期刊文献+

反兴奋剂“行踪规则”的合法性研究--基于欧洲人权法院“FNASS等诉法国案”的分析 被引量:18

Legitimacy of Anti-doping of “Whereabouts Rule”: A Study of Case of Fédération Nationale des Syndicats Sportifs (FNASS) and Others v. France
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 反兴奋剂"行踪规则",是指被国际单项体育联合会或国家反兴奋剂机构列入注册检查库的运动员应根据反兴奋剂检查和调查国际标准中规定的方式提供行踪信息。由于"行踪规则"涉及到运动员隐私,所以该规则是与运动员人权保护密切相关的一项规则,也是反兴奋剂领域一直受到广泛争议的规则。欧洲人权法院裁决的"FNASS等诉法国案"是关于"行踪规则"是否违反相关人权法的重要案件,也是近年来体育领域反兴奋剂中涉及运动员权利的重要案件。该案由欧洲人权法院裁决,更是体现了裁决的权威性,也是为"行踪规则"的合法性问题给予了一个明确答案。欧洲人权法院对"FNASS等诉法国案"的判决确认了"行踪规则"在《欧洲人权公约》下的合法性,对于整个世界反兴奋剂体系而言具有非常重要的意义。文章运用文献资料法、比较法和案例分析法等,首先对"FNASS等诉法国案"的案情进行了详细的分析,对欧洲人权法院的判决进行了深入的研究;其次,就欧洲人权法院对"FNASS等诉法国案"的裁决进行了评析,并就该案对世界反兴奋剂体系的影响进行了分析和讨论;最后,对"FNASS等诉法国案"给中国反兴奋剂法治建设带来的启示进行了分析。 Athletes who have been included in a Registered Testing Pool by their International Federation and/or National Anti-Doping Organization shall provide whereabouts information in the manner specified in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations. The anti-doping "Whereabouts rules" is a rule closely related to the protection of athletes’ human rights and a consistently widely disputed rule in the anti-doping field. The FNASS etc. v. France case,as decided by the European Court of Human Rights,is an important case concerning whether the " Whereabouts rules " are illegal and related to human rights law. It is also an important case involving anti-doping in the sports field in recent years. The case was decided by the European Court of Human Rights,which further reflected the authority of the ruling and also gave an answer to the question of the legitimacy of the "Whereabouts rules ". The European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the FNASS etc. v. France case confirms the legitimacy of the " Whereabouts rules " under the European Convention on Human Rights and is of great importance to the entire world anti-doping system. The article uses the methods of literature,comparison and case analysis to analyze the fact of FNASS etc. v. France case. The paper evaluate The European Court of Human Right’ s ruling on the FNASS etc. v. France case and analyzed and discussed the impact of the case on the world anti-doping system. Finally,an analysis of the enlightenment brought by the FNASS etc. v. France case to the anti-doping rule of law in China。
作者 姜熙 JIANG Xi(Institute of SportsLaw,Shanghai University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 201701,China)
出处 《天津体育学院学报》 CAS CSSCI 北大核心 2020年第2期208-215,共8页 Journal of Tianjin University of Sport
基金 国家社会科学基金项目(项目编号:18BTY071)。
关键词 体育法 反兴奋剂 欧洲人权法院 人权 “行踪规则” sports law anti-doping ECHR human right whereabouts
作者简介 姜熙(1982-),男,湖南益阳人,副教授,博士,研究方向为体育法学。
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献37

  • 1苏明忠.国际体育仲裁制度评介[J].中外法学,1996,8(6):36-41. 被引量:23
  • 2黄世席.《反对在体育运动中使用兴奋剂国际公约》研究[J].武汉体育学院学报,2006,40(3):10-14. 被引量:11
  • 3罗季奥诺夫.安德烈.新商人习惯法初论[J].中外法学,2007,19(1):113-119. 被引量:5
  • 4卡林.不可征服:纳尔逊·曼德拉治国传奇[M].北京:法律出版社,2010:156.
  • 5John J MacAloon. Double visions: Olympic Games and american culture[J]. Recreation, Sports & Leisure Studies, 1982(1): 181.
  • 6Roger I. Abrams, cricket and the cohesive role of sports in societ[J]. Sports & Entertainment Law, 2005 : 39-40.
  • 7IOC.As of June 2009, there are 205 National Olym- pic Committees. National Olympic Committee, Olympic Movement[EB/OL]. http ://www.olympic.org/en/content/ National-Olympic-Committee/, 2009-11-08.
  • 8Growth in United Nations membership, 1945-present, United Nations[EB/OL]. http://www.un.org/en/members/ growth.shtml, 2010-11-08.
  • 9Wagner E A. Sport in Asia and Africa: Americanization or mundialisation?[J]. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1990, 7: 399-402.
  • 10Matthew J Mitten, Hayden Opie. "Sports Law": Implications for the development of international, comparative, and national law and global dispute reso- lution[J]. Tulane Law Review, 2010, 12(1): 269.

共引文献45

引证文献18

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部