Sporting Justice: An Arbitrator's Perspective

Drawing on my experience of a number of sports dispute resolution tribunals in the UK and Ireland (such as Sports Resolutions UK; Just Sport Ireland; the Football Association of Ireland’s Disciplinary Panel and the Gaelic Athletic Association’s Dispute Resolution Authority) I intend to use this paper to review the legal arguments typically made in sports-related arbitrations. These points of interest can be summarised as a series of three questions: the fairness question; the liability question; the penalty question.

In answer to the fairness question, the aim is to give a brief outline on best practice in establishing a "fair" sports disciplinary tribunal. The answer, I believe, is always twofold in nature: first, and to paraphrase Lord Steyn in R v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26 at [28] "in law, context is everything" – translated into the present matter, this means that in sports disciplinary cases, the more serious the charges against the individual (in terms of reputational damage, economic impact and/or length of sanction); the more tightly wrapped the procedural safeguards surrounding any subsequent disciplinary hearing must be. A fair disciplinary system will be discussed in the context of the principles laid down in Article 8 of the World Anti-Doping Code which, in effect, acts as sport’s Article 6 of the ECHR on a right to a fair trial.

Following on from the above, in the 60 or so sports arbitrations that I have heard, there are two further points of interest. First, the claim before the arbitral panel will often be framed in an argument that, for various reasons of substantive and procedural irregularity, the sanction imposed on the appellant should be quashed ("the liability"). Second, and in alternative, that the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate ("the penalty").

The liability issue usually breaks down into two further questions. First, what is the nature of the legal duty upon a sports body in exercising its disciplinary remit? Second, to what extent does a de novo hearing on appeal cure any apparent defects in a hearing of first instance? The first issue often results in an arbitral panel debating the contra preferentum approach to the interpretation of a contested rule i.e., the sports body’s rules in question are so ambiguous that they should be interpreted in a manner to the detriment of the rule maker and in favour of the appellant. On the second matter, it now appears to be a general principle of sports law, administrative law and even human rights law that even if a violation of the principles of natural justice takes place at the first instance stage of a disciplinary process, they may be cured on de novo appeal. Authority for this approach can be found at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and in particular in CAS 2009/A/1920 FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v UEFA at para 87.

The question on proportionality asks what, aside from precedent found within the decisions of the sports body in question, are the general legal principles against which a sanction by a sports disciplinary body can be benchmarked in order to ascertain whether it is disproportionate in length or even irrational in nature?

On the matter of (dis)proportionality of sanction, the debate is usually guided by the authority in Bradley v the Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) and affirmed at [2005] EWCA Civ 1056. The Bradley principles on proportionality of sports-specific sanctions, recently cited with approval at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, will be examined in this presentation.

Finally, an interesting application of many of the above principles (and others such as the appropriate standard of proof in sports disciplinary procedures) can be made to recent match-fixing or corruption related hearings held by the British Horse Racing Authority, the integrity units of snooker and tennis, and at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Take care with 'care and consideration', and keep an eye on fees for reasons

In Southwell v Jackson [2012] QDC 65, McGill DCJ examined a number of rules in Chapter 17A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) dealing with costs assessment as well as relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). This article looks at issues of general principle raised by the decision.

A lesson in costs recovery

In La Spina v Macdonnells Law [2014] QSC 44 the Queensland Court of Appeal set aside a judgment entered in circumstances where the appellant had not been given the requisite notice of the application under r31 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(UCPR). The court found there had been a denial of natural justice. The court also considered whether in any event the entry of judgment in the circumstances was a proper exercise of the powers which may be exercised on an application for directions under r743H of the UCPR.

Costs assessment not an each-way bet: Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60

In Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60 McGinness DCJ considered issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). This recent costs assessment case from the District Court clearly illustrates the interplay between the relevant elements of the Legal Profession Act 2007 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

Notas para un iusnaturalismo realista en clave antropológica

Resumen: Este trabajo pretende exponer de manera sintética y no exhaustiva siete de las notas que un iusnaturalismo realista en clave antropológica ha de tener para responder tanto a las inquietudes legítimas del hombre contemporáneo como a una fundamentación de las dimensiones indisponibles de justicia natural de todo ordenamiento jurídico. Se trata de lo siguiente: a) encontrar un punto de partida en la realidad entendida metafísicamente, b) desarrollar una gnoseología integral sobre la integralidad del derecho, c) esclarecer la relación intrínseca entre justicia y derecho, d) plantear un ordenamiento jurídico con dimensiones naturales y positivas, e) proponer un derecho natural permanente y a la vez dinámico, f) fundamentar el derecho en un antropocentrismo teologal y g) proponer una apertura a los aportes de diferentes perspectivas iusfilosóficas.

US imperialism in action: An audit-based appraisal of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq

This paper drawing from audit reports reflects upon the post-Iraq war administration the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). It argues that the CPA’s compliance with basic levels of decent public administration were akin to Guantanamo’s compliance with basic levels of natural justice. The audit reports demonstrate that the CPA was a chaotic administration which spent billions without proper controls or procedures and left precious Iraqi oil revenues open to fraudulent acts. The CPA failed to comply with its obligations under UN resolutions. It identifies the geopolitical/economic implications of the US government which was partly motivated by economic concerns but it was also motivated by political concerns—the imposition of US hegemony. It then turns to the broader economic imperatives of the falling rate of profit and the imposition of neoliberalism (market fundamentalism).

Averroes y las cosas justas por naturaleza

En su comentario a la Ética a Nicómaco, Averroes se ocupó del pasaje donde Aristóteles distingue entre las cosas que son justas por naturaleza y aquéllas que lo son en virtud de la ley (V, 7 1134b18-1135a5). Su comentario es particularmente breve, pero plantea algunas dificultades importantes, como su alusión a un derecho naturale legale, que, según Leo Strauss, vendría a ser simplemente un derecho positivo de aceptación general. En este artículo se busca caracterizar lo justo natural y lo justo positivo en el comentario de Averroes y mostrar el alcance de la variación de los criterios propios de la justicia positiva.

La compétence du tribunal arbitral dans l'arbitrage commercial

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures En vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (L.L.M)"

Justice and morality:human suffering, natural law and international politics

Bridging the contending theories of natural law and international relations, this book proposes a 'relational ontology' as the basis for rethinking our approach to international politics. The book contains a number of challenging and controversial ideas on the study of international political thought which should provoke constructive debate within international relations theory, political theory, and philosophical ethics. © Amanda Russell Beattie 2010. All rights reserved.

Environmental rights, justice and climate change

The human rights implications of climate change are increasingly gaining attention, with wider international acknowledgement that climate change poses a real threat to human rights. This paper considers the impact of climate change on human rights, looking particularly at the experiences of Torres Strait Islanders in northern Australia. It argues that human rights law offers a guiding set of principles which can help in developing appropriate strategies to combat climate change. In particular, the normative principles embodied in environmental rights can be useful in setting priorities and evaluating policies in response to climate change. The paper also argues that a human rights perspective can help address the underlying injustice of climate change: that it is the people who have contributed least to the problem who will bear the heaviest burden of its effects.

Human rights and environmental wrongs : achieving environmental justice through human rights law

The links between the environment and human rights are well established internationally. It is accepted that environmental problems impact on individuals’ and communities’ enjoyment of rights which are guaranteed to them under international human rights law. Environmental issues also impact on governments’ capacity to protect and fulfil the rights of their citizens. In addition to these links between the environment and human rights, it is argued that human rights principles offer a strategy for addressing environmental injustice. The justice implications of environmental problems are well documented, with many examples where pollution, deforestation or other degradation disproportionately impacts upon poorer neighbourhoods or areas populated by minority groups. On the international level, there are environmental injustices which exist between developed and developing states. Further, there are also potential injustices for future generations. This paper investigates the role of human rights principles in addressing these instances of environmental injustice, and argues that the framework of human rights norms provides an approach to environmental governance which can help to minimise injustice and promote the interests of those groups who are most adversely affected. Further, it suggests that the human rights enforcement mechanisms which exist at international law could be utilised to lend more weight to claims for more equitable environmental policies.

The influence of justice theories on international climate policies and measures

While the justice implications of climate change are well understood by the international climate regime, solutions to meaningfully address climate injustice are still emerging. This article explores how a number of different theories of justice have influenced the development of international climate regime policies and measures. Such analysis is undertaken by examining the theories of remedial justice, environmental justice, energy justice, social justice and international justice. This article demonstrates how each of these theories has influenced the development of international climate policies or measures. No one theory of justice has the ability to respond to the multifaceted justice implications that arise as a result of climate change. It is argued that a variety of lenses of justice are useful when examining issues of injustice in the climate context. It is believed that articulating the justice implications of climate change by reference to theories of justice assists in clarifying the key issues giving rise to injustice. This article finds that while there has been some progress by the regime in recognising the injustices associated with climate change, such recognition is piecemeal and the implementation of many of the policies and measures discussed within this article needs to be either scaled up, or extended into more far-reaching policies and measures to overcome climate justice concerns. Overall it is suggested that climate justice concerns need to be clearly enunciated within key adaptation instruments so as to provide a legal and legitimate basis upon which to leverage action.

Human rights and environmental wrongs : achieving environmental justice through human rights law

The numerous interconnections between the environment and human rights are well established internationally. It is understood that environmental issues such as pollution, deforestation or the misuse of resources can impact on individuals’ and communities’enjoyment of fundamental rights, including the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to self‐determination and the right to life itself. These are rights which are guaranteed under international human rights law and in relation to which governments bear certain responsibilities. Further, environmental issues can also impact on governments’ capacity to protect and fulfil the rights of their citizens. In this way human rights and environmental protection can be constructed as being mutually supportive. In addition to these links between the environment and human rights, human rights principles arguably offer a framework for identifying and addressing environmental injustice. The justice implications of environmental problems are well documented and there are many examples where pollution, deforestation or other degradation disproportionately impact upon poorer neighbourhoods or areas populated by minority groups. On the international level, environmental injustice exists between developed and developing States, as well as between present and future generations who will inherit the environmental problems we are creating today. This paper investigates the role of human rights principles, laws and mechanisms in addressing these instances of environmental injustice and argues that the framework of human rights norms provides an approach to environmental governance which can help to minimise injustice and promote the interests of those groups which are most adversely affected. Further, it suggests that the human rights enforcement mechanisms which exist at international law could be utilised to lend weight to claims for more equitable environmental policies.

Air crimes and atmospheric justice

This chapter explores the political economy of air pollution. It draws on discourses of power, harm and violence to analyse air pollution within emerging frameworks of 'eco-crime' and atmospheric justice' (see Vanderheiden 2008; Walters 2010). In doing so, it identifies how green criminology continues to push new boundaries by engaging with issues of both global and local concern.