作　者：肖永平 孙宏达
关键词：以裁促治；裁决效力；重新审查权；一般法律原则；国际体育仲裁院
摘　要：

国际体育仲裁院在全球体育治理体系中已超越传统争议解决机构角色，形成以仲裁裁决推动体育组织规则演进与制度完善的“以裁促治”机制。其逻辑基础在于仲裁制度由契约模式向司法化模式的转型，制度支撑则体现为裁决的终局约束力与上诉程序中的重新审查权。如此，国际体育仲裁院通过双重路径实现以裁促治：在过程维度，运用一般法律原则与体系化解释方法，对体育规则进行合法性审查与边界厘清，并通过事实性先例机制形成稳定解释传统；在结果维度，裁决呈现否定性、建议性与标准生成性三种类型，将个案判断转化为可复制的制度标准，构成从纠纷解决到规则优化的循环结构。中国体育仲裁委员会虽已初步具备以裁促治的条件，但其实现路径应立足本土制度环境，通过强化一般法律原则的适用和解释方法的运用，形成以解释性裁决和建议性结果为主、否定性结果为辅的渐进式治理模式，并辅之以案例公开、咨询意见机制和仲裁衔接制度的完善，逐步推动体育治理法治化与体育自治的协调发展。

 

An Analysis of the "Governance Advancement Through Arbitration" Mechanism of the Court of Arbitration For Sport and Its Implications for China
Xiao Yongping, Sun Hongda
（Wuhan University）
Abstract The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has transcended its traditional role of a dispute-resolution body in the global sports governance system, and developed a "governance advancement through arbitration" mechanism, promoting rule evolution and institutional improvement for sports organizations through its arbitration rulings. This mechanism is logically grounded in the shift of its arbitration regime from a contractual model to a judicialized one, with institutional underpinnings stemming from the final and binding force of arbitral awards and the power of de novo review in appellate proceedings. On this basis, CAS delivers governance advancement through arbitration via a dual-track approach. At the procedural level, it applies general principles of law and systematic interpretative methodologies to conducts legality review and boundary clarification of sports regulations, and fosters consistent interpretative jurisprudence through a factual precedent regime. At the outcome level, its awards fall into three categories, invalidatory, recommendatory and norm-generating, which convert case-specific adjudications into replicable institutional benchmarks and build a closed-loop framework ranging from dispute settlement to regulatory refinement. Against this background, although China Commission of Arbitration for Sport (CCAS) has laid preliminary groundwork for a similar governance facilitating function, its implementation path should be tailored to China's domestic institutional context. By scaling up the application of general legal principles and sophisticated interpretative techniques, CCAS may adopt an incremental governance model prioritizing interpretative and recommendatory awards while limiting invalidatory rulings as a supplementary measure. Complemented by improved systems including case disclosure, advisory opinion issuance and procedural coordination with relevant arbitration mechanisms, such reforms will steadily advance the coordinated development of law-based sports governance and sports self-regulation in China.
Key words   governance advancement through arbitration; binding effect of arbitral awards; De Novo review; general principles of law; The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

■ 作者简介 肖永平，武汉大学人文社会科学资深教授，武汉大学国际法研究所教授，湖北 武汉 430072；孙宏达，武汉大学国际法研究所博士研究生。 

[PDF]（下载数：）