Lex sportiva conference (Sport Law vs. State Law)

Lex sportiva team (1)

Lex sportiva team

 

First and foremost I’d like to thank Professor Prieto for giving me the opportunity of briefly summarising the events that occurred at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogota on the 3rd of July 2014. Hopefully this post will bring back fond memories for those involved and give a better understanding of the conference to those who weren’t able to attend.

It is fair to say that an uninformed onlooker might wonder how it came about that seven students from the Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense gave a conference on the transnational law of sports in a Colombian university. Well, the starting point is the Collège International de Droit: an English-speaking diploma created by Professor Jean-Marc Thouvenin in 2011 that aims to give 5th year students at Nanterre University a practical experience in public international law. In addition to the different conferences that participants to this diploma attend, there are two major events that make this program stand out: the Day of Crisis and the organisation of a conference on a theme linked to international law, in a foreign university.

The third edition of the Day of Crisis was a success with the participation of universities from all over the world such as King’s University in London, Belo Horizontein Brazil and Universidad de Malaga from Spain. From the 2nd to the 3rd of May 2014, students were asked to spend 24 hours examining the legal stakes of constantly evolving international events as well as leading negotiations between States and organisations. After this challenging and stimulating event, we were free to give our conference a finishing touch.

The subject of this conference was chosen amongst of list of very different themes but, with an event such as the FIFA World Cup approaching and knowing Colombia and France’s shared interest in sports, the choice was an easy one. Less easy was the initial familiarisation with the subject. In this venture, Frank Latty, a former student of Nanterre University, and his thesis “Lex sportiva: research on transnational law”, were instrumental in giving us a first understanding of the subject we were aiming to become experts in.

Once we’d acquired a general perspective on the translational law of sports, rather than trying to be all-inclusive,we decided to approach the subject through six different themes. This would also enable us to conclude the presentation of each theme by determining whether it is sports law or State law that “wins” in that particular area.

The eleven hour flight between Paris and Bogota allowed us to incorporate each of our PowerPoint presentations, this would become an integral part of our conference as it enabled us to illustrate the points we were making. At El Dorado Airport, we were greeted by Professor Prieto and Professor Ricardo Abello. Seeing familiar faces as soon as we’d landed made us feel at home despite the seven hour time difference.

After checking in at the Hotel Augusta, both groups went for a late nightfirst taste of Colombian cuisine. Most of us would have deepened our acquaintance with the local beers and cocktails were it not for the two rehearsals we had planned for the next day. Under the benevolent scrutiny of Marianne Lamour, Victor Grandaubert and Professor Thouvenin, we made the necessary last changes to our oral presentations and determined the order in which we should intervene. Confident that the hardest part was behind us and that the only thing left was to enjoy the fruit of our hard work, we indulged into some well-earned rest.

Before arriving at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, we assumed we would be the most stressedstudents on campus but we were soon reminded by the anxious looks on our Colombian counterpart’s faces that our conference coincided with the end of term exams. We were welcomed in a comfortable room in the Faculty of Legal Sciences department where Simon Bolivar’s intense gaze strengthened our determination.

 ***

Before getting to the heart of the matter,the conference started with a brief introduction that defined and contextualised the law of sports as well as assessing why it is a transnational legal order and an autonomous body of law.

Clementine Faget followed by examining the political implications of lex sportiva, particularly the way the transnational law on sports can act as a pacifier of relations or, in some cases, as a fuel for pre-existing tensions. Jean-Rémi De Maistre and Ithen showed how the enormous financial power of the federations enables them to be more independent, notably in areas such asthe building of infrastructures to host sporting events, intellectual property rights, broadcasting rights and financial fair-play. Subsequently, Jeremy Battino came to the conclusion that sports law is better equipped than State law in the fight against corruption, particularly match fixing. This, he argued, is one of the elements that give this legal order its cohesive pattern.

After a short break, Tiphaine Lescaudron elaborated on the anti-doping movement, particularly the bodies in charge of the movement and the interactions between international regulations and State laws. Fanny Roussey then explained how the autonomy and the specificity of lex sportiva are substantially questioned by European law, in particular by the principle of free movement on which the European Union is built. Finally, Camille Fonda developed on how lex sportiva strengthens the compliance with human rights in fields such as the fight against discrimination but how it can also violate certain human rights in proceedings in front of arbitration courts and in the fight against doping.

We concluded that in fields such as human rights and the fight against corruption, it is possible to consider that lex sportiva is the winner but that, as far as the European Union is concerned, State law prevails. The main lesson of this conference is that in most cases – i.e. sport and business, sport and politics and the fight against doping – both legal orders interact to create a complex body of law whose outline still remains to be defined. Most important of all, we managed to avoid the very sensitive subject of Radamel Falcao’s injury while playing in France.

***

Each presentation was concluded by questions from the floor, notably by Alvaro Amaya and Professor Cardenas. Often challenging, their interrogations forced us to go even further in our reflection on the conference’s theme, particularly the interaction between lex sportiva and public international law.

We also had the pleasure of exchanging a few words with the Dean of the Faculty of Legal Sciences, Mr. Sampedro Arrubla. His warm welcome and kind words reminded us of the value of partnerships such as the one between Nanterre and Javeriana.

On behalf of all students involved, we would like to thank those, on both continents, who gave us the amazing opportunity to embark on such an adventure. The following days in Bogota and Cartagena left us with an unquenchable thirst to discover more of Colombia and provided us with memories that we will cherish, not only through out our careers, but for our entire lives.

Thomas Zaratiegui                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

An interesting note of Mr. Zaratiegui in which he thanks for the invitation and comments about some issues of the events that occurred at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana during the BOGOTA WORKSHOP ON SPORT LAW the last 3rd of July 2014.

“To the socialists of all parties”: A libertarian reading of the recent European elections

Imagen1

By: Daniel Andrés Salamanca-Pérez/ Active Member 

In a time when to a large extent, almost every lawyer of the western world has been raised upon the paradigm of the welfare state and the complex idea of the state-regulated economic liberty, the not-so-recent European elections have been read by many as a triumph of the far right and an earthquake that menaces the prosperity and social justice of the Union because of the advancement of Euroscepticism. But such statement can be proven misleading.

The dichotomy between right and left is often wrongly conceived only in terms of individual liberties and Human Rights issues. If a party holds racist views is considered to belong to the far right and exactly the opposite if it seeks State ownership of the means of production.

But if analyzed closely both will probably argue in favor of the protection of national industries and the protection of the jobs that it creates: The claim that immigration is prejudicial for the country is often argued by both the Unions and xenophobic organizations. At the end they tend to be the same.

That’s why in Britain The Spectator affirms that there was no victory of right over left, only of Eurosceptic parties over pro-European parties and just in some countries, and that if one was to rationalise the party groupings in Strasbourg one would bring ‘far left’ and ‘far right’ together under a new umbrella grouping of xenophobic statism.

According to this magazine this is because of 751 seats in the European parliament, only 46 — those held by parties belonging to the European Conservatives and Reformists Group — define themselves in terms of economic liberalism. They suffered a loss of 11 seats. In contrast, the United Left parties — often called the far left — gained ten seats to 45 and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy — often called the far right — put on 11 seats to 40.

Although I do not completely share The Spectator’s harsh statements – I do think there are well intentioned statists and not merely evil xenophobic anti-market politicians – it is true that the real disjunctive is between less European bureaucracy, reduction of public spending, avoidance of artificial privileges and intergenerational debt, freer markets and less regulation on the one hand versus advocacy of protectionism, restrictions to commerce through taxation or legislation, State dependency, opposition to globalization and micro-managerial States.

This critically important because as F. A. Hayek pointed out, history has taught us that the gradual transformation of rigidly organized hierarchic and to a large extent oppressive societies into those where men could at least attempt to shape their own life, is closely attached to the development of free commerce as was the case of the cities of northern Italy, southwest Germany, Holland and Britain (The Road to Serfdom, 14). In other words: economic and individual freedom arte two sides of the same coin.

Duncan McDonnell says that of the six parties that were considered guaranteed members Alliance for Freedom (EAF) – doubtfully a pro-market one – only two (the FN and FPÖ) saw their vote rise compared to 2009, while the other lost votes. For him this outcome means that the EAF has to find similar European parties to enable it to have the 25 members of the parliament from at least 7 member States needed to form an official group. There was a small victory of Euroscepticism yes, but it can be divided in two different kinds: protectionist and pro-market. That’s why some of the latter like UKIP, Perussuomalaiset and the Danish People’s Party (pro-market but not fully libertarian parties) all have ruled out any formal alliance with the EAF.

The future of the European Union may be at stake for some but the real debate is still pending: that of economic freedom versus protected economies. It is self-evident that the Union – though disguised as such – is the very opposite to free trade and this elections prove that despite of what happens to the Union, protectionists will be yet the strongest foes in the fight against poverty in which freer economies have proven to be more efficient.

Sountrack: Free as a bird – The Beatles

Image: PE(6) by Anca Pandrea (Licensed with Creative Commons BY 2.0)