Time to Go Public? The Need for Transparency at the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Part of the Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration book series (YISA)


Has the time come for the Court of Arbitration for Sport to go public? This article argues that after the Pechstein decision of the European Court of Human Rights, CAS appeal arbitration must be understood as forced arbitration and therefore must fully comply with the due process guarantees enshrined in Article 6(1) ECHR. In particular, this entails a strong duty of transparency with regard to the hearings at the CAS and the publication of its awards. This duty is of particular importance since the rationale for supporting the validity of CAS arbitration, if not grounded in the consent of the parties, must be traced back to the public interest in providing for the equality before the (sports) law of international athletes. Thus, the legitimacy and existence of the CAS is linked to its public function, which ought to be matched with the procedural strings usually attached to judicial institutions. In short, if it is to avoid lengthy and costly challenges to its awards, going public is an urgent necessity for the CAS.


Transparency Court of Arbitration for Sport Pechstein Public hearing European Convention on Human Rights Lex sportiva 


  1. Baume S, Papadopoulos Y (2015) Transparency: From Bentham’s inventory of virtuous effects to contemporary evidence-based skepticism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 21:169–192Google Scholar
  2. Bentham J (1843) Rationale of Judicial Evidence. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. William Tait, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  3. Besson S (2006) Arbitration and Human Rights. ASA Bulletin 24:395–416Google Scholar
  4. Bianchi A (2013) On Power and Illusion: The Concept of Transparency in International Law. In: Bianchi A, Peters A (eds) Transparency in International Law. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–19Google Scholar
  5. Boisson de Chazournes L, Baruti R (2015) Transparency in Investor-State Arbitration: An Incremental Approach. BCDR International Arbitration Review 2:59–76Google Scholar
  6. Buys CG (2003) The tensions between confidentiality and transparency in international arbitration. The American Review of International Arbitration 14:121–138Google Scholar
  7. Casini L (2010) Diritto globale dello sport. Giuffré, MilanGoogle Scholar
  8. Cernic J L (2012) Fair Trial Guarantees before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Human Rights and International Legal Discourse 6:259–283Google Scholar
  9. Duval A (2013) Lex sportiva: A playground for transnational law. European Law Journal 19:822–842Google Scholar
  10. Duval A (2017) Not in My Name! Claudia Pechstein and the Post-Consensual Foundations of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2017–01Google Scholar
  11. Foster K (2006) Lex Sportiva and Lex Ludica: the Court Of Arbitration for Sport’s Jurisprudence. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 3:1–15Google Scholar
  12. Foster K (2006) The juridification of sport. In: Greenfield S, Osborn G (eds) Readings in Law and Popular Culture. Routledge, pp. 155–181Google Scholar
  13. Grimmelikhuijsen S, Klijn A (2015) The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration 93:995–1011Google Scholar
  14. Hale T (2008) Transparency, Accountability, and Global Governance. Global Governance 14:73–94Google Scholar
  15. Jaksic A (2007) Procedural Guarantees of Human Rights in Arbitration Proceedings: A Still Unsettled Problem? Journal of International Arbitration 24: 159–172Google Scholar
  16. Karton J (2012) A Conflict of Interests: Seeking a Way Forward on Publication of International Arbitral Awards. Arbitration International 28:447–486Google Scholar
  17. Landrove J C (2006) European Convention on Human Rights’ Impact on Consensual Arbitration – An État des Lieux of Strasbourg Case-Law and of a Problematic Swiss Law Feature. In: Besson S, Hottelier M, Werro F (eds) Human Rights at the Center. Schulthess, pp. 73–101Google Scholar
  18. Latty F (2007) La lex sportiva: Recherche sur le droit transnational. Martinus Nijhoff PublishersGoogle Scholar
  19. Lemmens P (2014) The right to a fair trial and its multiple manifestations: Article 6(1) ECHR. In: Brems E, Gerards J (eds) Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, pp. 294–314Google Scholar
  20. Lindholm J (2019) The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence: An Empirical Inquiry into Lex Sportiva. T.M.C. Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  21. MacLaren R (2010) Twenty-Five Years of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: A look in the rear-view mirror. Marquette Sports Law Review 20:305Google Scholar
  22. Malintoppi L, Limbasan N (2015) Living in Glass Houses? The Debate on Transparency in International Investment Arbitration. BCDR International Arbitration Review 2:31–58Google Scholar
  23. Maupin J (2013) Transparency in International Investment Law: The Good, the Bad and the Murky. In: Bianchi A, Peters A (eds) Transparency in International Law. Cambridge University Press, pp. 142–171Google Scholar
  24. Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials. Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  25. McDonald N (2003) More Harm than Good? Human Rights Considerations in International Commercial Arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration 20:523–538Google Scholar
  26. Mourre A (2006) Are Amici Curiae the Proper Response to the Public’s Concerns on Transparency in Investment Arbitration? The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 5:257–271Google Scholar
  27. Paulsson J (1993) Arbitration of International Sports Disputes. Arbitration International 9:359–370Google Scholar
  28. Peters A (2013) Towards Transparency as a Global Norm. In: Bianchi A, Peters A (eds) Transparency in International Law. Cambridge University Press, pp. 534–607Google Scholar
  29. Peters A (2015) The Transparency Turn of International Law. The Chinese Journal of Global Governance (2015) 1:3–15Google Scholar
  30. Pislevik S (2018) Precedent and development of law: Is it time for greater transparency in International Commercial Arbitration? Arbitration International 34:241–260Google Scholar
  31. Resnik J (2011) Bring Back Bentham: “Open Courts,” “Terror Trials,” and Public Sphere(s). Law & Ethics of Human Rights 5:4–69Google Scholar
  32. Resnik J (2013) The Democracy in Courts: Jeremy Bentham, ‘Publicity’, and the Privatization of Process in the Twenty-First Century. NoFo 10:77–119Google Scholar
  33. Resnik J (2014) The Contingency of Openness in Courts: Changing the Experiences and Logics of the Public’s Role in Court-Based ADR. Nevada Law Journal 15:1631–1688Google Scholar
  34. Resnik J (2015) Diffusing Disputes: The Public in the Private of Arbitration, the Private in Courts, and the Erasure of Rights. Yale Law Journal 124:2808–2943Google Scholar
  35. Rogers C A (2006) Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration. University of Kansas Law Review 54:1301Google Scholar
  36. Ruscalla G (2015) Transparency in International Arbitration: Any (Concrete) Need to Codify the Standard? Groningen Journal of International Law 3:1–26Google Scholar
  37. Samuel A (2004) Arbitration, Alternative Dispute Resolution Generally and the European Convention on Human Rights: An Anglo-Centric View. Journal of International Arbitration 21:413–438Google Scholar
  38. Schabas W A (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Schill S W (2015) Conceptions of Legitimacy of International Arbitration. In: Caron D D, Schill S W, Cohen Smutny A, Triantafilou E E (eds) Practising Virtue: Inside International Arbitration. Oxford University Press, pp. 106–124Google Scholar
  40. Schultz T (2011) Concept of Law in Transnational Arbitral Legal Orders and Some of Its Consequences. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2:59–85Google Scholar
  41. Shirlow E (2016) Dawn of a new era? The UNCITRAL Rules and UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration. ICSID Review 31:622–654Google Scholar
  42. Stone Sweet A, Grisel F (2017) The Evolution of International Arbitration: Judicialization, Governance, Legitimacy. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. Venzke I, von Bogdandy A (2014) In Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  44. Waibel M, Kaushal A, Chung K-H, Balchin C (2010) The Backlash against Investment Arbitration. Wolters KluwerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS and the authors 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.T.M.C. Asser InstituutThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations