The international Court of Arbitration for Sport has released its full 24-page decision that resulted in upholding the IOC’s decision to bar Russia from competing in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.
The court’s decision did not focus on the regional politics, the justness of the war, or the specific actions of the Russian military in Ukraine; rather, it relied on the specific rules of the IOC, which the CAS says Russia has agreed to.
Specifically, the court focused on the annexation of regional sporting organizations in Ukraine, by Russia as a violation of the Olympic Charter.
The decision reads, in part:
“An NOC can only exercise territorial jurisdiction within the limits of the boundary of an independent State recognised by the international community.
“It follows that, if the international community recognises the Regions as part of Ukraine, then the ROC’s decision to admit sports organisations from those regions as members violated the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian NOC, as protected by [Olympic Charter] Rule 28.5 and Rule 30.1.”
The CAS decision did have to rely on international politics to a degree in determining whether-or-not the international community recognized the annexations, but the decision implies that Russia may have received relief from the court if they had not annexed the sporting organizations of the Donetsk Region and integrated them under the umbrella of the Russian Olympic Committee.
“The Panel considers that [United Nations] Resolution ES-11/4 is overwhelming evidence that the international community did not recognise the boundaries that Russia sought to achieve by its annexation of the Regions, and that accordingly the international community recognised as an independent State a Ukraine which included Regions.”
The UN resolution declared recognition of the boundaries between Ukraine and Russia as they were before the February 2022 invasion, and was adopted by a 143-5 vote, with 35 abstentions.
This annexation of the sporting organizations was crucial because of Russia’s argument that the lack of a ban for its 2014 invasion of Crimea meant that they should not be banned now, however they only recently absorbed the region’s sporting organizations.
It also drew a line for the CAS between this conflict and the one regarding Israel and Palestine, which Russia tried to use to justify that it was being unfairly targeted. There has been no reports of Israel absorbing Palestinian sporting organizations, as evidenced in part by their recent participation in the World Aquatics Championships.
The CAS Panel that heard the case repeated that it was not ruling on whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violated international law, but specifically whether Russia’s annexation of Ukraine violated the Olympic Charter.
“The Panel wishes to repeat with emphasis that the issues in the present case are not whether, as a matter of international law, Russia’s annexation of part of the Ukraine was lawful or where the lawful boundary lies between the two countries. These issues raise questions of sovereignty and politics and cannot and should not be resolved by IOC or CAS or national courts.”
The report specifically cited Rule 28.5 and Rule 30.1 of the Olympic Charter:
Rule 28.5: The area of jurisdiction of an NOC must coincide with the limits of the country in which it is established and has its headquarters.
and
Rule 30.1: 1 In the Olympic Charter, the expression “country” means an independent State recognised by the international community.
With the decision, the CAS has threaded a needle in upholding the IOC’s decision while keeping its scope narrow and not precedential for other global conflicts.
It’s unclear if it is too late for Russia to rescind its annexation of the Crimean sporting organizations, though last week Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his sports ministry and the Russian Olympic Committee to put forth proposals and pathways for Russian participation in the Paris Olympic Games after the CAS ruling.
Great reporting.
Thanks for doing the work on this. Great summary!