The collision between human rights and arbitration: the game of inconsistencies at the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Abstract

Abstract This article depicts a clash between arbitration and international human rights law (IHRL) norms. It discusses the IHRL aspects of cases arbitrated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Procedural and substantive IHRL claims are being increasingly raised before CAS. However, CAS panels seem to be inconsistent in dealing with the issue. This article analyses the jurisprudence of CAS to identify inconsistencies, chaos, and contradictions in its approach to human rights claims. It also offers several factors that may contribute to this contradictory treatment of IHRL claims by CAS panels including the flexible nature of arbitral proceedings, inadequate expertise in IHRL among counsel and arbitrators, and the possibility of favouritism towards sport governing bodies. It concludes that the inconsistencies and contradictions in CAS jurisprudence make it difficult to regard it as a truly effective remedy for violations of human rights and that reforms are needed if human rights claims are to be given due consideration and the mechanism can be viewed as an effective remedy.