The purpose of this paper is to examine how certain prescribed rules of an arbitration process can serve as instruments of sport policy. Three rules of the arbitration process (scope of review of the adjudicator, standard of review to define an error, and the adjudicator’s scope of authority to grant a remedy) are closely examined. The underlying premise of this paper is that the arbitration process and, more specifically, the rules of arbitration should be designed to support and to facilitate the desired function of independent sport arbitration. What that function is must be considered in light of the sport organization’s own governance and policy-making role. Policy-based rules of procedure such as the three discussed here, can either support that role or make incursions into the independent functioning of the sport organization.
Read more (PDF): Scope of Review, Standard of Review and Authority to Grant a Remedy
Originally published: Journal of Entertainment Law, 2002