Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi’nin (CAS) isminde yer alan “Tahkim” ve “Mahkeme” kavramlarının incelenmesi ve Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi’nde uygulanan tahkim ile geleneksel tahkimin karşılaştırılması
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2023
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Uluslararası Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi (CAS), isminde aynı anda barındırdığı “tahkim” ve “mahkeme” kavramlarından dolayı özellikle spor hukuku alanında çalışmak isteyen araştırmacılarda oldukça kafa karışıklığına neden olmaktadır. Bir yanda tahkim, diğer yanda ise mahkeme kavramlarının aynı yargılama merciinin isminin içinde bulunması, bu merciin yargılamasının bir tahkim yargılaması mı yoksa mahkeme yargılaması mı icra ettiği sorusunu akıllara getirmektedir. Tahkim yargılaması, mahkemelerde icra edilen yargılamanın alternatifi bir uyuşmazlık çözüm yoludur. Peki bu durumda Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi bir tahkim yargılaması mı yapmaktadır, yoksa bir Mahkeme midir? Makalede ilk olarak Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi’nin hangi yargılama türünü icra ettiği gerekçeleriyle ortaya koyulmaktadır. Diğer yandan geleneksel tahkim olarak tabir edebileceğimiz tahkim yargılaması ile Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi’nde icra edilen tahkim yargılaması da karşılaştırmaya tabi tutulmuş, benzerlik ve farklılıkları ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuç kısmında da CAS isminde yer alan “Mahkeme” kavramının tahkim kurumunu kastettiğinin kabul edildiği ve “Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi” isminin yerine “Spor Tahkim Kurumu” ismi önermesi yer almaktadır. Amaç: Spor Hukuku son yıllarda ülkemizde adı daha fazla duyulmaya başlanan ve ilginin oldukça arttığı bir hukuk alanıdır. Karma hukuk diyebileceğimiz bir yapıya sahip olan Spor Hukuku’nun kendine has yargılama sistemi, ilkeleri ve dinamikleri vardır. Ancak Spor Hukuku konusunda ülkemizde yazılmış sınırlı sayıda kaynak mevcut olup var olanlar da güncellenmeye ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi’ndeki yargılama sistemini “mahkeme” ile “tahkim” arasındaki kafa karışıklığını ortadan kaldırmaya yönelik güncel değişiklikleri ile araştırıp sunmak, onu geleneksel tahkim ile karşılaştırarak Spor Hukuku ile ilgili güncel bir çalışmayı hukuk alanına kazandırmaktır. Yöntem: Spor Hukuku süratle değişebilen bir mevzuata sahiptir. O yüzden bir hukuki eser ortaya koyarken sürekli mevzuat takibi gerektirir. Makale hazırlanırken CAS Kodu’nda gerçekleşen tüm değişiklikler takip edilerek güncel versiyonuna uygun araştırma yapılmıştır. Makalede ayrıca kıyaslama yöntemi de kendine yer bulmaktadır. Özgünlük: Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi’nin isminde yer alan bu çelişkiden kaynaklarda bahsedilmesine rağmen konu detaylı işlenmemiştir ancak bu çalışma bu konuda detaylı araştırma ve bulgulara ulaşan, güncel gelişmelere uygun özgün bir makale olarak meydana gelmiştir.
The International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) causes a lot of confusions due to the concepts of "arbitration" and "court" that it contains within the same name, especially for the researchers studying in the field of Sports Law. The fact that the concepts of arbitration on the one hand and court on the other hand are in the name of the same jurisdiction brings to mind the question of whether the jurisdiction of this authority is an arbitration or a court proceeding. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method to court proceedings. So, does the Court of Arbitration for Sports conduct an arbitration proceeding or is it a Court? In this study, firstly, the type of proceedings performed by the CAS is revelaed including its justifications. Moreover, the arbitration proceedings, which we can call traditional arbitration, and the arbitration proceedings executed in the Sports Arbitration Court are also compared and their similarities and differences are revealed. In the conclusion part of the study, it is accepted that the concept of “Court” in the name of CAS refers to the arbitration institution and a name as “Institution of Arbitration for Sport”” is suggested instead of the name “Court of Arbitration for Sport”. Purpose: Sports Law is a field of law whose name has started to be heard much more in our country in recent years. Sports Law includes severel fields of lawand has its own judicial system, principles and dynamics. However, there are a limited number of sources written in our country on Sports Law, and the ones written need updating. The purpose of this article is to research and present the judicial system of the CAS with its recent changes to conclude the confusion between "court" and "arbitration", to compare it with traditional arbitration and to bring a current study regarding the Sports Law to the law field. Methodology: Sports Law has a legislation that can change rapidly. Therefore, while studying for a legal work, it requires to follow constant legislative arrangements. After all the recent changes in the CAS Code were followed while editing this study, research was carried out in accordance with the current version. The study also includes the method of comparison. Authenticity: Even though this contradiction in the name of the Court of Arbitration for Sports is mentioned in the sources, the subject has not been discussed in detail; however, this study has emerged as an original article that reaches detailed research and findings on this subject and is suitable for current developments.
The International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) causes a lot of confusions due to the concepts of "arbitration" and "court" that it contains within the same name, especially for the researchers studying in the field of Sports Law. The fact that the concepts of arbitration on the one hand and court on the other hand are in the name of the same jurisdiction brings to mind the question of whether the jurisdiction of this authority is an arbitration or a court proceeding. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method to court proceedings. So, does the Court of Arbitration for Sports conduct an arbitration proceeding or is it a Court? In this study, firstly, the type of proceedings performed by the CAS is revelaed including its justifications. Moreover, the arbitration proceedings, which we can call traditional arbitration, and the arbitration proceedings executed in the Sports Arbitration Court are also compared and their similarities and differences are revealed. In the conclusion part of the study, it is accepted that the concept of “Court” in the name of CAS refers to the arbitration institution and a name as “Institution of Arbitration for Sport”” is suggested instead of the name “Court of Arbitration for Sport”. Purpose: Sports Law is a field of law whose name has started to be heard much more in our country in recent years. Sports Law includes severel fields of lawand has its own judicial system, principles and dynamics. However, there are a limited number of sources written in our country on Sports Law, and the ones written need updating. The purpose of this article is to research and present the judicial system of the CAS with its recent changes to conclude the confusion between "court" and "arbitration", to compare it with traditional arbitration and to bring a current study regarding the Sports Law to the law field. Methodology: Sports Law has a legislation that can change rapidly. Therefore, while studying for a legal work, it requires to follow constant legislative arrangements. After all the recent changes in the CAS Code were followed while editing this study, research was carried out in accordance with the current version. The study also includes the method of comparison. Authenticity: Even though this contradiction in the name of the Court of Arbitration for Sports is mentioned in the sources, the subject has not been discussed in detail; however, this study has emerged as an original article that reaches detailed research and findings on this subject and is suitable for current developments.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi, CAS, Uluslararası Spor Tahkim Konseyi, ICAS, Spor ile İlgili Uyuşmazlık, CAS Kodu, Uluslararası Olimpiyat Komitesi, IOC, The Court of Arbitraiton for Sport, CAS, International Council of Arbitration for Sport, ICAS, Sports-Related Disputes, CAS Code, International Olympic Committee, IOC
Kaynak
İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
22
Sayı
48
