Eligibility disputes at the Olympic Games are ultimately resolved by the Ad Hoc Division ("AHD") of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This paper critically examines the AHD both from within and without. The first part of this thesis describes eligibility disputes at Games time, and how they are resolved. The paper begins with a brief look at the history of athlete participation in the Olympic Games. It then deals with the concept of eligibility, and sets out the rules which govern same for the Olympics. These rules are set by a number of separate but related entities, namely the International Olympic Committee, the International Federations, the National Olympic Committees, and, finally, the World Anti-Doping Agency. The roles of each of these bodies are examined in order to provide the context in which disputes are resolved. This paper then surveys the parameters in which the AHD operates which have been set over the years by domestic courts with an Anglo-American tradition. The performance of the AHD is then critically examined with a view to making recommendations for its improvement. The second part of this thesis surveys the ways eligibility disputes are resolved in the major north American professional sports leagues and the NCAA, with a view to suggesting improvements in the AHD process. This thesis concludes by offering recommendations to the AHD process in two areas: operational and structural. Several operational improvements are suggested, the main ones of which are that all parties affected by a dispute be offered an opportunity to participate in before the AHD, and parties be given the opportunity to appoint the Panel. The structural change suggested is that athletes be given formal input into the administration of the Games, with the Athletes' Commission being the obvious body which could form the basis for a bargaining unit. It is suggested that questions surrounding the legitimacy of AHD will remain while ever athletes have no formal say in its composition or operation.

Arbitration is one of the oldest legal systems of solving disputes, albeit, it was simple and without any power to enforce the outcome of the tribunal. In modern ages, arbitration has transformed to a more complicated and sophisticated system of solving international commercial disputes. In recent decades, enforcement of tribunal award benefited from various conventions like New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). However the enforcement still has few difficulties. One problem is related to the enforcement of the award in different countries. Based on Article V (2(b)) of New York Convention, countries can prohibit enforcement of award if it is against public policy of that country. This broad definition has created many problems especially in some Islamic countries in Middle East due to frequent use of this defense. Islamic countries in Middle East have tried to implement new arbitration legislations from western countries in order to acclimate themselves with modern International commercial and political relations. However facing biased actions from western countries toward their cultures, have made these adaptations more challenging. Considering the claim of both parties, one should not forget the strong influence of culture in International relations as it defines many actions and concerns of society. Ignoring this issue can create many problems and hostile atmosphere between nations that even affect International commercial arbitration enforcements. Knowing the significance of effect of culture, it is essential for many lawyers, scholars and practitioners to study and learn more about culture and norms of other countries. Multi-cultural countries like Canada and commercial hubs like Dubai can facilitate understanding different cultures by creating cultural and legal centers. / Thesis (Master, Law) -- Queen's University, 2012-09-19 23:29:51.979

Article II of the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of the Foreign Arbitral Awards is a central provision concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign <I>arbitration agreements. </I>It is deemed, however, to be one of the most controversial provisions of the Convention. The main cause of the complexity of this article is that Article II was thought about and added to the body of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of <I>Foreign Arbitral Awards </I>at the last stages of the New York Conference. The hasty insertion of Article II has left unsettled many legal questions concerning arbitration agreements. In the application of the New York Convention, Article II has given rise to many questions. In fact, a substantial number of all national courts decisions so far reported deals, either completely or in part, with questions concerning arbitration agreements under Article II. This thesis is an attempt to trace most legal implications concerning the application and interpretation of Article II of the New York Convention. Many problems are observed. Those problems include the failure of this Article to identify the arbitration agreements to which the Convention applies, the failure to determine the law applicable to arbitration agreements, and the broad ambiguous sweep of the language used in Article II in many occasions. This study is, therefore, devoted to identifying these problems, establishing their nature and extent and finding a satisfactory solution to them with relevant suggestions and proposals. In dealing with these problems a description and analysis of legislative and judicial practice on the subject in various countries which are parties to the Convention have been made. It is noted in many places of this thesis that Article II of the New York Convention like many provisions of most international conventions may represent a compromise and thus it may not be entirely satisfactory in every aspect it deals with. Article II's shortcomings could be, however, cured by the courts. Establishing a new convention on the subject could be a very difficult if not impossible task. In this regard, an observation has been made on the question of the extent to which national courts, by the so-called "interpretation", have been willing to promote harmonious rules in the field of international commercial arbitration, despite the shortcomings of Article II.

The arbitration clause is the clause by which the parties to a contract agree to submit the conflicts that may rise from their contractual relationship to an arbitral tribunal. A principle of autonomy is associated to this type of clause: on the one hand, the arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; on the other hand, it is independent from any state law. To a certain extent, one may even link this principle to other principles concerning the arbitration clause, such as the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle. The question is to know whether special rules apply to the arbitration clause.

This thesis not only seeks to demonstrate the requirements of and procedures for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Republic of China (ROC), but also explores whether ROC’s legislation and practices regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards comply with international ‘best practice’ standards as contained in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (UNCITRAL Model Law. Even though ROC’s former legislation and practices did not conform to these standards, the present legislation and practices do comply with the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Although ROC and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) both insist on a ‘one China’ policy and each claims that it represents the whole of China, each has its own legal system. Nonetheless, ROC adopted the ‘regional conflict of laws’ theory based on the concept of ‘one country, two regions’ to deal with cases relating to recognition and enforcement arbitral awards rendered in PRC. In the context of that theory, this thesis explores the requirements of and procedures for recognition and enforcement of PRC arbitral awards in ROC, and whether there are any deficiencies in this regard. The thesis concludes that the ROC legislation and practices regarding recognition and enforcement of PRC arbitral awards in ROC are consistent with the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. The government of PRC resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macao from 1 July 1997 and 20 December 1999 respectively. However, PRC adopted the principle of ‘one country, two systems’. PRC authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong SAR) and the Macao Special Administrative Region (Macao SAR) to exercise a high degree of autonomy and to enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial, including that of final adjudication. Thus, the ROC legislation deems that Hong Kong and Macao arbitral awards are foreign arbitral awards in ROC. So, the legislation and practices regarding recognition and enforcement of Hong Kong arbitral awards and Macao arbitral awards also are in conformity with the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Moreover, the legislation and practices regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign, PRC, Hong Kong, and Macao arbitral awards go further than international standards set out by the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. Applying for recognition or enforcement of a foreign, PRC, Hong Kong, or Macao arbitral award, an original arbitration agreement or an original arbitral award can be substituted by an electronic format, which was made originally and can show the whole text as well as can be downloaded for examination. Furthermore, the courts of ROC construe the limitations regarding recognition or enforcement foreign, PRC, Hong Kong, or Macao arbitral awards narrowly. In addition, even though the ROC legislation regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign, Hong Kong, and Macao arbitral awards adopts the principle of reciprocity, the ROC Courts adopt the notion of comity. The thesis clarifies recognition and enforcement of PRC arbitral awards in Hong Kong, and recognition and enforcement of Hong Kong arbitral awards in PRC as well. Hong Kong arbitral awards are enforceable in PRC, and PRC arbitral awards also are enforceable in Hong Kong in accordance with the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR 2000 (PRC) and the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2000 (Hong Kong SAR) respectively based on the principle of ‘one country, two systems’. Both the provisions of the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR 2000 (PRC) and the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 2000 (Hong Kong SAR) comply with the international standards set out in the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Thesis (SJD) -- Bond University, 2005. / "A thesis submitted to Bond University in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Legal Science"-- t.p. Bibliography: pages 320-340. Also available via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (SJD) -- Bond University, 2008. / "A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Legal Science"-- t.p. Bibliography: leaves 261-274.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1955. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 194-200).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Aberdeen University, 1998. / Title from web page (viewed on Mar. 22, 2010). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--City University of Hong Kong, 2005. / Title from title screen (viewed on 27 Mar. 2006) "MA in arbitration & dispute resolution (PTE)." Includes bibliographical references.