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/zh/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NY Convention_status.html.

[2]BERT P.Sports Law:Update on the Pechstein Case[EB/OL].http://www.disputeresolutiongermany.com/2017/05/sports-law-update-on-the-pec hstein-case/.

[3]CAS.List of arbitrators(general list)[EB/OL].http://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitration/list-of-arbitrators-general-list.html?Gen Slct=2&nm Ipt=.

[4]WITTINGHOFER M,SCHENK S.A Never Ending Story:Claudia Pechstein’s Challenge to the CAS[EB/OL].http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/06/14/a-never-ending-story-claudia-pechsteins-challenge-tothe-cas/.

[5]DUVAL A.The BGH’s Pechstein Decision:A Surrealist Ruling[EB/OL].http://www.asser.nl/Sports Law/Blog/post/the-bgh-s-pechstein-decision-a-surrealist-ruling.

[6]GUANDALINI B,CAIO DE FARO NUNES.The CAS List of Arbitrators:Lessons from the Pechstein case for Tokyo 2020[EB/OL].http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2017/01/06/booked-sports-arbitration/.

[7]李智.从德国佩希施泰因案看国际体育仲裁院管辖权[J].武大国际法评论,2017,1(1):138-152.

[8]陈芳芳.Pechstein兴奋剂案对国际体育仲裁院的启示[J].沈阳工业大学学报:社会科学版,2016,9(2):179-183.

[9]CAS.International Olympic Committee v.Chagnaadorj Usukhbayar,OG AD 16-008[EB/OL].http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/OG%20AD%2016-008.pdf.

[10]张文郁.权利欲救济:以行政诉讼为中心[M].台北:元照出版,2005:10.

[11]刘明生.民事诉讼之程序法理与确定判决之效力及救济[M].台北:新学林,2016:60-61.

[12]刘韵.运动员仲裁权益保障的困境及其修正:兼述里约奥运会仲裁案件[J].武汉体育学院学报,2017,51(1):47-54.

[13]宋彬龄.兴奋剂仲裁案件中非法证据的可采性研究:对国际体育仲裁院沃尔沃德案的法理思考[J].上海体育学院学报,2012(4):44-48.

[14]赵毅.依法治体中的司法问题:基于我国法院裁判文书的考察[J].上海体育学院学报,2016(1):30-36.

[15]SPRACK J.A Practical Approach to Criminal Procedure[M].London:Oxford University Press,2006:287-288.

[16]顾元.衡平司法与中国传统法律秩序:兼与英国衡平法相比较[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006:3.

[17]张中.弱势群体的法律援助:法律援助服务及其质量问题研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008:3.

[18]丹宁勋爵.法律的未来[M].刘庸安,张文镇,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:1.

[19]崔林林.严格规则与自由裁量之间:英美司法风格差异及其成因的比较研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:10.

[20]博西格诺.法律之门[M].邓子滨,译.北京:华夏出版社,2002:7.

[21]张屹.罪刑相适应原则的司法实现[J].法学,2004(1):53-65.

基本信息:

DOI:10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2017.03.010

中图分类号:G80-05

引用信息:

[1]刘韵.国际体育仲裁院兴奋剂案件仲裁程序的反思及完善——以反兴奋剂部门的设立和佩希施泰因案为切入点[J].天津体育学院学报,2017,32(03):238-244.DOI:10.13297/j.cnki.issn1005-0000.2017.03.010.

基金信息:

厦门大学研究生国(境)外交流访学项目

发布时间:

2017-05-25

出版时间:

2017-05-25

检 索 高级检索

引用

GB/T 7714-2015 格式引文
MLA格式引文
APA格式引文