Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Lay of the Land: The Topography of CAS Jurisprudence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

Abstract

It can be difficult to approach and effectively describe a large body of individual decisions involving a range of unique circumstances and issues, such as CAS jurisprudence. A balance between overwhelming complexity and oversimplification must be struck carefully. One approach for doing so is to treat CAS’s body of decisions as a network connected through references. Studying such a network allows for the detection of the basic structure of CAS jurisprudence, of how CAS relates to its own previous decisions, and how this has developed over time. In this chapter we will explore the basic structure of CAS jurisprudence but also more generally how CAS operates and interacts with the cases that come before it and with its previous decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See further Chap. 7.

  2. 2.

    See Sect. 1.6.

  3. 3.

    See above Fig. 3.1 CAS’s Case Law Network.

  4. 4.

    See above Fig. 3.1 CAS’s Case Law Network.

  5. 5.

    See below Fig. 3.2 Islands and Non-Islands by Decision Year. Overall, islands are about six months newer than non-islands in both median and mean age .

  6. 6.

    See further Sects. 1.6 and 5.2. This is true for CAS as well as most national and international courts .

  7. 7.

    Below we will be returning to this question and exploring more generally whether there is correlation between the characteristics of individual CAS decisions and their precedential and persuasive power , which is essentially the same type of inquiry applied to the entire data.

  8. 8.

    See below Sects. 3.5–3.6.

  9. 9.

    See above Fig. 3.2 Islands and Non-Islands by Decision Year.

  10. 10.

    See above Fig. 3.3 Islands and Non-Islands by Sport.

  11. 11.

    8.2% compared to 4.3%.

  12. 12.

    See Sect. 6.3.1.

  13. 13.

    See above Fig. 3.4 Islands and Non-Islands by Subject Matter.

  14. 14.

    Among non-islands with a known subject matter , 6.8% concern eligibility on other grounds than nationality . Among islands, 19.3% of all decisions with a known subject matter concern non-nationality eligibility.

  15. 15.

    Arroyo 2013, p. 1075.

  16. 16.

    See e.g. CAS 2004/A/676, Ismailia; CAS 2008/A/1583 & 1584, Benfica & Vitória.

  17. 17.

    See e.g. CAS 2008/A/1574, D’Arcy; CAS 2008/A/1594, Sheykhov.

  18. 18.

    See Sect. 6.3.1 and Table 6.2 Precedential Power of Communities: Subject Matters.

  19. 19.

    CAS 2008/A/1480.

  20. 20.

    See e.g. Casini 2011, p. 1328; Cornelius 2013; Mitten and Davies 2008, pp. 89–90; Ravjani 2009, pp. 283–284; Wolbring 2008.

  21. 21.

    CAS 2008/A/1480, Pistorius, paras 53–56.

  22. 22.

    Ibid. para 56.

  23. 23.

    See e.g. CAS 92/71, SJ v. FEI (upholding a decision in a doping matter regarding a horse testing positive for multiple banned substances); CAS 2004/A/544, CBH v. FEI (overturning a decision regarding eligibility to participate in the Olympic Games ); CAS 2008/A/1636, Hoy (overturning a decision in a disciplinary action regarding animal cruelty); CAS 2013/A/3151, Millar (overturning in part, through a particularly brief reasoning referring only to evidence and the panel’s discretion , ibid. paras 78–83, a decision in a doping matter regarding an equestrian testing positive for a banned doping substance).

  24. 24.

    CAS 2012/A/2837.

  25. 25.

    See Sect. 6.3.

  26. 26.

    Another element of the strength of the network is the strength of the connections between its components. For example, a pair of arbitrators that have appeared on the same CAS panel many times together can be said to be more strongly connected than a pair that only appeared once on the same panel. See further Sect. 8.4. In the network this can be represented in the weight of the edge connecting two vertices .

  27. 27.

    Calculated on the basis of the numbers reported by Fowler and Jeon 2008.

  28. 28.

    Derlén and Lindholm 2017.

  29. 29.

    Scott 2017, pp. 81–84.

  30. 30.

    CAS 2009/A/1919.

  31. 31.

    Based on CAS’s statistics, this occurred sometime during 1992.

  32. 32.

    See below Sect. 3.5.

  33. 33.

    See above Fig. 3.5 Network Density Over Time. Note that time is here measured in edges , i.e. references between CAS decisions in chronological order, rather than some more conventional time measurement. The main reason for and advantage of using edges as a time measurement is that it is independent of changes in the average number of decisions or references, which in CAS have been quite significant. It should be noted that the figure does not take into consideration islands for the purpose of calculating the density of the CAS case law network.

  34. 34.

    Lupu and Voeten 2011. Excluded from this is 3,950 cases that were disposed by through so-called pilot procedures. It should be noted that Lupu and Voeten only consider decisions issued by the ECtHR until 2006 and the numbers are thus somewhat outdated. However, for the purpose of comparing how connected two legal citation networks are at a given point in time and at a particular size, these numbers provide adequate information.

  35. 35.

    Calculated on the basis of the numbers reported in Lupu and Voeten 2011.

  36. 36.

    See Chap. 6.

  37. 37.

    Article 6 ECHR .

  38. 38.

    Scott 2017, p. 81. In other words, what percentage of all vertices in the network that are non-islands .

  39. 39.

    In fact, there is somewhat of a bias in the opposite direction: the fewer previous decisions the court has, the less likely it is that there is one decision that is relevant to cite. However, the impact of this connection to network size is much smaller than the one for density since it only takes citing a single decision to be included in the network.

  40. 40.

    Derlén and Lindholm 2017, p. 661; Lupu and Voeten 2011, p. 424 n 54.

  41. 41.

    Also referred to as geodesic paths.

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Watts and Strogatz 1998; Kleinberg 2000.

  43. 43.

    Milgram 1967. Milgram’s study does not actually make or support a claim regarding the distance of the global population. However, subsequent empirical studies suggest that it may not be entirely erroneous. See e.g. Leskovec and Horvitz 2008 (the average user distance on MSN Messenger is 6.6 degrees); Kwak et al. 2010 (the average user distance on Twitter is 4.1 degrees); Viswanath et al. 2009 (the average user distance on Facebook is 3.7 degrees).

  44. 44.

    Which explains why the notion is often referred to simply as six degrees of separation.

  45. 45.

    This obviously does not include islands .

  46. 46.

    See above Fig. 3.6 Network Distance Over Time. Regarding the measurement of time in terms of edges , see above Fig. 3.5 Network Density Over Time.

  47. 47.

    See below Fig. 3.7 Doping Sub-Network. This sub-network consists of 1,269 edges (citations) connecting 383 vertices (CAS decisions). 46 unconnected vertices (islands ) are not represented in order to increase the figure’s legibility.

  48. 48.

    CAS 2009/A/2011.

  49. 49.

    CAS 94/129.

  50. 50.

    See Sect. 5.3.

  51. 51.

    See above Fig. 3.8 Doping Sub-Network: Schumacher to Quigley.

  52. 52.

    See Sect. 6.2.

  53. 53.

    Calculated on the basis of CAS, Statistics 2016. See also above Fig. 3.9 Requests and CAS Decisions Over Time.

  54. 54.

    This is significantly higher than the yearly increase of 5% predicted by Cavalieros and Kim 2015, p. 238.

  55. 55.

    407 requests in 2013 compared to 381 requests 1986–2001. See above Fig. 3.9 Requests and CAS Decisions Over Time. The figure is based on CAS, Statistics 2016.

  56. 56.

    Blackshaw 2006, p. 4; Blackshaw 2012, p. 9; Weger 2016, pp. 106–107.

  57. 57.

    See further immediately below.

  58. 58.

    CAS 1991, foreword.

  59. 59.

    CAS, Statistics 2016.

  60. 60.

    See e.g. Blackshaw 2013a, p. 3; Coccia 2013, p. 24.

  61. 61.

    See above Fig. 3.9 Requests and CAS Decisions Over Time.

  62. 62.

    Kane 2003, p. 614.

  63. 63.

    Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi 2015, p. 42.

  64. 64.

    See above Fig. 3.9 Requests and CAS Decisions Over Time and above Fig. 3.10 CAS Decisions Over Time: Football, Doping, and the Rest.

  65. 65.

    For football-related cases from 2002 to 2005 and for doping-related cases from 2003 to 2005.

  66. 66.

    “Popularity” is here meant purely in terms of the number of cases brought before it, not e.g. in terms of the perception of CAS among the general public or athletes.

  67. 67.

    McLaren 2011, p. 52.

  68. 68.

    Mangan 2009, p. 593.

  69. 69.

    CAS 92/63. See e.g. Anderson 2010, pp. 80–81; Blackshaw 2013b; Gardiner et al. 2012, p. 141; James 2013, pp. 51–52; Wise and Meyer 1997, p. 1450.

  70. 70.

    As described in CAS 92/63, Gundel.

  71. 71.

    CAS 92/63, Gundel, paras 15–16.

  72. 72.

    See e.g. CAS 95/141, Chagnaud, paras 17–18; CAS 96/156, Foschi, para 12.2; CAS 98/214, Bouras, para 16; CAS 2001/A/317, Aanes, paras 37–39.

  73. 73.

    SFT’s decision 15 March 1993 in case 4P.217/1992, ATF 119 II 271 (Gundel v. FEI). See also Vaitiekunas 2014, pp. 132–135. Cf. ECtHR ’s decision 2 October 2018 in Mutu & Pechstein v. Switzerland, appl. no. 40575/10 & 67474/10, paras 154–157.

  74. 74.

    Reprinted in Digest of CAS Awards vol. III, pp. 767–769. See also Sect. 2.1.

  75. 75.

    See also Paulsson 1993, pp. 367–368; Vaitiekunas 2014, esp. pp. 37–39, 139–142, 149; Yi 2006, pp. 13–15. See also Sect. 2.2.

  76. 76.

    Vaitiekunas 2014, p. 38.

  77. 77.

    Anderson 2010, p. 81.

  78. 78.

    Cf. Kane 2003, p. 618 (“The year 1994 can be seen as a turning point for international sports jurisprudence.”).

  79. 79.

    Duval 2015, pp. 382–383; Mangan 2009, p. 593.

  80. 80.

    See above Fig. 3.10 CAS Decisions Over Time: Football, Doping, and the Rest. See also Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi 2015, p. 42.

  81. 81.

    See above Fig. 3.10 CAS Decisions Over Time: Football, Doping, and the Rest.

  82. 82.

    Kane 2003, p. 618.

  83. 83.

    CAS, Statistics 2016.

  84. 84.

    These fluctuations are in part a result of the small sample size during those early years, but a contributing factor may also be a shift in how CAS deals with cases that are successfully conciliated. Until 1999, those cases were terminated by issuing a termination order, but since then they result in a consent award. Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 308.

  85. 85.

    See below Fig. 3.11 Requests Leading to a Decision Over Time (based on CAS, Statistics 2016).

  86. 86.

    Kaufmann-Kohler and Rigozzi 2015, p. 14 (noting that the expediency of arbitration often has more to do with the fact that the award is not subject to appeal than the length of the proceeding itself).

  87. 87.

    See e.g. Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 587; Mitten and Opie 2010, p. 288.

  88. 88.

    Reilly 2012, p. 71.

  89. 89.

    Ibid. p. 63.

  90. 90.

    See e.g. SFT’s decision 22 March 2007 in case 4P.172/2006, ATF 133 III 235 (Cañas), para 4.3.2.3; ECtHR ’s decision 2 October 2018 in Mutu & Pechstein v. Switzerland, app. no. 40575/10 & 67474/10, para 98.

  91. 91.

    SFT ’s decision 27 May 2003 in case 4P.267–270/2002, 129 ATF 445 (Lazutina & Danilova v. IOC ), para 3.3.3 (“Il n’est pas certain que d’autres solutions existent, qui soient susceptibles de remplacer une institution à même de résoudre rapidement et de manière peu coûteuse des litiges internationaux dans le domaine du sport.”).

  92. 92.

    BGH’s decision 7 June 2016 in case KZR 6/15 (Pechstein v. ISU), para 59.

  93. 93.

    See e.g. CAS 92/71, L v. Y. SA, para 7 (“Le TAS est une institution arbitrale qui met à disposition des parties une procedure arbitrale rapide et peu coûteuse.”).

  94. 94.

    In most CAS decisions, this date is explicitly stated as part of CAS’s presentation of the procedural history of the case. Where the filing date was unclear, the decision was disregarded for the purpose of calculating the length of the procedure. The dataset contained a total of 817 CAS decisions where the procedure length could be determined with certainty.

  95. 95.

    See above Fig. 3.12 CAS Procedure Length Distribution.

  96. 96.

    See below Table 3.1 Procedure Length.

  97. 97.

    See above Table 3.1 Procedure Length. See however Benz and Sternheimer 2015, p. 7 (noting a significantly shorter procedure length ).

  98. 98.

    Article R59 CAS Code.

  99. 99.

    Rigozzi 2010, p. 5.

  100. 100.

    See Article R46 CAS Code.

  101. 101.

    See above Table 3.1 Procedure Length. See also Benz and Sternheimer 2015, p. 7 (“the total average duration of such a procedure is less than one year…”).

  102. 102.

    Blackaby et al. 2015, p. 37 (noting that this is common complaint in arbitration).

  103. 103.

    It can here be noted that the system used in Ad Hoc Division s with a set of arbitrators on standby, see Sect. 2.3, does allow for a very rapid procedure, see above Table 3.1 Procedure Length. To use a similar system to handle the vast bulk of CAS’s cases is however hardly realistic.

  104. 104.

    McAuliffe and Rigozzi 2013, p. 16; Rigozzi 2010, p. 5.

  105. 105.

    McAuliffe and Rigozzi 2013, p. 16.

  106. 106.

    See above Fig. 3.13 CAS Procedure Length Over Time. The figure shows that the average length varied significantly year-by-year from 1985 to 2002. However, it should be noted that the number of decisions during those years were quite low and that the length of the procedure in individual cases may thus have a disproportionally large impact on the yearly mean.

  107. 107.

    This is for example a well-known issue with the European Union’s court system. See e.g. Kinsella and Duke 2014; Kye 2015; Prechal 2016, pp. 1287–1288.

  108. 108.

    See Sect. 1.6.

  109. 109.

    See Sect. 1.6.

  110. 110.

    Fowler and Jeon 2008, p. 19.

  111. 111.

    Derlén and Lindholm 2017, p. 667.

  112. 112.

    See above Fig. 3.14 Outdegree Centrality Over Time.

  113. 113.

    One could argue that the period started two years earlier, in 1984 when CAS was created. However, no cases were submitted to CAS during the first two years.

  114. 114.

    CAS 86/02.

  115. 115.

    CAS 93/109. See also McLaren 2006, p. 192.

  116. 116.

    At least as far as I was able to ascertain based on the decisions included in the dataset.

  117. 117.

    CAS 94/128, UCI & CONI, para 28.

  118. 118.

    See also, e.g., CAS 95/144, COE (extensively discussing CAS 94/128, UCI & CONI).

  119. 119.

    According to CAS’s statistics, only about 1% of all CAS decisions between 1986 and 2013 were advisory opinions.

  120. 120.

    Mavromati and Reeb 2015, p. 603. According to CAS’s statistics, 3 of the 7 decisions rendered in the first four years (1986–1989) were advisory opinion s. By comparison, during its last four years of existence, 7 out of 891 CAS decisions were advisory opinions.

  121. 121.

    Article R62 CAS Code (now abolished).

  122. 122.

    Cf. Pinna 2006, p. 407 (noting that CAS’s statements about the principle of legality were in non-binding legal opinions).

  123. 123.

    See also further Chap. 4.

  124. 124.

    CAS had significant discretionary power to reformulate the questions posed by the parties. McLaren 2006, pp. 183–184.

  125. 125.

    See e.g. Alter 1998, pp. 126–129, 122; Craig 2001, pp. 182–183; Jacob 2014, p. 19; Schepel and Blankenburg 2001, pp. 41–42; Stone Sweet and Brunnell 1998, pp. 65–66.

  126. 126.

    See immediately below.

  127. 127.

    Fowler and Jeon 2008, p. 19.

  128. 128.

    Derlén and Lindholm 2017, pp. 667–669.

  129. 129.

    Compare Fowler and Jeon 2008, p. 19, and Derlén and Lindholm 2017, pp. 667–669.

  130. 130.

    How one should interpret the development in CAS after 2009 is, as discussed in greater detail below, a little complicated.

  131. 131.

    See above Fig. 3.14 Outdegree Centrality Over Time.

  132. 132.

    See Chap. 4.

  133. 133.

    See above Fig. 3.14 Outdegree Centrality Over Time.

  134. 134.

    Derlén and Lindholm 2017, pp. 667–668.

  135. 135.

    See Sect. 6.2.

  136. 136.

    See above Fig. 3.14 Outdegree Centrality Over Time.

  137. 137.

    Derlén and Lindholm 2017, p. 669.

  138. 138.

    As explored in Sect. 6.3, there are some significant differences in this regard between different issues and areas.

  139. 139.

    See above Fig. 3.14 Outdegree Centrality Over Time.

  140. 140.

    See Sect. 1.6.

  141. 141.

    See Sect. 1.6.

  142. 142.

    See below Fig. 3.15 Indegree Centrality Over Time.

  143. 143.

    See above Fig. 3.9 Requests and CAS Decisions Over Time.

  144. 144.

    CAS 94/128 and CAS 94/129 respectively. See further Sect. 5.3.

  145. 145.

    See Sect. 5.2.

  146. 146.

    See, for comparison, Fowler and Jeon 2008; Derlén and Lindholm 2017.

  147. 147.

    And most other time-directed networks for that matter.

  148. 148.

    See the model distribution above in Fig. 3.15 Indegree Centrality Over Time. The model was constructed by taking all outwards references actually made in CAS decisions and assuming (contrary to what actually happened) that inwards references were distributed equally among all prior decisions in existence when the references were made.

  149. 149.

    See above Sect. 3.5.

  150. 150.

    I.e. the oldest decision’s outdegree centrality must be zero.

  151. 151.

    I.e. the most recent decision’s indegree centrality must be zero.

  152. 152.

    See above Fig. 3.15 Indegree Centrality Over Time.

  153. 153.

    Also, remember that indegree unlike outdegree can and in fact does change continuously over time.

  154. 154.

    This assumption is of course not necessarily reasonable if there is other evidence to the contrary. However, at least with regard to the particular case of CAS’s 2013–2014 jurisprudence I am not aware of any such evidence.

  155. 155.

    It is worth emphasizing that what we are measuring here is the CAS’s general approach throughout its entire history to all of its decisions and which seems to follow rather specific patterns. However, if one were to study individual CAS decisions one should expect to find deviations from these patterns, sometimes quite extensive ones.

References

  • Alter K J (1998) Who are the ‘Masters of the Treaty’? European Governments and the European Court of Justice. International Organizations 52:121–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J (2010) Modern Sports Law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo M (2013) Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz J, Sternheimer W (2015) Expedited Procedures before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. CAS Bulletin 2015(1):6–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M (2015) Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2006) Introductory Remarks. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2012) Introductory Remarks. In: Wild A (ed) CAS and Football: Landmark Cases. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2013a) ADR and Sport: Settling Disputes Through the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, and the WIPO Arbitration & Mediation Center. Marquette Sports Law Review 24(1):1–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackshaw I (2013b) CAS 92/A/63, Gundel v. FEI. In Anderson J (ed) Leading Cases in Sports Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague pp. 65–74

    Google Scholar 

  • CAS (1991) Guide to Arbitration. http://sportrecht.org/cms/upload/10verbands/CASguideArbitration.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2018

  • CAS (2016) Statistics 2016. http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_statistics_2016_.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2018

  • Casini L (2011) The Making of Lex Sportiva by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. German Law Journal 12(5):1317–1340

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalieros P, Kim J (2015) Can the Arbitral Community Learn from Sports Arbitration? Journal of International Arbitration 32(2):237–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia M (2013) International Sports Justice: The Court of Arbitration for Sport. European Sports Law Bulletin 2013(1):23–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius S (2013) CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v. IAAF. In: Anderson J (ed) Leading Cases in Sports Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 229–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2001) The Jurisdiction of the Community Courts Reconsidered. In: de Búrca G, Weiler J (eds) The European Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 177–214

    Google Scholar 

  • de Weger F (2016) The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Derlén M, Lindholm J (2017) Peek-a-boo, It’s a Case Law System. German Law Journal 18(3):647–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval A (2015) La Lex Sportiva Face au Droit de l’Union Européenne: Guerre et Paix dans l’Espace Juridique Transnational. Academic thesis, European University Institute, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler J, Jeon S (2008) Authority of Precedent. Social Network 30:16–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner S, O’Leary J, Welch R, Boyes S, Naidoo U (2012) Sports Law. 4th edn. Routledge, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M (2014) Precedent and Case-Based Reasoning in the European Court of Justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • James M (2013) Sports Law. 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane D (2003) Twenty Years On: An Evaluation of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Melbourne Journal of International Law 4:611–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G, Rigozzi A (2015) International Arbitration: Law and Practice in Switzerland. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella S, Duke A (2014) Who are the Real Winners and Losers in the General Court? Competition Policy International Europe Column. http://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/who-are-the-real-winners-and-losers-in-the-general-court. Accessed 6 June 2018

  • Kleinberg J M (2000) The Small-World Phenomenon: An Algorithmic Perspective. Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM, pp. 163–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak H, Lee C, Park H, Moon S (2010) What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the World Wide Web, ACM, pp. 591–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Kye C (2015) A Quagmire of Delays at the European General Court: Any Escape? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 22(3):453–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Leskovec J, Horvitz E (2008) Planetary-scale views on a large instant-messaging network. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on the World Wide Web, ACM, pp. 915–924

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupu Y, Voeten E (2011) Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science 42:413–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangan M (2009) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: Current Practice, Emerging Trends and Future Hurdles. Arbitration International 25(4):591–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavromati D, Reeb M (2015) The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuliffe W, Rigozzi A (2013) Sports Arbitration. The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review 2013:15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren R (2006) CAS Advisory Opinions. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 180–193

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren R (2011) The Court of Arbitration for Sport. In: Nafziger J, Ross S (eds) Handbook on International Sports Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 32–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram S (1967) The Small World Problem. Psychology Today 1:61–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitten M J, Davis T (2008) Athlete Eligibility Requirements and Legal Protection of Sports Participation Opportunities. Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal 8:71–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitten M J, Opie H (2010) ’Sports Law’: Implications for the Development of International, Comparative, and National Law and Global Dispute Resolution. Tulane Law Review 85:269–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (1993) Arbitration of International Sports Disputes. Arbitration International 9(4):359–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinna A (2006) The Trials and Tribulations of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Contribution to the Study of the Arbitration of Disputes Concerning Disciplinary Sanctions. In: Blackshaw I, Siekman R, Soek J (eds) The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 386–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (2016) The Many Formations of the Court of Justice: 15 Years After Nice. Fordham International Law Journal 39(5):1273–1288

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravjani A (2009) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: A Subtle Form of International Delegation. Journal of International Media and Entertainment 2:241–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly L (2012) An Introduction to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Role of National Courts in International Sports Disputes. Journal of Dispute Resolution 2012(1):63–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigozzi A (2010) The recent revision of the Code of sports-related arbitration (CAS Code). Jusletter 13 September 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Schepel H, Blankenburg E (2001) Mobilizing the European Court of Justice. In: de Búrca G, Weiler J (eds) The European Court of Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 9–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (2017) Social Network Analysis, 4th edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A, Brunell T (1998) Constructing a Supranational Constitution: Dispute Resolution and Governance in the European Community. American Political Science Review 92:63–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaitiekunas A (2014) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: Law-making and the question of independence. Stämpfli Verlag, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Viswanath B, Mislove A, Cha M, Krishna G (2009) On the evolution of user interaction in Facebook. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Online Social Networks, ACM, pp. 37-42

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts D, Strogatz S (1998) Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’ Networks. Nature 393:440–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise A, Meyer B (1997) International Sports Law and Business. Kluwer Law International, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolbring G (2008) Oscar Pistorius and the future nature of Olympic, Paralympic and other sports. Scripted 5(1):139–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi D (2006) Turning Medals into Metal: Evaluating the Court of Arbitration for Sport as an International Tribunal. Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law 6:289–341

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Johan Lindholm

Authors
  1. Johan Lindholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Lindholm .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lindholm, J. (2019). The Lay of the Land: The Topography of CAS Jurisprudence. In: The Court of Arbitration for Sport and Its Jurisprudence. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-285-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-285-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-284-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-285-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation