The IOC has trumpeted it worldwide as a « historical
milestone »:
the United Nations has recognised the sacrosanct autonomy of sport. Indeed, the
Resolution A/69/L.5 (see the final draft) adopted by the General Assembly on 31 October states
that it “supports the independence and autonomy of sport as well as the
mission of the International Olympic Committee in leading the Olympic movement”.
This is a logical conclusion to a year that has brought the two organisations closer
than ever. In April, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed former IOC President, Jacques Rogge, Special
Envoy for Youth Refugees and Sport. At
this occasion, the current IOC President, Thomas Bach, made an eloquent speech celebrating a “historic step forward to better
accomplish our common mission for humanity” and a memorandum
understanding was signed between the UN and the IOC. This is all
sweet and well, but is there something new under the sun?
A beautiful friendship
As the IOC points out itself, it has always had a friendly
institutional relationship with the UN. There is a good deal of solidarity of kin
between the two transnational organisations. The UN has been keen on shoring up
the Olympic truce. In fact, since 1993, it has adopted no less than 24 resolutions supporting sport
(and the Olympic Games) as a means to promote education, health, development
and peace. However, this year’s resolution goes beyond the previous resolutions.
The text includes the usual references to the use of sport to foster peace and
development, but it also celebrates in unequivocal terms the work and the
autonomy of the Olympic movement. This is music to the IOC’s ears and resonates
with its repeated calls on States to respect the autonomy of the “lex olympica”. The IOC has already
stretched the interpretation of the resolution and claims “boycotts are incompatible with this UN request for respect of the values of sport”. Nevertheless, one
must keep her feet on legal earth. This resolution by the General Assembly (GA)
has no legally binding value on the UN Member States, it is merely encouraging
them to act upon it. International legal scholars have endlessly debated the
potential legal effects of UN resolutions, and they agree on one thing: Resolutions
by the GA are not per se legally
binding.[1]
To be so, they must be capable of creating obligations on their addressees, or recognized
as customary international law, both very unlikely in our case. Thus, this resolution should be interpreted as a
declaration of friendship, which could have a practical impact (or not) on the
work of national courts, depending on their willingness to acknowledge the UN
resolution. In practice, it is just another sign (after the UEFA-EU arrangement) that international organisations tend to
side politically (and usually uncritically) with the IOCs of this world.
A liaison dangereuse
Being good friends
with the IOC guarantees good shots of the UN Secretary General holding the
torch, but it might not be in the best interest of the UN, nor of the world’s
citizens. The Olympic Games’ capacity to trigger an Olympic peace of some sort
has been largely discredited by the invasion of Crimea and the proxy war
fuelled by Russia in Ukraine, just days after the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi
came to a close. The Secretary General of the UN himself stated in a recent (20
October 2014) report to the General Assembly that “[s]adly, there is no
evidence of any initiative by warring parties either to unilaterally observe
the Olympic Truce or to promote its mutual observation”. The Olympic truce myth
has been a collective exercise of wishful prophesizing with no self-fulfilling effect
in sight.
Furthermore, the UN
General Assembly reaffirms “that any form of discrimination is incompatible
with belonging to the Olympic movement”, but the latest Games in Sochi have also
shown that the IOC is not sanguine, to say the least, in fighting
discriminatory laws adopted by Olympic host countries. In fact, exactly on this
matter, the IOC has announced already that it does not “have a mandate to impose measures on sovereign States outside its own fields”. This is
surprising, as the IOC seems to consider it has a mandate to impose (via the
host city contract) a string of measures on sovereign States covering core
public policies (tax, infrastructure or intellectual property rights). Why does
it not include the fight against all sorts of discrimination in the "fields" it
deems its own? The latest draft of the Host city contract for the 2022 Winter Games
comprises a reference to the “prohibition of any form of discrimination”, but
it is still deprived of real legal teeth.
This relationship
between the IOC and the UN is more of a liaisons
dangereuse than a “beautiful friendship”. The UN should be weary to
associate itself too closely with an institution characterised by a lack of
transparency, internal democracy and accountability. Sure, one could hope that
this friendship would lead the IOC to reform itself, but its readiness to do so
is rather enhanced by public outrage and the threats of legal challenges than
warm accolades. There is a regrettable paradox here: While the global citizenry
is loudly contesting the IOC and FIFA, it is à la mode for international
organisations to align themselves politically with them.