Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Choice of Applicable Law and the Limitations of Party Autonomy - Focusing on International Sports Arbitration -

중재의 준거법 선택과 당사자 자치의 제한 - 국제스포츠중재를 중심으로 -

  • 유소미 (스위스 취리히대학교(University of Zurich) 법과대학)
  • Received : 2021.04.21
  • Accepted : 2021.05.31
  • Published : 2021.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Sports disputes have specific characteristics compared to disputes that arise in the field of commerce. One particularity is the judicial system in which the CAS plays a key role as the International Supreme Court for sports-related matters. The CAS Code applies whenever the parties agree to submit a sports-related dispute to the CAS(Art. R27). Once the parties to the arbitration agreement have decided that the CAS Code should govern their proceedings. The parties' autonomy is, however, limited to the provisions of the CAS Code that provide for such a corresponding autonomy. The application of the mandatory rules contained in the CAS Code cannot be excluded. In CAS appeals arbitration proceedings, the Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable sports regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties(Art. R58). In international sports disputes, the uniform application and interpretation of the relevant regulations are essential. Therefore, Art. R58 should be applied as a mandatory rule without any changes. Regulations of the sports organizations are to be qualified as valid rules of law. CAS panels may also apply the so-called lex sportiva to the merits before considering statutory provisions of national jurisdictions. In this way, the specificities in (international) sports disputes can be taken into account without the need to further examine the application of national legal standards.

Keywords

References

  1. 남기연.유소미, "스포츠윤리 확립을 위한 법제도적 개선 방안 - 스포츠윤리센터를 중심으로 -", 「법학논총」 제44권 제4호, 단국대학교 법학연구소, 2020.
  2. 남기연.유소미, "유럽인권협약에 따른 스포츠 중재 합의의 효력 - Claudia Pechstein의 판결을 중심으로 -", 「스포츠엔터테인먼트와 법」 제22권 제2호, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, 2019.
  3. 목영준, 「국제상사중재법론」, 박영사, 2001.
  4. 석광현, 「국제상사중재법연구」 제1권, 박영사, 2007.
  5. 손경한, "lex mercatoria의 21세기적 의의", 「성균관법학」 제28권 제3호, 성균관대학교 법학연구원, 2016.
  6. 손경한, "중재 자치와 중재의 준거법", 「국제사법연구」 제17권, 한국국제사법학회, 2011.
  7. 손경한, "중재 자치의 개념과 내용", 「성균관법학」 제24권 제3호, 성균관대학교 법학연구원, 2012.
  8. 오석웅, "국제상사중재판정의 준거법선택에 있어서 당사자자치의 원칙 - 당사자에 의한 lex mercatoria의 선택과 준거법 분할지정의 가능여부를 중심으로 -", 「중재연구」 제17권 제1호, 한국중재학회, 2007.
  9. 오석웅, "국제중재절차법과 당사자자치의 원칙 - 우리나라 중재법의 해석을 중심으로 -", 「국제사법연구」 제17권, 한국국제사법학회, 2011.
  10. 오석웅, "스포츠중재에 있어서 중재합의의 유효성에 관한 제문제 - CAS의 중재와 Claudia Pechstein사례의 분석을 포함하여 -", 「스포츠엔터테인먼트와 법」 제23권 제4호, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, 2020.
  11. 윤종진, "국제상사중재의 준거법에 관한 고찰", 「해사법연구」 제7권 제2호, 한국해사법학회, 1995.
  12. 이강빈, "상사중재에 있어서 당사자자치의 역할", 「중재연구」 제19권 제2호, 한국중재학회, 2009.
  13. 홍성규, "국제상사중재에서 UNIDROIT원칙의 적용사례 분석", 「중재연구」 제21권 제1호, 한국중재학회, 2011.
  14. 홍성규, "Lex Mercatoria로서 국제상사계약에 관한 UNIDROIT원칙의 역할", 「무역학회지」 제29권 제4호, 한국무역학회, 2004.
  15. Arbitration in Switzerland, Vol. II, Arroyo (ed.), Wolters Kluwer, 2018.
  16. Basler Kommentar, Internationales Privatrecht, Grolimund/Loacker/Schnyder (Hrsg.), Helbing Lichtenbahn Verlag, 2021.
  17. Berger, Bernhard and Kellerhals, Franz, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland, Stampfli, 2015.
  18. Digest of CAS Awards I, 1986-1998, Reeb (ed.), Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 1998.
  19. Girsberger, Daniel and Voser, Nathalie, International Arbitration - Comparative and Swiss Perspectives, Schulthess Juristische Medien AG, 2016.
  20. Goksu, Tarkan, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Dike Verlag AG, 2014.
  21. Haas, Ulrich, "Applicable law in football-related disputes - The relationship between the CAS Code, the FIFA Statutes and the agreement of the parties on the application of national law -", CAS Bulletin 2/2015.
  22. Haas, Ulrich, "Die Rechtsprechung des CAS zur Vertragsstabilitat im Verhaltnis zwischen Fussballspielern und Klubs", Causa Sport 2008.
  23. Haas, Ulrich, "Die Vereinbarung von Rechtsregeln in (Berufungs-) Schiedsverfahren vor dem Court of Arbitration for Sport", Causa Sport 2007.
  24. Hessert, Bjorn, "Schiedsklauseln: Die Notwendigkeit eines sachgerechten Ausgleichs", Causa Sport 2020.
  25. Internationale Schiedsverfahren, Praxishandbuch, Salger/Trittmann (Hrsg.), Verlag C.H. Beck, 2019.
  26. Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle and Rigozzi, Antonio, Arbitrage international: droit et pratique a la lumiere de la LDIP, Weblaw, 2010.
  27. Mavromati, Despina and Reeb, Matthieu, The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials, Wolters Kluwer, 2015.
  28. Oschutz, Frank, Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit - Die Schiedsverfahren des Tribunal Arbitral du Sport vor dem Hintergrund des schweizerischen und deutschen Schiedsverfahrensrechts, Duncker & Humblot, 2005.
  29. Poudret, Jean-Francois and Besson, Sebastien, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, 2007.
  30. Praxishandbuch Sportrecht, Fritzweiler/Pfister/Summerer (Hrsg.), C.H.BECK, 2020.
  31. Rigozzi, Antonio, L'arbitrage international en matiere de sport, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2005.
  32. Sport: Law and Practice, Lewis/Taylor (eds.), Bloomsbury Professional, 2021.
  33. Vieweg, Klaus and Staschik, Paul, "Lex Sportiva und Fairness-Prinzip", Sport und Recht 2013.
  34. Zurcher Kommentar zum IPRG, Band II, Mul er-Chen/Luchinger (Hrsg.), Schulthess Juristische Medien AG, 2018.