Olympic Rule 50 and political neutrality: is it time for a turning point?

Abstract

Since 1955 the Olympic Charter (OC) declares that there must be no extraneous events within the Olympic Games (OG), in particular of a political nature. The so-called Rule 50 has banned the use of the Games to externalize one’s ideas. Its infringements were mostly due to symbolic behavior by athletes who were then punished despite demanding respect for fundamental human rights trampled on in many regions of the world. The first question this essay poses is: is the rule an unjustified impediment to acting for just cause? Recent international political events and in particular the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict have sparked renewed interest in the declared apolitical and neutrality of the Olympic Movement (OM) and its effectiveness in promoting peace and achieving the goals of Olympism. The second question of this essay is: is this positioning always reconcilable with real events? It will be concluded that the current rule 50 adheres to the rules of international law while neutrality should be rethought and sacrificed if it makes the pursuit of the objectives of peace and justice less effective. The two issues are independent but can act in complementary ways to pursue legitimate objectives of the OM.