The FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar is now well under way, yet
the relentless public debates around Qatar’s human rights record, be it regarding
the rights of LGBTQ+ or the rights of migrant workers who built the infrastructure
that underpin the competition, is not dying down. In fact, the whole build-up
towards the event has been defined by an intense public scrutiny of Qatar, with
civil society organizations and international labor unions engaging in continuous
advocacy to report on and improve the living and working conditions of migrant
workers active on Qatar’s many building sites. This issue also attracted
attention and critique from both the international media and public authorities
all around the globe. In fact, the question of Qatar’s (lack of) compliance with
internationally recognized human rights and core labor standards caused so much
negative publicity and external pressure that a number of legislative and
institutional reforms were initiated, officially aimed at improving the rights
and standing of migrant workers in Qatar. While it is highly disputed whether
these reforms have led to actual changes on the ground or should be seen only
as window-dressing, it remains clear that the global public attention brought
to Qatar by its hosting of the FIFA World Cup 2022 has forced the Qatari
authorities to engage legislative reforms and pay at least lip service to the
concerns raised.
In spite of the fact that this issue continues to play
a major role in the transnational public discourse, it received until now
relatively scant attention in the academic literature, specifically in the
international/transnational legal field. Yet, the debates around the Qatar 2022
World Cup are in practice mobilizing a range of legal arguments connected to
the interpretation and application of international human rights law and
international labor law, as well as activating international (at the ILO) or
transnational (at the Swiss OECD National Contact Point) legal processes.
Furthermore, they raise well-known questions regarding the compliance of states
with international legal commitments and connect with debates on the
universality of human rights and their translation in particular social contexts.
In short, we believe there is room for a multi-disciplinary engagement with the
legal processes and social mobilizations triggered by Qatar’s successful bid to
host the FIFA World Cup 2022 and their impacts on local social and legal rules
and institutions. Hence, Qatar’s journey towards the FIFA World Cup 2022 constitutes
an interesting case study to investigate more generally the transnational
social and legal mechanisms which underpin the concretization of international
(human rights/labor) law in a particular context and give it a specific reality.
We invite paper submissions from different
methodological backgrounds (e.g. law, anthropology, sociology, history, public
policy) which engage with the many entanglements of Qatar with international
(human rights and labor) law in the context of the organizing and hosting of the
FIFA World Cup 2022. The papers will be first discussed in a digital workshop
that will take place on 15 and 16
February 2023. Please note that we have an agreement with the German Law Journal (Open access journal on comparative,
European and international law published by Cambridge University Press) to
publish a selection of the papers.
If you wish to participate in the workshop and the
ensuing publications, please send an abstract of max. 300 words and a CV to
a.duval@asser.nl by 6 January 2023. The selected participants will be informed
by 9 January 2023. Extended abstracts (2000 words) will be due on 6 February
2023.
Supported by
Editor’s note:Pedro is an intern at the Asser Institute and
currently studying the Erasmus Mundus Master Degree in Sports Ethics and
Integrity (KU Leuven et al.) He was one of the participants of the first
edition of the Summer Programme on Sports Governance and Human Rights.
In early September, the first Summer Programme on the Governance of Sport and
Human Rights took
place at the Asser Institute. During one week, various experts in the field
presented different lectures to a very diverse group of participants with a
wide range of professional backgrounds. Being a participant myself, I would
like to reflect on this one-week course and share what I learned. More...
Editor's Note: Daniela
Heerdt is a PhD researcher at Tilburg Law School in the Netherlands. Her PhD
research deals with the establishment of responsibility and accountability for
adverse human rights impacts of mega-sporting events, with a focus on FIFA
World Cups and Olympic Games. She published a number of articles on mega-sporting
events and human rights, in the
International Sports Law Journal, Tilburg Law
Review, and the Netherlands
Quarterly of Human Rights.
In the past couple of years, the Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) made remarkable steps towards embedding
human rights into their practices and policies. These developments have been
discussed at length and in detail in this
blog and elsewhere, but
a short overview at this point is necessary to set the scene. Arguably, most
changes were sparked by John
Ruggie’s report from 2016, in which he articulated a set of concrete
recommendations for FIFA “on what it means for FIFA to embed respect for human
rights across its global operations”, using the UN Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights (UNGPs) as authoritative standard.[i]
As a result, in May 2017, FIFA
published a human rights policy, in which it commits to respecting
human rights in accordance with the UNGPs, identifies its salient human rights
risks, and acknowledges the potential adverse impacts it can have on human
rights in general and human rights of people belonging to specific groups. In
October 2017, it adopted new bidding regulations requiring
bidders to develop a human rights strategy and conduct an independent human
rights risk assessment as part of their bid. In March 2017, FIFA also created
a Human Rights Advisory Board,
which regularly evaluated FIFA’s human rights progress and made recommendations
on how FIFA should address human rights issues linked to its
activities. The mandate of the Advisory Board expired at the end of last
year and the future of this body is unknown at this point.
While some of these steps can be directly
connected to the recommendations in the Ruggie report, other recommendations
have largely been ignored. One example of the latter and focus of this blog
post is the issue of embedding human rights at the level of national football
associations. It outlines recent steps taken by the German football association
“Deutscher Fussball-Bund” (DFB) and the Dutch football association “Koninklijke
Nederlandse Voetbalbond” (KNVB) in relation to human rights, and explores to
what extent these steps can be regarded as proactive moves by those
associations or rather spillover effects from FIFA’s human rights efforts. More...
Editor's note: Daniela Heerdt is a PhD candidate at Tilburg
Law School in the Netherlands and works as Research Officer for the Centre for Sports and
Human Rights. Her PhD research deals with the
establishment of responsibility and accountability for adverse human rights
impacts of mega-sporting events, with a focus on FIFA World Cups and Olympic
Games. She published an article in the International Sports Law Journal that discusses to what extent the revised bidding and hosting
regulations by FIFA, the IOC and UEFA strengthen access to remedy for
mega-sporting events-related human rights violations.
On November
26th, the Human Rights Advisory Board[1]
of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) published its second report. This blog provides a summary and brief
evaluation of the report, by drawing a comparison to the previous report issued by the Human Rights Advisory
Board (hereinafter: the Board) based on the content of the recommendations and
FIFA’s efforts to implement the Board’s recommendations. The third part of this
blog briefly reflects on the broader implications of some of the new
recommendations issued for FIFA’s internal policies. The conclusion provides
five more general points of observation on the report. More...