Why did the highest sports arbitration authority reject the appeal of the Russian Olympic Committee

Taking the high-profile decision last year to suspend the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) for an indefinite period due to the inclusion of the Olympic Councils of the DPR and LPR, as well as the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not violate any of its basic principles. This follows from the reasoning part of the verdict of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which rejected the appeal of the ROC, despite the fact that, as it turned out, the Russian side, trying to protest the disqualification, presented a number of arguments that looked quite convincing to a person not privy to the nuances of the Olympic regulations .

The Court of Arbitration for Sport published the reasons for the verdict it issued in February, rejecting the appeal of the Russian Olympic Committee. The ROC challenged the high-profile decision of the International Olympic Committee made last October. The IOC, which has repeatedly initiated the application of sanctions against the Russian sports industry since February 2022, the beginning of a special military operation in Ukraine, suspended the ROC indefinitely, “until further notice,” depriving it of its status as a structure representing the country at the Olympic Games. The reason for, in fact, the maximum severity of the punishment was the inclusion in its composition of the Olympic Councils of the DPR and LPR, as well as the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, that is, regions admitted to the Russian Federation in the fall of 2022. The IOC equated it to a gross violation of the Olympic Charter, considering that it threatened the “integrity” of the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of Ukraine.

ROC President Stanislav Pozdnyakov, other Russian sports officials, government leaders and politicians have repeatedly characterized the suspension as a “politically motivated” and “discriminatory” step.

However, an attempt to appeal to CAS did not lead to success.

The reasoning part of the decision of the highest sports arbitration authority is interesting, first of all, because it makes clear what arguments were contained in the appeal of the Russian side. Meanwhile, we are talking about a rather large and convincing – at least for a person not privy to the intricacies of the Olympic regulations – set of arguments.

The ROC insisted that the IOC had ignored all of its basic principles by depriving it of recognition. The first of these is the principle of “legality”. According to the ROC, the IOC simply did not have the competence and authority in that area of ​​international law that concerns relations between states and, for example, the establishment of borders, in order to react in this way to the accession of new members, moreover, those related to territories already included in the Russian Federation. But CAS rejected this argument, pointing out that the IOC relied on Articles 28 and 30 of the Olympic Charter, as well as its duty to protect the interests of national Olympic committees. The articles state that the “area of ​​jurisdiction” of any NOC must “coincide with the borders of the country” where the corresponding structure is located, and the country itself must be “recognized by the international community.” CAS provided only facts confirming that the territories included in the ROC’s orbit do not have such recognition.

Describing a violation of the principle of “equality” by insisting on the same approach to similar cases, the Russian side provided a solid list of precedents illustrating the inconsistency of the IOC. These are international armed conflicts that de jure or de facto led to territorial redistribution – between Pakistan and India in 1947, between Cyprus and Turkey in 1974, as well as protracted Armenian-Azerbaijani and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. For their reasons, the IOC did not impose any sanctions on National Olympic Committees and did not seek to “define” fair boundaries. The CAS, however, pointed out that in none of the cases was there an extension of the jurisdiction of any of the NOCs.

Even the very recent and vivid example did not help those who filed an appeal. In 2016, the Olympic Councils of Crimea and Sevastopol became members of the ROC. The IOC did not have any objections to their entry, despite the problems with international recognition of the corresponding territorial entities as parts of the Russian Federation. CAS, however, was quite satisfied with the explanation provided to him of the difference between “Crimean” and “Donetsk-Lugansk” history. In the first there was no protest on the part of Ukraine, and therefore no grounds for action on the part of the IOC, which was not even informed about the entry; in the second there was one.

Finally, the ROC was convinced that the parent sports structure had violated the principle of “proportionality” of punishment last year.

In other words, he considered him unjustifiably cruel. There are several reasons. The first is the violation of the principle of “political neutrality” by the IOC, which too openly takes the side of one of the conflicting states. The second is that sanctions are useless for achieving the goal stated by their authors – “protecting the territorial integrity” of the NOC of Ukraine, since the ROC has no influence on the development of the armed conflict. The third is that due to the restrictions imposed on OCD, innocent athletes suffer. The fourth, which follows from the third, is the deprivation of their fundamental right to play sports, because the suspension directly affects the participation of domestic athletes in top competitions, including the Olympics in Paris this summer. Finally, the fifth reason is the absence of any deadline for disqualification.

CAS rejected all ROC claims against the IOC. In his interpretation, the removal was precisely a punishment for non-compliance with “political neutrality”, and words about the influence on the armed conflict are completely irrelevant, since it was not the subject of consideration. The issue of respecting the rights of Russian athletes, according to the arbitration, was resolved by their December admission to the Paris Olympics in a neutral status (the difficulties with its acquisition in reality did not interest CAS). And about the indefiniteness of the suspension, he noted that this “until further notice” wording is even in some sense better than the one that designates a more or less precise period or specific event necessary for the lifting of sanctions. CAS meant that the IOC showed flexibility by maintaining the ability to quickly remove them at any time it seemed appropriate “depending on the situation.”

Alexey Dospehov