Tapping the potential of human rights provisions in mega-sporting events’ bidding and hosting agreements

The International Sports Law Journal - Tập 17 Số 3-4 - Trang 170-185 - 2018
Daniela Heerdt1
1Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands

Tóm tắt

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Álvarez Rubio RJJ, Yiannibas K (2017) Human rights in business: removal of barriers to access to justice in the European Union. Routledge, London

Broudehoux A-M (2004) The making and selling of post-Mao Beijing. Routledge, London

Casini L (2012) The making of a Lex sportiva by the court of arbitration for sport. In: Siekmann RCR, Soed J (eds) Lex sportiva: what is sports law?. TMC Asser Press & Springer, The Hague, pp 147–171

Chappelet J-L, Kübler-Mabbott B (2008) The international olympic committee and the olympic system: the governance of world sport. Routledge, London

Corrarino M (2014) “Law exclusion zones”: mega-events as sites of procedural and substantive human rights violations. Yale Hum Rights Dev Law J 17(1):180–204

Dannenbaum T (2015) Public power and preventive responsibility: attributing the wrongs of international joint ventures. In: Nollkaemper A et al (eds) Distribution of responsibilities in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–226

de Montmollin J, Pentsov DA (2011) Do athletes really have the right to a fair trial in “non-analytical positive” doping cases?. Am Rev Int Arbitr 22(2):189–240

Enneking L (2017) Judicial remedies: the issue of applicable law. In: Álvarez Rubio JJA, Yiannibas K (eds) Human rights in business: removal of barriers to access to justice in the European Union. Routledge, London

Fry D (2014) Attribution of responsibility. In: Nollkaemper A, Plakokefals I (eds) Principles of shared responsibility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 98–133

Gauthier R (2017) The international olympic committee, law, and accountability. Routledge, London

Geeraert A, Mrkonjic M, Chappelet J-L (2015) A rationalist perspective on the autonomy of international sport governing bodies: towards a pragmatic autonomy in the steering of sports. Int J Sport Policy Polit 7(4):473–488

Häusler K, Lukas K, Planitzer J (2017) Non-judicial remedies. In: Álvarezrubio J, Yiannibas K (eds) Human rights in business: removal of barriers to access to justice in the European Union. Routledge, London

Kaufman J, McDonnell K (2016) Community-driven operational grievance mechanisms. Bus Hum Rights J 1(1):127–132

Letnar Cernic J (2014) Emerging fair trial guarantees before the court of arbitration for sport. In: European society of international law. 10th Anniversary Conference Papers, Conference Paper No. 9/2014. Vienna

Levine J, Wahid K (2017) Business and human rights: a “new frontier” for international arbitration?. ACICA Rev 5(2):35–39

McLaren R (2001) Introducing the court of arbitration for sport: the ad hoc division at the olympic games. Marq Sports Law Rev 12(1):515–542

Nafziger JAR (2004) Lex Sportiva. Int Sports Law J 1

Nolan J (2014) Refining the rules of the game: the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Utrecht J Int Eur Law 30(78):7–23

Thompson B (2017) Determining criteria to evaluate outcomes of businesses’ provision of remedy: applying a human rights-based approach. Bus Hum Rights J 2(1):55–85

Thompson RC, Cronstedt C (2016) A proposal for an international arbitration tribunal on business and human rights. Harv Int Law J (Online Symposium) 57:66–69

Vandenbogaerde A (2016) Towards shared accountability in international human rights law: law, procedures and principles. Intersentia, Cambridge

Vytopil L (2012) Contractual control and labour-related CSR norms in the supply chain: Dutch best practices. Utrecht Law Rev 8:155–169

Vytopil L (2015) Contractual control in the supply chain: on corporate social responsibility, codes of conduct, contracts and (avoiding) liability. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague

Wettstein F (2015) Normativity, ethics, and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: a critical assessment. J Hum Rights 14(2):162–182