奥运拥抱?对国际奥委会人权承诺的批判性评估

IF 2.1 Q2 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Seamus Byrne, Jan André Lee Ludvigsen
{"title":"奥运拥抱?对国际奥委会人权承诺的批判性评估","authors":"Seamus Byrne, Jan André Lee Ludvigsen","doi":"10.1080/19406940.2023.2271487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The intersection of sport and human rights has demonstrated that the actions of global sport mega-event franchise owners can now no longer be viewed as impervious to wider human rights considerations. In examining recent operational developments undertaken by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), as evidenced by their institutional embrace of international human rights standards, this article cautions against an uncritical acclaim of such developments. By drawing upon legal texts, the extant literature on the overlap of both sport and human rights law, and Foucault’s governmentality theory, it argues that whilst the IOC’s embrace of human rights remains a positive development, their ongoing application of the ‘clean venue’ principle on Olympic Host Cities remains problematic for two key reasons. It argues, first, that the ‘clean venue’ principle can be understood as a governmental technique that disciplines and controls Olympic spaces, and those who fall within the regulatory, legal, and operational reach of the principle itself, whilst preserving the existing political economy in which the Olympics are embedded within. Secondly, it argues that as an inescapable expression of the IOC’s commercial and contractual control, the ‘clean venue’ principle raises additional human rights concerns which impact upon various rights such as freedom of assembly and expression and the rights of local communities within and around Olympic and ‘non-Olympic’ spaces. Ultimately, this article contends that while the IOC’s recent operational developments are to be welcomed, much work remains to ensure that human rights law is more visibly foregrounded within the IOC’s legal framework.","PeriodicalId":47174,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics","volume":" 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Olympic embrace? A critical evaluation of the IOC’s commitment to human rights\",\"authors\":\"Seamus Byrne, Jan André Lee Ludvigsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19406940.2023.2271487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The intersection of sport and human rights has demonstrated that the actions of global sport mega-event franchise owners can now no longer be viewed as impervious to wider human rights considerations. In examining recent operational developments undertaken by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), as evidenced by their institutional embrace of international human rights standards, this article cautions against an uncritical acclaim of such developments. By drawing upon legal texts, the extant literature on the overlap of both sport and human rights law, and Foucault’s governmentality theory, it argues that whilst the IOC’s embrace of human rights remains a positive development, their ongoing application of the ‘clean venue’ principle on Olympic Host Cities remains problematic for two key reasons. It argues, first, that the ‘clean venue’ principle can be understood as a governmental technique that disciplines and controls Olympic spaces, and those who fall within the regulatory, legal, and operational reach of the principle itself, whilst preserving the existing political economy in which the Olympics are embedded within. Secondly, it argues that as an inescapable expression of the IOC’s commercial and contractual control, the ‘clean venue’ principle raises additional human rights concerns which impact upon various rights such as freedom of assembly and expression and the rights of local communities within and around Olympic and ‘non-Olympic’ spaces. Ultimately, this article contends that while the IOC’s recent operational developments are to be welcomed, much work remains to ensure that human rights law is more visibly foregrounded within the IOC’s legal framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics\",\"volume\":\" 2\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2023.2271487\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2023.2271487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

体育与人权的交叉表明,全球大型体育赛事特许经营权所有者的行为现在不能再被视为不受更广泛的人权考虑的影响。在审查国际奥林匹克委员会(IOC)最近开展的业务发展时,正如他们在机构上接受国际人权标准所证明的那样,本文警告不要不加批判地赞扬这种发展。通过借鉴法律文本、现有的关于体育和人权法重叠的文献,以及福柯的治理理论,本文认为,尽管国际奥委会对人权的拥抱仍然是一个积极的发展,但他们在奥运会主办城市上持续应用“干净场地”原则仍然存在两个关键原因。它认为,首先,“干净的场地”原则可以被理解为一种政府技术,它可以约束和控制奥林匹克空间,以及那些属于原则本身的监管、法律和操作范围内的空间,同时保留现有的政治经济,其中奥林匹克嵌入其中。其次,它认为,作为国际奥委会商业和合同控制的一种不可避免的表达,“清洁场地”原则引发了额外的人权问题,影响了各种权利,如集会自由和言论自由,以及在奥林匹克和“非奥林匹克”空间内及其周围的当地社区的权利。最后,本文认为,虽然国际奥委会最近的业务发展值得欢迎,但仍有许多工作要做,以确保人权法在国际奥委会的法律框架内得到更明显的重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Olympic embrace? A critical evaluation of the IOC’s commitment to human rights
The intersection of sport and human rights has demonstrated that the actions of global sport mega-event franchise owners can now no longer be viewed as impervious to wider human rights considerations. In examining recent operational developments undertaken by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), as evidenced by their institutional embrace of international human rights standards, this article cautions against an uncritical acclaim of such developments. By drawing upon legal texts, the extant literature on the overlap of both sport and human rights law, and Foucault’s governmentality theory, it argues that whilst the IOC’s embrace of human rights remains a positive development, their ongoing application of the ‘clean venue’ principle on Olympic Host Cities remains problematic for two key reasons. It argues, first, that the ‘clean venue’ principle can be understood as a governmental technique that disciplines and controls Olympic spaces, and those who fall within the regulatory, legal, and operational reach of the principle itself, whilst preserving the existing political economy in which the Olympics are embedded within. Secondly, it argues that as an inescapable expression of the IOC’s commercial and contractual control, the ‘clean venue’ principle raises additional human rights concerns which impact upon various rights such as freedom of assembly and expression and the rights of local communities within and around Olympic and ‘non-Olympic’ spaces. Ultimately, this article contends that while the IOC’s recent operational developments are to be welcomed, much work remains to ensure that human rights law is more visibly foregrounded within the IOC’s legal framework.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信