Editor’s note:
Tomáš Grell is currently an LL.M. student
in Public International Law at Leiden University. He contributes to
the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a part-time
intern.
In its press release of 28 February 2017,
the International Olympic Committee ('IOC') communicated that, as part of the
implementation of Olympic Agenda 2020 ('Agenda 2020'), it is
making specific changes to the 2024
Host City Contract with regard to human
rights, anti-corruption and sustainable development. On this occasion, IOC
President Thomas Bach stated that ''this
latest step is another reflection of the IOC's commitment to embedding the
fundamental values of Olympism in all aspects of the Olympic Games''.
Although the Host City of the 2024 Summer Olympic Games is scheduled to be
announced only in September this year, it is now clear that, be it either Los
Angeles or Paris (as Budapest has recently withdrawn its bid), it will have to abide by an additional set of human
rights obligations.
This two-part blog will
take a closer look at the execution of the Olympic Games from a human rights
perspective. The first part will address the most serious human rights abuses
that reportedly took place in connection with some of the previous editions of
the Olympic Games. It will also outline the key characteristics of the Host
City Contract ('HCC') as one of the main legal instruments relating to the
execution of the Olympic Games. The second part will shed light on the human
rights provisions that have been recently added to the 2024 HCC and it will seek
to examine how, if at all, these newly-added human rights obligations could be
reflected in practice. For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that the
present blog will not focus on the provisions concerning anti-corruption that
have been introduced to the 2024 HCC together with the abovementioned human
rights provisions.
Examples of Olympic Games-related human rights abuses
The large majority of
Olympic Games-related human rights abuses fall into one of the following
categories: (i) violations of labour-related rights; (ii) forced evictions; and
(iii) repressions of civil rights, in particular the right to freedom of
expression and the right to peaceful assembly. In addition, the execution of
the Olympic Games can entail negative environmental impacts.
Violations of labour-related rights
International labour standards are primarily laid down
in a number of conventions and other instruments adopted by the International
Labour Organization ('ILO').
The ILO identifies four cornerstone principles, namely the right to freedom of
association and collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of forced
labour, the abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in
respect of employment and occupation.[1] These
principles are also reflected to a certain extent in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights ('UDHR'),[2] the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR'),[3] the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ('ICESCR')[4] and regional
human rights treaties, such as the European
Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR').[5] Other
fundamental labour-related rights include, for instance, the right to rest,
leisure, fair wages or safe and healthy working conditions.[6]
Thousands of workers coming from both inside and
outside of the Host Country are recruited in the run-up to the Olympic Games to
ensure that Olympic venues are built on time. Regrettably, these workers are often
subjected to multiple violations of their labour-related rights. A report
published by Human Rights Watch ahead of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in
Beijing revealed, inter alia, that
internal migrant workers frequently faced delayed payment of their wages and
were denied basic services linked to China's household registration system, known as Hukou.[7] Furthermore, the freedom of association of these
workers was restricted as they could not join China's only legal trade union body, the
state-sponsored All-China Federation of Trade Unions.[8] The 2014 Winter Olympic Games in
Sochi received a significant influx
of migrant workers coming to Russia mostly from Central Asia. Several reports
demonstrated that, in addition to unpaid wages or excessive working hours,
migrant workers in Sochi were also prevented from moving to another employer as
their work permits or personal identity documents were often withheld.
Forced
evictions
The
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ('CESCR') defines the term 'forced eviction' as ''the permanent or
temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or
communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision
of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection''.[9] The CESCR further specifies that forced evictions might be permissible
if the individuals concerned are provided with an adequate compensation for any
affected property or, in cases where forced evictions result in the individuals
concerned being rendered homeless, an adequate alternative housing,
resettlement or access to productive land.[10] Moreover, forced evictions should be carried out in
conformity with general principles of reasonableness and proportionality.[11]
Some of the previous
editions of the Olympic Games have seen whole communities being removed from
their homes to make way for stadiums, accommodation facilities and
infrastructure. According to research conducted by the Centre on Housing
Rights and Evictions, at least 1.25 million people
were displaced prior to the Beijing Games.[12] Thousands of families had been relocated from favelas in Rio de Janeiro before the 2016 Summer Olympic Games were opened. Doubts have been
raised whether the affected individuals were provided with an adequate
compensation and other guarantees as referred to above.[13]
Repressions of civil rights
Rule 50 (2) of the Olympic Charter
stipulates that ''no kind of
demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any
Olympic sites, venues or other areas''. Based on this provision, the Host
Country may adopt laws and take measures restricting the right to freedom of
expression[14] and the right to peaceful assembly.[15] The Chinese government was accused of curtailing the right to freedom
of expression of domestic and foreign journalists
prior to the Beijing Games. In February 2014, four LGBT-advocates from
Russia were detained when they were about to protest against discrimination at
the Sochi Games.
Rule 50 (2) of the
Olympic Charter also prevents athletes from making political statements in any
Olympic sites or venues. At the 1968 Summer Olympic Games in Mexico City, the
IOC showed no tolerance for the black power salute, a political
demonstration conducted by Afro-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos
(gold and bronze medallists in the 200-meter sprint) with the view of
supporting their compatriots in the struggle against racial segregation. At the
Sochi Games, the IOC did not allow Ukrainian athletes to wear black
armbands in commemoration of those who died during
the conflict in the country. It is arguable that such examples constitute an
unlawful interference with the freedom of expression of athletes competing in
the Olympic Games.[16]
Negative environmental impacts
Despite not being
generally accepted as a human right per
se, the right to a safe and healthy environment might be inferred from
other human rights, including, for instance, the right to life or the right to
food and water.[17] It should also be noted that environmental concerns
are closely intertwined with the concept of sustainable development, as
exemplified in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which provides that ''environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the
development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it''.[18]
The first Olympic Games
that were widely criticized for disregarding environmental considerations were
the 1992 Winter Olympic Games in Albertville.[19] By contrast, it is widely recognized that the 1994
Winter Olympic Games in Lillehammer were executed in an
environmentally-sustainable manner, arguably in response to the Rio Declaration
on Environment and Development which was agreed upon only few months after the
closing ceremony of the Albertville Games.[20] Insofar as the more recent editions of the Olympic
Games are concerned, the Rio Games faced serious difficulties relating to the polluted waters of Guanabara Bay, an Olympic venue for sailing events. In a similar vein, preparations
of the upcoming 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang have been marred by allegations of destroying 500-year-old virgin forest to
make room for a ski slope.
Introduction to the HCC
The previous section has portrayed some of the most serious human rights
abuses associated with the execution of the Olympic Games. These abuses call
for an adequate response from the IOC. Before proceeding to analyse whether the
human rights provisions recently introduced to the 2024 HCC may constitute an
effective remedy, it is essential to take a cursory look at the HCC as one of
the main legal instruments linked to the execution of the Olympic Games.
What should be known in the first place
Following the
completion of the selection procedure, the HCC is entered into by the IOC on
the one hand and the successful Candidate City ('Host City') and the National
Olympic Committee of the Host Country ('Host NOC') on the other hand. Within
five months after the execution of the HCC, the Host City and the Host NOC
shall form the Organising Committee of the Olympic Games ('OCOG'), an entity
endowed with legal personality under the laws of the Host Country.[21] The Host City and the Host NOC shall subsequently
ensure that, within one month after the OCOG's formation, the OCOG becomes a
party to the HCC and adheres to all its terms.[22] Even though the Host Country itself is not a party to
the HCC, it plays an important role in fulfilling the obligations contained
therein. For instance, the Host Country Authorities are required to take all
necessary measures to guarantee the safe and peaceful celebration of the
Olympic Games.[23]
As such, the HCC in its
current form consists of four separate documents which apply in the following
order of precedence: (i) The HCC – Principles;
(ii) The HCC – Operational Requirements which provides a detailed description of the main deliverables and
other obligations to be performed by the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG,
including, inter alia, obligations
relating to finances, media or the Olympic Torch Relay; (iii) The Games
Delivery Plan which outlines the main planning framework, timelines and
milestones to be respected by the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG; and
(iv) The Candidature Commitments which concerns all guarantees and other
commitments contained in the Host City's candidature documentation.[24] Since the present blog deals exclusively with the HCC
– Principles, all references to the HCC throughout this post should be taken to
include the HCC – Principles only.
The HCC is governed by
the domestic laws of Switzerland.[25] The parties thereto undertake to submit all their
disputes concerning the validity, interpretation or performance of the HCC to
the Court of Arbitration for Sport ('CAS'). If, for any reason, the CAS refuses
to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular case, the domestic courts in
Lausanne shall be competent.[26]
The main purpose of the
HCC is to delegate the execution of the Olympic Games from the IOC to other
actors, namely the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG.[27] As a general rule, these actors shall be jointly and
severally liable for all their obligations, guarantees and other commitments
under the HCC, whether entered into individually or collectively.[28] The Host City is primarily tasked with delivering the
public infrastructure. It may create and grant powers to an Olympic Delivery
Authority[29], a public entity that ''combines the functions of a local council,
planning authority, transport executive, trading standards office and police
service''.[30] The Host NOC is concerned
predominantly with sport-related matters, whilst the OCOG is responsible for
hiring suppliers and contractors to build Olympic venues, lodging athletes and
officials or elaborating reports on a regular basis.[31] This is not to say, however, that the IOC is not
involved in the execution of the Olympic Games. Given that the Olympic Games
are the exclusive property of the IOC,[32] the IOC provides significant financial and other
benefits to its agents, determines the core requirements, exercises supervision
and takes measures in case of non-compliance with the HCC.
Core requirements
First and foremost, the
Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG undertake to respect the Olympic Charter
and the IOC Code of Ethics. By signing the HCC (or acceding thereto), they also
agree to carry out their operations ''in
a manner which promotes and enhances the fundamental principles and values of
Olympism as well as the development of the Olympic Movement''.[33] Other core requirements laid down in the HCC relate
mostly to human rights, anti-corruption, environmental protection and
sustainability, security, betting and prevention of manipulation of
competitions, intellectual property rights, entry and stay of athletes and
Games-related personnel, taxes, media and marketing. The provisions concerning
human rights, environmental protection and sustainability will be specifically
examined at a later stage.
IOC's supervision of the execution of the Olympic
Games
In order to monitor the
progress of, and provide guidance to, the OCOG, with respect to the planning,
organisation, staging and financing of the Olympic Games, the IOC creates a
Coordination Commission with members representing the IOC, the International
Federations, the National Olympic Committees, OCOGs from the past, the IOC
Athletes' Commission and the International Paralympic Committee, as well as
experts designated or approved by the IOC.[34] As part of their
mandate, members of the Coordination Commission conduct site inspections and
meet with representatives of the OCOG and the Host Country on a regular basis.[35]
Measures in case of non-compliance with the HCC
The most serious
measure contemplated by the HCC in the event of non-compliance therewith is its
termination by the IOC and subsequent withdrawal of the Olympic Games from the
Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG. Termination of the HCC might be prompted
by a failure on the part of the Host City, the Host NOC and/or the OCOG to
perform ''any material obligation
pursuant to the HCC or under any applicable law''.[36] That being said, the HCC sets out a two-step
procedure for its termination and subsequent withdrawal of the Olympic Games.
First, the IOC notifies the Host City, the Host NOC and/or the OCOG and calls
upon the relevant party to remedy its failure within 60 days of receiving the
notification. This time limit is shortened to 30 days if the opening ceremony
of the Olympic Games is less than 120 days away.[37] Second, if the relevant party does not respond to its
failure in a timely and accurate manner, the HCC shall be terminated and the
Olympic Games withdrawn with immediate effect.[38] Apart from termination of the HCC and subsequent
withdrawal of the Olympic Games, the IOC may decide, for example, to withhold
any grant to be made to the OCOG in accordance with the HCC.[39]
Conclusion
Against the background
of the reform proposals embodied in Agenda 2020, the initial failure of the
2024 HCC to incorporate human rights obligations, other than those relating to
non-discrimination, was presented as an astonishing omission. Although the IOC has
recently surrendered to public pressure and it has finally added human rights
obligations to the 2024 HCC, its role does not end here. The second part of
this blog will examine whether the insertion of human rights obligations to the
2024 HCC is to be regarded as a turning point in history of the Olympic Games
or risks being an empty promise.