Discussion Of Arbitration For Sport Judicial Supervision

Judicial supervision of Arbitration for Sport is an important area of internationalsports law research. Arbitration for Sport as an important means to solve the disputesof sports field, has been widely used around the world. The1984International SportsArbitration Court (Court of Arbitration for the Sport), marking the InternationalOlympic Committee in Lausanne, Switzerland, the establishment of ultimately chooseto use the arbitration system to resolve sports disputes. Today, the sports arbitrationmechanism has become the best way to resolve sports disputes in the internationalsports are. Arbitration for Sport as one of the means to resolve sports disputes outsidethe litigation, the value of its autonomy and the pursuit of efficiency features havedetermined that it should be under the judicial supervision. However, the high degreeof autonomy of the sports field of the Court of Arbitration for Sport judicialsupervision process, does not need too much help of Arbitration for Sport. Therefore,the supervision of the court put the focus on a narrow range, namely theimplementation of the review and control of Arbitration for Sport ruling. The otherhand, the judicial supervision of the United States and Britain of Arbitration for Sportsystem and the CAS system of judicial supervision, both from a normative argumentof Arbitration for Sport to accept the legitimacy of judicial supervision. However, inthe practice of judicial supervision, the courts are generally reluctant to which theexcessive involvement of the sports disputes, especially in the highly specialized rulesof the game or doping disputes, because the judges lack of sports expertise, it isdifficult to ensure that the judgment to make the fairness. Therefore, in practice, thesupervision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled usually the spirit of respect andcare involved in the attitude, that is, the Court filed by the parties legitimate cause forthe cancellation, usually limited to a small range of interpreted with caution, orreview of CAS The ruling, usually only review procedural issues, generally does notinvolve substantive issues. At this point, from another point of view reflects theCourt’s recognition of and respect for the autonomy of the sports field. China’s sports dispute resolution practice, the majority of sports disputes areresolved by the Sports Association, only few cases will the court of appeals decision.The use of Arbitration for Sport to deal with sports disputes, China has also just stopat the theoretical level, it is entirely the use of arbitration to resolve disputes with theinternational sports arena trend contrary. Although33of the Sports Law of thePeople’s Republic of China and China’s "Anti-Doping Regulations46of Arbitrationfor Sport has been talked about, but it just a symbol of the provisions. In fact, China’ssports arbitration, whether institutional or institution-building in a blank state. Articlethe feasibility of the judicial supervision of Arbitration for Sport for the system ofArbitration for Sport to provide a theoretical draw, but also provide ideas forimproving China’s legal system construction of sports and build their own distinctivesystem of Arbitration for Sport.