The Plural Remedy Mechanisms for Sport Disputes: In International and Comparative Law Perspectives (Abstract of PhD graduation thesis)-法搜-中国法律信息搜索网

　
　Such conclusions can be drawn from the above comparisons that the common law countries put more emphasis on the procedural justice than the civil law countries in the remedy mechanism of sports disputes and they have different judicial interventions with the sports dispute remedy, owing to the different legal theories and practice in the two legal systems. The main way by which the sports disputes are resolved is not similar either in the countries with different modes of sports management and traditions of legal culture. The universal trend emerging in the current practice of sports dispute remedy in western countries include the plural developments of the sports dispute remedy mechanism , higher and higher demand of the internal remedy mechanism of sports associations (disciplinary penalty mechanism included ), manifest increase of sports litigations as well as sports arbitration having been the most effective remedy for sports disputes.
　
　In the international part the practice of judicial remedy for sports disputes in European Court is examined with a discussion of the application of EU treaties and laws in the sports field mainly from the perspective of substantial law. The current trend is EU acknowledges that the sports trade should maintain its own culture on one hand, but on the other hand EU insists that as a commercially-operated trade it should observe the EU treaties and laws. A research is also made of the international sports arbitration system of the Sports Arbitration Tribunal established by International Olympic Committee and the conclusion is the arbitration mechanism in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is the most effective remedy for international sports disputes and the Tribunal can be the center of harmonizing and uniforming the contradicting sports dispute remedy mechanisms. As to the possible conflict between the arbitral procedure of the ad hoc arbitration court set up by the CAS and China’s national arbitration system during Beijing Olympic Games 2008, the author’s suggestion is that the problems be regulated through separate legislation.