February 13, 2000
Promoting Human Rights in the Olympic Movement: The Cases of South Africa, Moscow and Beijing
by
Jessica Berns, MALD, '00, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Spring 2000
Introduction
This paper sets out to describe three Olympic cases in order to understand how the International Olympic Committee (IOC) responds to objections over countries hosting or participating in Olympic Games based on violations of human rights within their country. The paper will examine the significance and impact of IOC responses to the promotion and enforcement of human rights. The cases are the 1964-1992 ban on South Africa from Olympic competition, the boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow and China's bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games in Beijing. There are commonalties among the three cases, including the role that domestic affairs play in the IOC's evaluation of a country's ability to host or play and the use of the IOC Charter to support the position of human rights advocates. However, their central question differs- they challenge the right to host an Olympiad or the right to participate at an Olympiad.
This paper is not an evaluation of the merits of the South Africa, Moscow and China cases but rather uses the cases as significant examples of how human rights intersect with Olympic competition, and how the IOC has responded to these moments. Since 1936 the IOC has opposed allowing the enforcement of human rights to be used as a factor in the hosting of, and participation in, the Olympic Games. This paper explores the legitimacy of this position at a time in history when state sovereignty is increasingly limited and human rights treaties and customary law are increasingly important. Interest in this topic is motivated by the Olympic Movement's potential to assume a positive role in the promotion and enforcement of human rights, originating from the principles of its Charter.
The South Africa case demonstrates the success of an internationally driven, sustained campaign (1964-1992) to exclude South Africa from the Olympic Movement. The campaign questioned the legitimacy of South Africa's participation in the Olympic Movement. The case is critical to an analysis of IOC philosophy towards the domestic policies of an IOC member state since it is the sole instance of the IOC acknowledging, and responding to, the importance of domestic human rights to Olympic competition.
The Moscow case demonstrates how concern over the domestic and foreign policy of the USSR mobilized an international boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games. While the IOC did not seriously consider taking action against the 1980 Olympiad either by changing the venue or postponing the event, the boycott successfully highlighted the critiques of Soviet policy. More than the other two cases presented in this paper, geo-political factors greatly influenced the call for a boycott of the Moscow Games.
China's bid to host the 2000 Olympic Games in Beijing, and the international mobilization against the bid, is a contemporary example of how concern for human rights impact the Olympic Movement. Human rights is absent among the many factors that the IOC formally considers in its bid selection (Bid City Selection Process), and the IOC is resistant to its inclusion. The China case provides an example of current IOC thinking on human rights and has implications for China's current bid for the 2008 Games.
The situations in South Africa, Moscow and China forced the IOC to assume a position on domestic policies, specifically the violation of human rights, in countries that hosted or participated in Olympiads. Key actors in each case raised concerns about the inconsistencies between the IOC Charter which emphasizes human dignity, peace and non-discrimination, and IOC action. All of the cases addressed the following questions: Should a regime that does not respect universal human rights be permitted to host the Olympic Games? Should such a regime be allowed to participate in the Olympic Games? Should countries concerned with promotion and protection of human rights attend Games in nations that engage in widespread violation of human rights? Each case presented an opportunity for the IOC to assume a leadership position that would recognize the importance of universal human rights to the Olympic Games. However, the IOC chose not to assume such a position, or did so reluctantly, in each of the cases. In fact, since 1936 Berlin Games the IOC has reacted with distance, if not indifference, to the interjection of human rights debate and dialogue into the Olympic sphere.
This paper suggests alternative strategies for IOC adoption of a more pro-human rights stance and explores why this is appropriate and important both to the Olympic Games and to the promotion of universal human rights. The concluding section of the paper will examine the arguments and underlying assumptions for linking human rights to the Olympic Movement at an institutional level.
Universal human rights in this context are defined as the rights outlined in three principal United Nations instruments: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the context of this paper human rights are defined as widespread, systematic violations by the state. Human rights violations exist in all countries to varying degrees, but for the purpose of evaluating human rights in relation to Olympic involvement only countries with widespread, systematic violations will be discussed.
The approach that this paper takes, of examining three Olympic cases through a human rights lens, is relatively unique in both sports and human rights literature. Human rights literature frequently addresses human rights and sport through a discussion of the rights of athletes or rights of all to engage in sport.In sports literature, political histories of the Olympic Games or in-depth analysis of a particular Olympiad are more typical approaches. More recent sports literature looks critically at the IOC and evaluates the need for IOC reform. Thus the paper is situated it in a separate realm from the human rights and sports literature.
Section I of this paper presents a historical overview of the IOC, with particular focus on the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. Sections II, III and IV include descriptions of the South Africa, Moscow and China cases with an eye to political-social considerations, specifically civil and political rights. Each of these cases includes analysis of the IOC's perspectives and actions. Section V addresses the assumptions that underscore the three cases and the argument for linkage between human rights and the Olympic Movement.
[For a complete copy of this thesis, or for more information, contact Jessica Berns at jbberns@yahoo.com]
