Which states parties should be held responsible for the implementation of positive obligations under the ECHR in sports-related disputes?

Abstract

In sports society, awareness of human rights protection has gradually developed and sports governing bodies, such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de la Football Association (FIFA), have striven to commit the implementation of human rights guaranteed by internationally recognised human right treaties in the international community. However, human rights law cannot directly impose any legal obligations on sports governing bodies because they are non-state actors established by domestic private law. In this situation, how can international human rights law apply to the private relationship between non-state actors? According to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), state parties must implement positive obligations to protect individuals against any violations caused by non-state actors within the jurisdiction. To implement the positive obligations under the ECHR, it is necessary to identify which state parties should be held responsible for the implementation in sports-related disputes because, in Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, athletes claimed a violation of the ECHR against Switzerland on the ground that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is located in Lausanne, Switzerland. However, it should be considered that Switzerland is not be liable for all violations of the ECHR’s rights caused by another state party. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to identify a hypothetical standard for determining which state parties should be held responsible for implementing the positive obligations under the ECHR.