Islj 2009 3-4 - TMC Asser Instituut

mental support by informing the IOC that the Minister of Sports
of the Netherlands Antilles shares its view. 38 This, against the fact
that NAOC knows that the Commissioner of Sports of the island
of Curaçao is the primary political official to deal with. Simply
because the Minister of Sports of the Netherlands Antilles is no
authority in the matter of the future country Curaçao. The
Netherlands Antilles will be dissolved.
• NAOC has worked out some sort of agreement with NOC/NSF
(Olympic Committee of Holland). However, for reasons one can
only speculate on, NAOC clearly avoids to divulge this engagement.
In its Resolution referred to earlier, no mentioning whatsoever
is included on this and also it is not part of the various
explanatory notes NAOC sent around between 2006 - today. I have
spoken to three experienced secretaries general of national federations
who claimed that NAOC members formally were never
informed about the NOC/NSF relationship regarding continuation
of NAOC. Nevertheless, in several IOC and NOC/NSF letters,
confirmation of the Holland connection appears regarding
this absolutely national matter 39 . Since CSF is mentioned in the
resolution, it has the right to receive a copy. Refusing is not only
creating suspicion of hidden intentions, but is also against the principle
of good governance, in particular against the condition of
transparency.
2.4. Deep-laid three-party plot against the interest of Curaçao ?
While learning about the several inimical efforts of NAOC against
good faith and fair play, one surely will wonder about the motives and
also about the consequences. Although the sensibility of the question
made it impossible to really pinpoint the true motives, I was able to
bring this forward in my conversations with the executives of national
federations, who without hesitation informed me that it primarily
has to do with prestige, personal gain and influence. However, further
analyzing the available documents, I came to the conclusion that an
important additional motive is that Holland is willing to make funds
available to NAOC, in exchange for sheltering the new born Holland
villages in the Caribbean, the BES islands 40 . This construction will
secure access for the BES athletes, if any, to participate in regional
events. It can only be possible with the continuation of NAOC as
“geographical sports authority”, whatever this may be. I suspect that
the perspective of funds availability was dominant in the policy of an
ongoing single NOC. Our national government, by way of the
Minister of Sports, has anyway openly welcomed also this Holland
deal and apparently the interest of CSF (in reality Curaçao) in this
matter was of no importance. This can be seen in a variety of documents.
It is my conclusion that NAOC, NOC/NSF and our Minister
of Sports are in fact involved in a carefully nursed plot against the
interest of Curaçao / CSF.
The foregoing most probably explains the confirmed cooperation
of the Minister of Sports of the Netherlands Antilles, combining the
NAOC fund problem with the sports interest of the BES islands. And
this solution fits neatly into the questioned contours of the hidden
plan from the Kingdom government to maintain a number of
Netherlands Antilles structures. This in fact is a disguised continuation
of the country’s present constellation.
Sport, all over the globe, is a recognized and highly respected element
of nations’ cultural affairs 41 , as well as an integral part of the
constitutional status and national identity. Therefore, it is beyond
doubt, that every society is entitled to protect, reserve and conserve
these values at all times.
Resuming the above, it is evident that NAOC has applied the old
37 NAOC letter to IOC, October 13, 2006,
under Curaçao & St.Maarten.
38 NAOC letter to IOC, October 13, 2006,
under Curaçao & St.Maarten.
39 IOC letter , June 28, 2007, cc addressees
and also NOC/NSF letter April 23,
2007 to IOC/cc NAOC.
40NOC/NSF, letter to IOC, Ref. #
DIR.018750.AMD, April 23, 2007.
41 www.athleticinsight.com/Vol9Iss1/
CulturalMeaningandMotivation.htm
#Introduction.
42 A.Vroom. Sport en nationaliteit. TAR.
Volume 4 (2007), p 246. This is a magazine
for law and justice in the
Netherlands Antilles. In the conclusion
of this article the author states that sport
representation is part of autonomy.
Latin concept of “qui iure suo utitur, neminem laedit”: he who uses
his right cannot be considered abusive. This is an outmoded old
Roman law principles, nowadays not setting aside one’s liability arising
from bad faith acts against another’s known interest. The conspiring
activities NAOC secretly participated in were intentionally directed
to concertedly set CSF off side. These are all flagrant violations of
the future rights of CSF 42 and totally against good faith.
3. The enormous influence of the Games on the world nation
The objectionable NAOC moves against the interest of CSF and
future autonomous country Curaçao were highlighted in the previous
Section. I have also stressed the questionable triangle symbiosis
between NAOC, NOC /NSF and our Minister of Sports. The facts
presented made it clear that NAOC has violated the respected principle
of fair play and has also neglected its societal duty of care with
regards to the future right of self-representation of the Curaçao sports
community.
In this Section I will analyze the most important IOC criteria for
recognition and also depict some remarkable impacting events at several
Games. The intention is to bring forward the molding effect the
Games have ever since had on the development of world politics. As
a matter of fact, there is no influential topic one can come up with
that has not been promoted, presented or protested during the Games
over the years. To name a few : Technology, Communications, Human
Rights, Politics, Disabled people, Women Rights, Smoking, Doping,
Drugs abuse, including alcohol, Children Rights, Environmental
issues, Security, Nuclear issues, Peace and War, all became inclusive
part of the Games. Therefore, being part of the Games is being part of
the moving world. Every country, every nation should!
3.1. IOC recognition of NOCs
Rule 3.1 of the Charter states: “The condition for belonging to the
Olympic Movement is recognition by the IOC”. So, contrary to what
many think, an NOC is not a member of the IOC. Upon request an
NOC, provided it has complied with the Charter stipulated requirements,
becomes the recognized authority to exclusively enter national
athletes for participation in Olympic and other IOC controlled
Games. That, simply said, is the content and effect of the IOC recognition.
Rule 28.3 of the Charter gives NOCs the exclusive rights to
represent their country at the Olympic Games. Do note that the entity
to be represented is the country.
The further detailed criteria dealing with IOC recognition are primarily
found in Rules 28 and 29. By-law 1.1 of these rules reads: “ A
national sports organization applying for recognition as an NOC, shall
file an application with the IOC demonstrating that the applicant fulfils
all conditions prescribed in the Olympic Charter, in particular in Rule 29
and BLR 28 and 29”. It is obvious that in particular the content of
these two rules ( Rule 29 and the Bye-Laws of Rules 28 and 29) are
dominant in judging an application for recognition.
It is obvious that recognition and authority of NOCs are formal
meanings at the IOC and therefore captured in specific articles and
the respective Bye Laws. In relation to the NAOC intentions, up to
this moment backed by the NOC Relation Department of the IOC,
I add here some remarks regarding the application of these rules and
By-laws on the matter.
Sub Rule 28.3
“The NOCs have the exclusive authority for the representation of their
respective countries at the Olympic Games and at the regional, continental
or world multi-sports competitions patronized by the IOC. In addition,
each NOC is obliged to participate in the Games of the Olympiad by sending
athletes”. This rule gives exclusive rights per country to one NOC.
Note that there is no provision whatsoever for a “geographical or sports
authority” as NOC, consisting of more countries and or fractions of
countries. Simply said, Mexico City cannot be represented by the
NOC of USA. Only the Mexican Olympic Committee is entitled to
that. Pursuant to this Rule, the country Curaçao should have its own
NOC because maintaining NAOC has no legal basis in the Olympic
Charter once the constitutional alteration becomes a fact.
50 2009/3-4
A RT I C L E S