The Boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games and Detente

R. Siekmann
{"title":"The Boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games and Detente","authors":"R. Siekmann","doi":"10.1163/9789004482319_013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1. Introduction On 20 January, 1980, President Carter of the United States, in an address to the chairman of the American Olympic Committee (USOC), insisted that the Committee suggest to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow be transferred, postponed or cancelled, unless all Soviet troops had been withdrawn from Afghanistan within a month. He made it clear that if the IOC did not accept these proposals, the United States would not send a delegation to Moscow. The President explained: \"We must make clear to the Soviet Union that it cannot trample upon an independent nation and at the same time do business as usual with the rest of the world\". (1) Within a week the presidential request to USOC received support in resolutions of the American House of Representatives and the Senate, which voted with 386 votes in favour and 12 against, and 88 votes in favour and 4 against respectively, that no American athletes should participate in the Moscow Olympic Games unless the Soviet troops had been withdrawn from Afghanistan by 20 February, 1980. This American reaction to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan on 27December, 1979 marked the start of an international boycott against.the Moscow Olympic Games. All this took place \"under\" the 1975 Final Act of Helsinki, which devotes one paragraph to international sporting contacts. The question which concerns us here is how a boycott such as that of the 1980Olympic Games can be assessed in the context of detente between East and West and under international law. When answering this question, we can distinguish two aspects: an inter-governmental aspect concerning the position of \"politics\" (assessment of the boycott in the light of the Final Act, paras. 2-5) and a nongovernmental aspect concerning the position of \"sport\" (assessment of the boycott in the light of the relation between \"sport\" and \"politics\" and in the light of the Olympic Charter, paras, 6-10). 2. Sport and the Final Act of Helsinki The paragraph on sport can be found in the so-called \"Third Basket\" of the Final Act of Helsinki, which deals with cooperation in humanitarian and other fields under para. 1: Human contacts sub g (Sport). The provision reads as follows: \"In order to expand existing links and co-operation in the field of sport the participating States will encourage contacts and exchanges of this kind, including sports meetings and competitions of all sorts, on the basis of the established international rules, regulations and practice\". (2) As indicated at the beginning of the \"Third Basket\", the co-operation referred to there should be encouraged by the States \"irrespective of their political, economic and social systems\" and \"in full respect for the principles guiding relations among participating States as set forth in the relevant document\"* This document can be found in the \"First Basket\" under (1): \"Declaration on principles guiding relations between participating States\", One of these ten principles, which together form the so-called \"Decalogue\", concerns Co-operation among States (principle IX). In this the participating States confirm that organizations should fulfil a relevant and positive role in the co-operation, inter alia, in the humanitarian field including human contacts in the field of sport. On the basis of the \"paragraph on sport\" combined with the text of principle IX, it is possible to state: 1. that one of the objectives of the Final Act is to encourage detente through the co-operation between States, inter alia, in sporting activities; 2. that the States which signed the Final Act did not thereby agree to any strictly legal obligations (of public international law) with regard to sporting activities among themselves, not in the least because of the mere fact that the Final Act as a whole is not a treaty, but should be considered as a \"legally non- binding agreement\". …","PeriodicalId":120420,"journal":{"name":"Essays on Human Rights in the Helsinki Process","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Essays on Human Rights in the Helsinki Process","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004482319_013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1. Introduction On 20 January, 1980, President Carter of the United States, in an address to the chairman of the American Olympic Committee (USOC), insisted that the Committee suggest to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow be transferred, postponed or cancelled, unless all Soviet troops had been withdrawn from Afghanistan within a month. He made it clear that if the IOC did not accept these proposals, the United States would not send a delegation to Moscow. The President explained: "We must make clear to the Soviet Union that it cannot trample upon an independent nation and at the same time do business as usual with the rest of the world". (1) Within a week the presidential request to USOC received support in resolutions of the American House of Representatives and the Senate, which voted with 386 votes in favour and 12 against, and 88 votes in favour and 4 against respectively, that no American athletes should participate in the Moscow Olympic Games unless the Soviet troops had been withdrawn from Afghanistan by 20 February, 1980. This American reaction to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan on 27December, 1979 marked the start of an international boycott against.the Moscow Olympic Games. All this took place "under" the 1975 Final Act of Helsinki, which devotes one paragraph to international sporting contacts. The question which concerns us here is how a boycott such as that of the 1980Olympic Games can be assessed in the context of detente between East and West and under international law. When answering this question, we can distinguish two aspects: an inter-governmental aspect concerning the position of "politics" (assessment of the boycott in the light of the Final Act, paras. 2-5) and a nongovernmental aspect concerning the position of "sport" (assessment of the boycott in the light of the relation between "sport" and "politics" and in the light of the Olympic Charter, paras, 6-10). 2. Sport and the Final Act of Helsinki The paragraph on sport can be found in the so-called "Third Basket" of the Final Act of Helsinki, which deals with cooperation in humanitarian and other fields under para. 1: Human contacts sub g (Sport). The provision reads as follows: "In order to expand existing links and co-operation in the field of sport the participating States will encourage contacts and exchanges of this kind, including sports meetings and competitions of all sorts, on the basis of the established international rules, regulations and practice". (2) As indicated at the beginning of the "Third Basket", the co-operation referred to there should be encouraged by the States "irrespective of their political, economic and social systems" and "in full respect for the principles guiding relations among participating States as set forth in the relevant document"* This document can be found in the "First Basket" under (1): "Declaration on principles guiding relations between participating States", One of these ten principles, which together form the so-called "Decalogue", concerns Co-operation among States (principle IX). In this the participating States confirm that organizations should fulfil a relevant and positive role in the co-operation, inter alia, in the humanitarian field including human contacts in the field of sport. On the basis of the "paragraph on sport" combined with the text of principle IX, it is possible to state: 1. that one of the objectives of the Final Act is to encourage detente through the co-operation between States, inter alia, in sporting activities; 2. that the States which signed the Final Act did not thereby agree to any strictly legal obligations (of public international law) with regard to sporting activities among themselves, not in the least because of the mere fact that the Final Act as a whole is not a treaty, but should be considered as a "legally non- binding agreement". …
1980年莫斯科奥运会的抵制和缓和
1. 1980年1月20日,美国总统卡特在对美国奥林匹克委员会(USOC)主席的讲话中,坚持要求该委员会向国际奥林匹克委员会(IOC)建议,除非苏联军队在一个月内全部撤出阿富汗,否则1980年莫斯科夏季奥运会将被转移、推迟或取消。他明确表示,如果国际奥委会不接受这些提议,美国将不会派代表团前往莫斯科。总统解释说:“我们必须向苏联表明,它不能在践踏一个独立国家的同时,与世界其他国家照常做生意。”在一个星期之内,总统向美国奥委会提出的请求得到了美国参众两院决议的支持,分别以386票赞成、12票反对、88票赞成、4票反对通过,即除非苏联军队在1980年2月20日之前从阿富汗撤军,否则美国运动员不得参加莫斯科奥运会。1979年12月27日,美国对苏联入侵阿富汗的反应标志着一场国际抵制的开始。莫斯科奥运会。这一切都是根据1975年的《赫尔辛基最后法案》进行的,其中有一段是关于国际体育交往的。我们在这里关心的问题是,如何在东西方关系缓和的背景下并根据国际法来评价对1980年奥运会的抵制。在回答这个问题时,我们可以区分两个方面:一个是关于“政治”立场的政府间方面(根据《最后法案》对抵制的评估)。2-5)和关于“体育”立场的非政府方面(根据“体育”和“政治”之间的关系以及奥林匹克宪章第6-10段对抵制的评估)。2. 体育与赫尔辛基最后文件关于体育的段落可在赫尔辛基最后文件的所谓“第三篮子”中找到,该文件涉及人道主义和其他领域的合作。1:人类接触分科g(体育)。该条款如下:“为了扩大体育领域的现有联系和合作,各参加国将鼓励这类接触和交流,包括在既定的国际规则、条例和惯例的基础上举行各种体育会议和竞赛。”(2)正如“第三篮子”开头所指出的那样,“无论其政治、经济和社会制度如何”,“充分尊重有关文件中所载的指导参与国之间关系的原则”,应鼓励其中提到的合作。*本文件可在“第一篮子”第(1)项下找到:“关于指导参加国关系原则的宣言”,这十项原则中的一项,即所谓的“十诫”,涉及国家间的合作(原则九)。参加国在此确认各组织应在合作中发挥相关和积极的作用,特别是在人道主义领域,包括体育领域的人际交往。根据“关于体育的段落”和原则九的案文,可以这样说:1。《最后文件》的目标之一是通过国家间的合作,特别是在体育活动方面的合作,鼓励缓和局势;2. 签署《最后文件》的国家并没有因此同意它们之间就体育活动承担任何严格的(国际公法的)法律义务,这绝不仅仅是因为《最后文件》作为一个整体不是条约,而应被视为一项“法律上不具约束力的协定”。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信