Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cour Suprême du Sport Mondial

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

  • 1000 Accesses

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 .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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. 2.

    Wolaver 1934, p. 132. Cf. Emerson 1970, pp. 155–156. By the time of the middle ages the practice was well-established and regulated in many jurisdictions. See e.g. Noussia 2010, p. 11.

  3. 3.

    Blackaby et al. 2015, pp. 4–6. See further Sects. 2.1 and 10.1.

  4. 4.

    Mbaye 2006, p. 19.

  5. 5.

    Cf. Casini 2011, pp. 1321–1322.

  6. 6.

    See further Sect. 3.3.

  7. 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. 8.

    IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch ’s opening speech at the 85th session of the IOC.

  9. 9.

    See Sect. 3.3. See also Hess 2015, pp. 59–60.

  10. 10.

    In accordance with Juan Antonio Samaranch ’s vision, Kéba Mbaye was recruited from the International Court of Justice .

  11. 11.

    Mbaye 2006, p. 19.

  12. 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. 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. 14.

    As explained in greater detail below, this book seeks to cover the development from CAS’s inception to the end of 2014.

  15. 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. 16.

    See above Sect. 1.1.

  17. 17.

    Cf. McLaren 2001, pp. 380–381 (specifically discussing the role of CAS when it comes to combating doping ).

  18. 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. 19.

    See further Chap. 10.

  20. 20.

    Cf. McArdle 2015, pp. 19–35.

  21. 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. 22.

    See Chap. 9.

  23. 23.

    Schill 2012.

  24. 24.

    See above Sect. 1.1.

  25. 25.

    Drahozal 2003.

  26. 26.

    Blackaby et al. 2015, p. 30.

  27. 27.

    See e.g. Berger 2013, p. 7; Rogers 2006, p. 1345; Tucker 2016.

  28. 28.

    See below Sect. 1.5.

  29. 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. 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. 31.

    See generally Jansen and Michaels 2008.

  32. 32.

    See e.g. Teubner 2002.

  33. 33.

    See e.g. Michaels 2007.

  34. 34.

    See e.g. Jansen and Michaels 2008.

  35. 35.

    See e.g. Foster 2003, p. 2.

  36. 36.

    Teubner 1997.

  37. 37.

    For an introduction and comparison of the three, see Vieweg and Staschik 2015, pp. 34–36. The proposition that a transnational legal order was developing in sports was supposedly first put forth by Giannini in 1949. See Wax 2015, p. 147.

  38. 38.

    In CAS 98/200, AEK Athens, quoted immediately below, CAS also expressly invokes lex mercatoria .

  39. 39.

    Beloff 2005, p. 49; Erbsen 2006, p. 441; Latty 2011, p. 37; Siekmann 2011, p. 4.

  40. 40.

    As some of the findings made herein may be applicable to other private legal orders as well.

  41. 41.

    Yi 2006, p. 290.

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Erbsen 2006, p. 441 (“Commentators do not agree on what Lex Sportiva means, but many share a belief that it exists.”); Vieweg and Staschik 2015.

  43. 43.

    Casini 2011, p. 1319.

  44. 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. 45.

    CAS 98/200, para 156.

  46. 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. 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. 48.

    See e.g. Erbsen 2006; McLaren 2001; Mitten and Opie 2010; Nafziger 2004; Wax 2015, p. 148.

  49. 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. 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. 51.

    Beloff et al. 2012, pp. 308–309; Beloff 2005, p. 52 (“in locating these principles and rules, sports law borrows, magpie-like, from private law as well as public, appropriately mixing Latinisms with French phrases, civil and common law concepts.”); Hess 2015, pp. 68–69; Latty 2007, pp. 305–323.

  52. 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. 53.

    See e.g. Beloff 2005; Foster 2003; Foster 2006, paras 4–9; Vieweg and Staschik 2015, pp. 23–24.

  54. 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. 55.

    Beloff et al. 2012, p. 309; Hess 2015, pp. 67–68; Latty 2007, pp. 323–332.

  56. 56.

    See Foster 2003, p. 9. Cf. Panagiotopoulos 2013, p. 132 (describing lex sportiva as a “sui generis sporting legal order”).

  57. 57.

    Latty 2007, p. 323.

  58. 58.

    CAS 2001/A/317, Aanes, para 24.

  59. 59.

    Whether this only includes principles that are unique to sports or also a broader range of principles varies.

  60. 60.

    See e.g. Buy et al. 2015, pp. 140–141; Casini 2011, p. 1319; Duval 2013, pp. 827–828; Latty 2011, p. 37.

  61. 61.

    Buy et al. 2015, pp. 140–141.

  62. 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. 63.

    Rigozzi 2005, p. 628.

  64. 64.

    Foster 2006, para 6.

  65. 65.

    CAS 2002/A/373, Scott, para 14.

  66. 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. 67.

    Foster 2006, para 6.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Nafziger 2015, pp. 161–162.

  69. 69.

    See e.g. Teubner 2002.

  70. 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. 71.

    Teubner 2008.

  72. 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. 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. 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. 75.

    See Foster 2003, p. 14.

  76. 76.

    See e.g. Barents 2004, pp. 17–19; Duval 2013, p. 823; MacCormick 1999; Schultz 2014, pp. 4–6.

  77. 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. 78.

    See also Paulsson 2011, pp. 315–317.

  79. 79.

    See e.g. Hess 2015, p. 61 (“Lex sportiva is assumed to be an autonomous legal order…”). I am doubtful about my ability to provide a valuable contribution to a field where much impressive research has already been done, see e.g. Casini 2011; Erbsen 2006; Foster 2003; Latty 2007.

  80. 80.

    In the second, broader sense of the term. For a similar reasoning, see e.g. Panagiotopoulos 2011.

  81. 81.

    See also Sect. 7.2.

  82. 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. 83.

    In formulating these questions, I have drawn generally on the thoughts of Duval 2013; Kerchove & Ost 1994; Schultz 2014.

  84. 84.

    Franck et al. 2017, p. 1128. Cf. Brower and Schill 2009, p. 473 (discussing investment-treaty arbitration).

  85. 85.

    See Sects. 3.3–3.6.

  86. 86.

    See Chap. 6.

  87. 87.

    See Chap. 9.

  88. 88.

    See Chap. 10.

  89. 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. 90.

    See Sect. 9.2.2.

  91. 91.

    See Chap. 5. See also Derlén and Lindholm 2017b.

  92. 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. 93.

    Epstein and King 2002, p. 3.

  94. 94.

    See generally Cane and Kritzer 2010.

  95. 95.

    See Sect. 3.3.

  96. 96.

    See Sect. 5.3.

  97. 97.

    See e.g. Bersagel 2012; Erbsen 2006; Foster 2006.

  98. 98.

    See e.g. Cane and Kritzer 2010.

  99. 99.

    Cahoy 2010, p. vi; George 2006, p. 146.

  100. 100.

    Posner 1995, p. 3.

  101. 101.

    Heise 1999, pp. 813–814.

  102. 102.

    Drahozal 2003, pp. 23–24; Franck 2007, pp. 13–14 (p. 14 quoted).

  103. 103.

    However, we will also explore data on decisions by other sports dispute resolution institutions and the backgrounds of CAS arbitrators. See Sect. 4.3 and Chap. 9.

  104. 104.

    See above Sect. 1.2.

  105. 105.

    See e.g. Malatesta and Sali 2013; Rogers 2006; Smeureanu 2011.

  106. 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. 107.

    See further Sect. 2.2.

  108. 108.

    Article R43 CAS Code.

  109. 109.

    Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 312.

  110. 110.

    CAS, Statistics 2016.

  111. 111.

    See further Sect. 2.2.

  112. 112.

    Article R59 CAS Code.

  113. 113.

    See Blackshaw 2012, p. 7.

  114. 114.

    http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org. Accessed 7 September 2018.

  115. 115.

    According to statistics released by CAS it issued 2,695 decisions between 1986 and 2014. CAS, Statistics 2016.

  116. 116.

    See further Chap. 4.

  117. 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. 118.

    See Sect. 4.5.

  119. 119.

    See above Fig. 1.1 Dataset Representativeness.

  120. 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. 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. 122.

    CAS, Statistics 2016.

  123. 123.

    An average of 3.3 citations per award compared to 2.8.

  124. 124.

    The mean decision year of these awards are 2004 and 2008 respectively.

  125. 125.

    See Sect. 3.5.

  126. 126.

    An average of 1.2 references per award compared to 3.1.

  127. 127.

    Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 274.

  128. 128.

    See further Sect. 8.10.

  129. 129.

    Bersagel 2012, p. 199.

  130. 130.

    See Sect. 10.4.

  131. 131.

    On average 3.0 times per published decision compared to on average 2.0 times per unpublished decision.

  132. 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. 133.

    Euler 1741 is generally claimed to constitute the origin of graph theory.

  134. 134.

    Edges are sometimes also referred to as links or arcs and vertices as nodes.

  135. 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. 136.

    This is for example the basis for the Google search engine.

  137. 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. 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. 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. 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. 141.

    See further Chap. 5 and Sect. 6.3.1.

  142. 142.

    See further Sect. 6.3.2.

  143. 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. 144.

    Equal to the number of decisions it cites.

  145. 145.

    See further Derlén and Lindholm 2017b.

  146. 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. 147.

    Brin and Page 1998; Page et al. 1998. As a law teacher, I like to think about PageRank as the chance that a law student doing research by reading court decisions and following reference backwards in time (like a random walker) at any given point in time is reading a particular court decision.

  148. 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. 149.

    This is frequently used as a measurement of persuasive power in studies of case law. See e.g. Fowler et al. 2007; Lupu and Voeten 2012.

  150. 150.

    PageRank is here used instead of authority score.

  151. 151.

    Kleinberg 1999.

  152. 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. 153.

    In a network of case law, authorities and hubs can be translated as influential judgments and judgments that are well founded in law. See Fowler et al. 2007, p. 331. For a discussion of important hubs in the case law of the CJEU , see Derlén and Lindholm 2014, p. 685.

  154. 154.

    Barabási and Réka 1999.

  155. 155.

    See e.g. Sect. 5.2.

  156. 156.

    The mechanisms behind this distribution can frequently be described as a “rich-get-richer” phenomenon. See e.g. Barabási and Réka 1999.

  157. 157.

    As the inclusion or exclusion of a single member may have a massive impact on the group’s mean score.

  158. 158.

    Girvan and Newman 2002, p. 7821; Radicchi et al. 2004, p. 2658.

  159. 159.

    Fortunato 2010, pp. 76–77.

  160. 160.

    Girvan and Newman 2002, p. 7821.

  161. 161.

    See Chap. 6.2.

References

  • Anter A (2014) Max Weber’s Theory of the Modern State: Origins, Structure and Significance. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási A-L, Réka A (1999) Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science 286:509–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Barents R (2004) The Autonomy of Community Law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Beloff M (2005) Is there a lex sportiva? International Sports Law Review 3:49–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Beloff M, Kerr T, Demetriou M, Beloff R (2012) Sports Law, 2nd edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M (2015) Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2012) Introductory Remarks. In: Wild A (ed) CAS and Football: Landmark Cases, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30:107–117

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Buy F, Maramyou J-M, Poracchi D, Rizzo F (2015) Droit du Sport, 4nd edn. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahoy D (2010) Considerations in the Rise of Empirical Legal Scholarship. American Business Law Review 47:v–ix

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane P, Kritzer H (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Derlén M, Lindholm J (2017a) Peek-a-boo, It’s a Case Law System. German Law Journal 18(3):647–686

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahozal C (2003) Of Rabbits and Rhinoceri: A Survey of Empirical Research on International Commercial Arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration 20(1):23–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahozal C, Naimark R (2002) Towards a Science of International Arbitration: Collected Empirical Research. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval A (2013) Lex Sportiva: A Playground for Transnational Law. European Law Journal 19(6):822–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson F (1970) History of Arbitration Practice and Law. Cleveland State Law Review 19(1):155–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein L, King G (2002) The Rules of Inference. University of Chicago Law Review 69:1–133

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Euler L (1741) Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis. Commentarii academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae 8:128–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunato S (2010) Community Detection in Graphs. Physics Reports 486:75–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster K (2003) Is There a Global Sports Law. Entertainment Law 2(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster K (2006) Lex Sportiva and Lex Ludica: The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s Jurisprudence. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 3(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck S (2007) Empirically Evaluating Claims About Investment Treaty Arbitration. North Carolina Law Review 86:1–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck S, van Aaken A, Freda J, Guthrie C, Rachlinski J (2017) Inside the Arbitrator’s Mind. Emory Law Journal 66(5):1115–1173

    Google Scholar 

  • George T (2006) An Empirical Study of Empirical Legal Scholarship: The Top Law Schools. Indiana Law Journal 81:141–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Girvan M, Newman M (2002) Community Structure in Social and Biological Networks. PNAS 99(12):7821–7826

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansford T, Spriggs II J (2008) The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Heise M (1999) The Importance of Being Empirical. Pepperdine Law Review 26:807–834

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen N, Michaels R (2008) Beyond the State? Rethinking Private Law: Introduction to the Issue. American Journal of Comparative Law 56(3):527–539

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinberg J M (1999) Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment. Journal of the ACM 46:604–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Latty F (2007) La lex sportiva: Recherche sur le droit transnational. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Latty F (2011) Transnational Sports Law. The International Sports Law Journal 2011(1–2):34–38

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (1999) Questioning Sovereignty. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Malatesta A, Sali R (eds) (2013) The Rise of Transparency in International Arbitration. JurisNet, Huntington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Mbaye K (2002) Foreword. In: Reeb M (ed) Digest of CAS Awards 1998–2000. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp. xi–xii

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • McArdle D (2015) Dispute Resolution in Sport: Athletes, Law and Arbitration. Routledge, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2007) The True Lex Mercatoria: Law Beyond the State. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 14(2):447–468

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nafziger J (2004) Lex Sportiva. The International Sports Law Journal 2004(1–2):3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Noussia K (2010) Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of the Position under English, US, German and French Law. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotopoulos D (2011) Lex Sportiva and International Legitimacy Governing: Protection of Professional Players. US-China Law Review 8:121–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotopoulos D (2013) Sporting Jurisdictional Order and Arbitration. US-China Law Review 10:130–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R (2012) Lex sportiva and EU sports law. European Law Review 37(6):716–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner R (1995) Overcoming Law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Radicchi F, Castellano C, Cecconi F, Loreto V, Parisi D (2004) Defining and identifying communities in networks. PNAS 101(9):2658–2663

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A (2005) L’arbitrage international en matière de sport. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers C (2006) Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration. Kansas University Law Review 54:1301–1345

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2012) International Arbitrators as System-Builders. American Society of International Law 106:295–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz T (2014) Transnational Legality: Stateless Law and International Arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal J, Spaeth H, Benesh S (2005) The Supreme Court in the American Legal System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeureanu I (2011) Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (ed) (1997) Global Law Without a State. Dartmouth, Andover

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (2002) Breaking Frames: Economic Globalization and the Emergence of Lex Mercatoria. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2):199–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (2008) State Policies in Private Law. American Journal of Comparative Law 56:835–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker T (2016) Inside the Black Box: Collegial Patterns on Investment Tribunals. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 7:183–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuori K (2011) Ratio and Voluntas: The Tension Between Reason and Will in Law. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kerchove M, Ost F (1994) Legal Systems Between Order and Disorder. Stewart I trans., Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wax A (2015) Public International Sports Law and the Lex Sportiva. In: Vieweg K (ed) Lex Sportiva, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 145–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolaver E (1934) The Historical Background of Commercial Arbitration. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 83(2):132–146

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zetie K (2003) Getting a buzz from flight. Physics Education November 2003:476 Education November 2003:476

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Johan Lindholm

Authors
  1. Johan Lindholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Lindholm .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation