PECULIARITIES OF JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT IN LAUSANNE

Abstract

ANNOTATION: the article is devoted to investigating the functioning and refinement of the existence in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, as the main institution that use commercial and other disputes in the field of sports. Today, the sports community is trying to get the most out of its and international regulations and to reach internal corporate standards that are subject to international sports federations and athletes. For the effective functioning of this system, international sports federations are created by jurisdictions (the main of which is the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne), the purpose of which is settling disputes that exist between athletes and sports organizations, according to corporate rules existing in international sports competitions and international Olympic competitions. Separate to this system is the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, the legal status of which must be disassembled in this case. Particular attention is paid to the non-consensual nature of coercive achievement of sports arbitration for athletes. Thus, sports competitions that govern professional and other Olympic sports, in fact, force athletes to withdraw from constitutional rights to access to justice. Thus, we decide that genuine arbitration admiration can be achieved when the athlete does not allow the arbitration tribunal (arbitration) to resolve the dispute and to select the same arbitration jurisdictions that operate under the compulsory nature. In addition, the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne with the Government of Switzerland and international sports federations are involved in resolving the issues. However, despite more than 20 years of successful work, functioning of the Sport Arbitration Court in Lausanne, its independence, as well as the extraordinary arbitration, it is considered that they are always in doubt, and at this time we try to bring to court the inventions of their use in general jurisdiction. Other international courts created by states, such as the United Nations International Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights, are essentially multifunctional bodies. Besides the justice, they largely act as international interstate structures, and their direct activities are viewed by anyone designed under international public law, applying conventions (international interstate agreements).