国际体育仲裁院区分管辖机制

Divided Jurisdiction Mechanism of CAS

国际体育仲裁院通过在内部设立普通仲裁处、上诉仲裁处和特别仲裁处这三类仲裁机构,将其管辖权进行了进一步的区分,并经过自身规则体系的规定,将仲裁程序规则的适用范围与各内部仲裁机构的管辖范围相联系,至此形成了以纠纷类型为区分管辖出发点、以"程序——机构"的逆向方式为具体运作规则的区分管辖机制。然而由于CAS自身规则体系的漏洞,以及当事人意思自治对机制存在的必然影响,导致这一机制在实际运作中出现了各内部仲裁机构之间管辖界限不清、区分标准模糊、区分管辖决定权不明等问题,通过分析研究发现,这些问题的背后涉及更为深层的原因在于体育自治与仲裁规制、学理判断与实践操作之间的价值交融和转换。因此,CAS区分管辖所显现的问题,有的是可以通过完善规则在立法层面得到解决,有的则是体育纠纷和纠纷解决特殊性的反映。我国在建立自身的体育仲裁制度时,可以采用CAS式的区分管辖方式,但需要经过几方面的改良,以构建成更完善的区分管辖机制。

There are three inner arbitration divisions in the Court of Arbitration for Sport （CAS）, namely, the ordinary di- vision, appeal division and ad hoc division, to divide its jurisdiction, and to connect the application scope of arbitration procedure rules with the jurisdiction of each inner arbitration divisions by providing this in the CAS Code. In this way, CAS creates the divided jurisdiction mechanism, which regards the types of disputes as its basic and the reverse mode of ＂procedure rules divisions＂ as specific operating rules. However, because of the lack of sufficient sound CAS rules and the failure to recognize the inevitable influence of party autonomy, several problems of the mechanism appear in operation, such as the uncertainty and ambiguity of inner arbitration divisions, dividing standard and the deciding party of divided ju- risdiction. In fact, the deeper reasons of theses problems lie in the conversion of values between sports autonomy and arbi- tration rule, and rationality in theory and practice. Therefore, some of the problems of the jurisdiction mechanism can be solved by improving the system of CAS rules, but some are sports disputes, which are solved in different ways. In China, divided jurisdiction mechanism could also be adopted .