期刊文献+

《世界反兴奋剂条例》听证条款的法律解释学分析 被引量:6

Hermeneutic Analysis of Hearing Provisions of World Anti-doping Code
下载PDF
导出
摘要 法律解释学的文义解释、漏洞补充、法律论证理论对《世界反兴奋剂条例》第8条听证条款的认知具有应用价值。文义解释是听证条款优先解释方法,应将词语的通常意义作为解释的首要规则。通过漏洞补充认为兴奋剂听证适用瑞士行政听证规则,听证裁决应经国际奥委会核准后执行。通过法律论证认为保护运动员基本权利优先于国际奥委会确保体育纯洁、促进公平竞赛的目的,听证是否公开需要国际体育仲裁法庭综合考虑法律效果和社会效果的有机统一。运动员对世界反兴奋剂机构不遵守自己规则或不正确解释规则的行为有向瑞士联邦最高法院上诉的司法救济权利。 The semantic interpretation,the supplement of loopholes and the legal argumentation of law hermeneutics are applicable to the cognition of the hearing clause of article 8 of the World Anti-doping Code.Semantic interpretation is the preferred method of interpretation of hearing clauses,and the common meaning of words should be taken as the first rule of interpretation.Through loopholes,it is added that the doping hearing shall be subject to the Swiss administrative hearing rules,and the hearing decision shall be implemented after the approval of the International Olympic Committee.Through legal argument,it is believed that the protection of the basic rights of athletes takes precedence over the purpose of the National Olympic Committee to ensure the purity of sports and promote fair competition.Whether the hearing is open or not require the Court of Arbitration for Sport to consider the organic unity of legal effect and social effect.Athletes have the right to appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court against WADA's failure to comply with its own rules or its incorrect interpretation of the rules.
作者 孔蕊 姜世波 KONG Rui;JIANG Shibo(Personnel Dept., Shandong Univ., Qingdao 266237, China;Sports Rule by Law Research Center, Shandong Univ., Weihai 264209, China)
出处 《武汉体育学院学报》 CSSCI 北大核心 2020年第3期34-38,共5页 Journal of Wuhan Sports University
基金 国家社会科学基金重大项目(18ZDA330)。
关键词 体育法学 兴奋剂 文义解释 漏洞补充 法律论证 sports law doping direct interpretation supplement of loophole legal argument
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献17

  • 1肖永平.内国、涉外仲裁监督机制之我见——对《中国涉外仲裁监督机制评析》一文的商榷[J].中国社会科学,1998(2):94-97. 被引量:28
  • 2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:22
  • 3韩勇.兴奋剂处罚的“严格责任”原则[J].首都体育学院学报,2006,18(5):17-21. 被引量:8
  • 4JEAN-PAUL COSTA. Legal opinion regarding the draft 3.0 revision of the World Anti-doping Code [EB/OL], www.wada-ama.org/Documents/.../ WADC-Legal-Opinion-on-Draft-2015-Code-3.0-EN.pdf, 2014-07- 18.
  • 5MATI'HEW D.WADA code strong and dynamic and protecting clean athletes (June 22, 2014) [EB/OL]. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/wa- da-code-strong-and-dynamic-and-protecletes-ting-elean-ath201406 22-zsi18.html, 2014-07-05.
  • 6LORENZO C. Global Hybrid Public-Private Bodies: The World An- ti-Doping Agency (WADA)[J]. International Organizations Law Re- view, 2009(6) :421-437.
  • 7GABRIELLE KAUFMANN-KOHLER, ANTONIO RIGOZZI. Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Article 10.6 of the 2007 Draftworld An- ti-Doping Code with the Fundamental Rights of Athletes (13 November 2007 )[EB/OL].http ://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Dop ing_PrograngWADP-Legal_Library/Advisory_and_Legal_Opinions/Le- gal_Opinion_Conformity_ 10_6_complete_document.pdf, 2014-05-18.
  • 8ULRICH H. Role and application of article 6 of the European Conven- tion on Human Rights in CAS procedures[J].International Organizations Law Review, 2012 ( 3 ) : 43-60.
  • 9JOHAN L. Does Legislating Against Doping in Sports Make Sense? Com- paring Sweden and the United States Suggest Not[J].Virgima Sports & Entertainment Law Journal, 2013,13 ( 1 ) : 21-57.
  • 10ANTONIO R, MARJOLAINE V, EMILY W.Does the World Anti-Dop- ing Code Revision Live up to its Promises? A Preliminary Survey of the Main Changes in the Final Draft of the 2015 WADA Code. [EB/OL]. http ://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411990, 2014- 07-25.

共引文献16

同被引文献53

引证文献6

二级引证文献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