download - IOA

Does this indicate that the IOC has ceased to be an association under international
law? Or does its removal mean a withdrawal from the principles which govern
international law? In my opinion, neither is true. I believe that, in the lOC's
case, the declaration that it complies with the rules of international law is superfluous,
in that this is reflected in the organizationis manifold activities and its international
practice, which inevitably extends into the areas of application of international
law. In these cases, the law states that "the definition of legal capacity
corresponds to the field of activity of legal self-defence".
The IOCs field of activity also results from rule 1 of the Charter which states:
"(1) The IOC is the supreme authority of the Olympic Movement. (2) Any person
or organization belonging in any capacity whatsoever to the Olympic Movement
is bound by the provisions of the Olympic Charter and shall abide by the decisions
of the IOC."
While, because of its non-governmental nature, the IOC cannot force governments
to comply with the rules and provisions of its Charter, international practice
has none the less created a form of customary law applied by all the countries and
sports organizations affiliated to it.
It is certain that, in practice, states approach the phenomenon of the Olympic
Movement in different ways. However, acceptance of the rules drawn up by the
IOC is becoming greater, in spite of some isolated cases of indiscipline. These are
usually associated with intervention of the state in sports activities, often because
it is politically opportune to do so. It is at this point that problems start.
(I) Paragraph 10 of rule 2 of the Olympic Charter states: "The role of the IOC
is to lead the promotion of Olympism in accordance with the Olympic Charter. For
that purpose the IOC: (10) opposes any political or commercial abuse of sport and
athletes."
Political abuse of sport is usually seen in the intervention of politics, and particularly
the government in power, in the decisions and running of the sports institutions
to the point of restricting the independence of the associations of first instance
(clubs) and second instance (federations), or even the National Olympic
Committee. The problem is a real and frequent one in the majority of countries.
We can distinguish three levels of government intervention in the sports activities
of a country:
1. Simple financial contributions by the state, either directly by covering the
costs of sports associations, or indirectly through financial assistance from sports
betting (football, lotto, etc.). Such support is not only acceptable, the practice
should also be encouraged internationally.
2. Direct or indirect supervision by the state and the imposing of a particular
policy on the administration of sports associations. This practice is widespread. It
generally includes legal provisions corresponding to the policy of the government
118