RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
자동완성 버튼

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력
    あ ぁ か が さ ざ た だ な は ば ぱ ま や ゃ ら わ ゎ ん い ぃ き ぎ し じ ち ぢ に ひ び ぴ み り う ぅ く ぐ す ず つ づ っ ぬ ふ ぶ ぷ む ゆ ゅ る え ぇ け げ せ ぜ て で ね へ べ ぺ め れ お ぉ こ ご そ ぞ と ど の ほ ぼ ぽ も よ ょ ろ を
    ア ァ カ サ ザ タ ダ ナ ハ バ パ マ ヤ ャ ラ ワ ヮ ン イ ィ キ ギ シ ジ チ ヂ ニ ヒ ビ ピ ミ リ ウ ゥ ク グ ス ズ ツ ヅ ッ ヌ フ ブ プ ム ユ ュ ル エ ェ ケ ゲ セ ゼ テ デ ヘ ベ ペ メ レ オ ォ コ ゴ ソ ゾ ト ド ノ ホ ボ ポ モ ヨ ョ ロ ヲ ―

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    ㅥ ㅦ ㅧ ㅨ ㅩ ㅪ ㅫ ㅬ ㅭ ㅮ ㅯ ㅰ ㅱ ㅲ ㅳ ㅴ ㅵ ㅶ ㅷ ㅸ ㅹ ㅺ ㅻ ㅼ ㅽ ㅾ ㅿ ㆀ ㆁ ㆂ ㆃ ㆄ ㆅ ㆆ ㆇ ㆈ ㆉ ㆊ ㆋ ㆌ ㆍ ㆎ
    Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ξ Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
    á à Á À é è É È ç Ç ê
    Ä Ö Ü ä ö ü ß
    ְ ֳ ֲ ֱ ָ ַ ֵ ֶ ִ ֹ ּ ֻ ׂ ׁ ּ פ ם ן ו ט א ר ק ף ך ל ח י ע כ ג ד ש ץ ת צ מ נ ה ב
    ‘ ’ “ ” 〔 〕 〈 〉 「 」 『 』 【 】 ＂ （ ） ［ ］ ｛ ｝
    ± × ÷ ≠ ≤ ≥ ∞ ∴ ♂ ♀ ∠ ⊥ ⌒ ∂ ∇ ≡ ≒ ≪ ≫ √ ∽ ∝ ∵ ∫ ∬ ∈ ∋ ⊆ ⊇ ⊂ ⊃ ∪ ∩ ∧ ∨ ￢ ⇒ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∮ ∑ ∏ ＋ － ＜ ＝ ＞
    、 。 · ‥ … ¨ 〃 ― ∥ ＼ ∼ ´ ～ ˇ ˘ ˝ ˚ ˙ ¸ ˛ ¡ ¿ ː ！ ＇ ， ． ／ ： ； ？ ＾ ＿ ｀ ｜
    ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁿ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄
    Æ Ð Ħ IJ Ł Ø Œ Þ Ŧ Ŋ æ đ ð ħ ı ij ĸ ŀ ł ø œ ß þ ŧ ŋ ʼn
    А Б В Г Д Е Ё Ж З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ы Ь Э Ю Я а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я
    ′ ″ ℃ Å ￠ ￡ ￥ ¤ ℉ ‰ ＄ ％ Ｆ ￦ ㎕ ㎖ ㎗ ℓ ㎘ ㏄ ㎣ ㎤ ㎥ ㎦ ㎙ ㎚ ㎛ ㎜ ㎝ ㎞ ㎟ ㎠ ㎡ ㎢ ㏊ ㎍ ㎎ ㎏ ㏏ ㎈ ㎉ ㏈ ㎧ ㎨ ㎰ ㎱ ㎲ ㎳ ㎴ ㎵ ㎶ ㎷ ㎸ ㎹ ㎀ ㎁ ㎂ ㎃ ㎄ ㎺ ㎻ ㎽ ㎾ ㎿ ㎐ ㎑ ㎒ ㎓ ㎔ Ω ㏀ ㏁ ㎊ ㎋ ㎌ ㏖ ㏅ ㎭ ㎮ ㎯ ㏛ ㎩ ㎪ ㎫ ㎬ ㏝ ㏐ ㏓ ㏃ ㏉ ㏜ ㏆
    § ※ ☆ ★ ○ ● ◎ ◇ ◆ □ ■ △ ▽ → ← ↑ ↓ ↔ 〓 ◁ ◀ ▷ ▶ ♤ ♠ ♡ ♥ ♧ ♣ ⊙ ◈ ▣ ◐ ◑ ▒ ▤ ▥ ▨ ▧ ▦ ▩ ♨ ☏ ☎ ☜ ☞ † ‡ ↕ ↗ ↙ ↖ ↘ ♭ ♩ ♪ ♬ ㉿ ㈜ № ㏇ ™ ㏂ ㏘ ℡ ＃ ＆ ＊ ＠ ª º
    ⅰ ⅱ ⅲ ⅳ ⅴ ⅵ ⅶ ⅷ ⅸ ⅹ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ Ⅵ Ⅶ Ⅷ Ⅸ Ⅹ
    ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ک ل م ن ه و ی
    닫기

    ADR을 통한 스포츠분쟁 해결방안에 관한 연구 = The Study on the System of Sports-related Disputes Resolution by ADR

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T13817539

    • 0

      상세조회

    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    영어
    한국어
    Sports, a competition in nature, are likely to cause conflicts on the outcome of the game. Sports organizations have gained significant influence and sports are increasingly affected by commercialization and politics. Against this backdrop, sports-related disputes are on the rise and it is a global trend.
    In Korea, media reports, the government's audit results and complaints from the sports community have shown that, in the field of sports, corruption and injustice are prevalent. However, the efforts of raising questions about these issues and improving these problems
    are not sufficient enough due to the absence of institutional foundation on which sports-related disputes can be resolved promptly and fairly. As a result, Korea is still suffering from rampant corruption and injustice in the field of sports, and the unresolved problems have piled up to become a ticking bomb on the verge of exploding.
    Resolving sports-related disputes by formal judicial proceedings has some limitations: it takes a lot of time and resources; information connected with the dispute will be disclosed to the public. Therefore, Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR is gaining attention as an alternative way to address disputes in the field of sports. ADR refers
    to the settlement of sports-related disputes not by formal judicial process but by other means such as mediation, arbitration, med-arb, conciliation, and etc.
    The most renowned institution that settles sports-related disputes by ADR is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In addition, the American Arbitration Association's arbitration procedure for sports issues is also a good example of the ADR institution. There are other examples of institutions in charge of ADR across the world: the Japan
    Sports Arbitration Agency (JSAA), the UK's Sports Resolutions(UK), Canada's Sports Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, New Zealand's Sport Tribunal, and Ireland's Just Sport Ireland.
    Korea also established the Korea Sports Arbitration Committee (KSAC) in 2006 and made it in charge of resolving disputes in the field of sports by arbitration and mediation. However, the KSAC was established prematurely without giving sufficient thoughts and
    research on how to introduce policies and how to operate the committee. As a result, the KSAC was abolished in 2010, only four years after its establishment, during which time the KSAC handled only one single case.
    It has become a global trend to establish an institution that arbitrates or mediates sports-related disputes. Therefore, discussing whether such an institution is needed or not would be a meaningless and anachronistic attempt. The question should be about what kinds of ADR institution is desirable and what are the ways to effectively operate the institution. This will lead us to a more timely and productive discussion.
    As mentioned above, the CAS is considered the most successful institution in place that settles sports-related disputes. Some even say that the CAS is a fertile ground for academic study. Korea should take into account various sports-related arbitration and mediation institutions like the CAS and other bodies in countries like Japan, the
    U.S., the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Ireland to establish a new and well-functioning ADR institution. To that end, there are a few steps that Korea must take.
    First, legislative efforts should be made passing a new law or amending the existing law - to set up the legal ground that stipulates the establishment of a sports-related arbitration institution in Korea. The most ideal way would be to stipulate the establishment by enacting a framework act on sports. Or, more realistically, making
    some revisions to an existing law would also work. For example, a statute that sets forth the establishment could be added to the National Sports Promotion Act.
    Second, institutional efforts should be pursued to make the arbitration agreement clause mandatory or at least be strongly encouraged, which, in turn, will ensure the active use of ADR procedures when settling sports-related disputes. This is important because only after the parties agree to have recourse to ADR, the ADR procedure can be initiated. Therefore, without such tools that guarantee the use of ADR, a new ADR institution may follow in the footsteps of the now-defunct KSAC, which failed due to the lack of cases it handled.
    Third, the new ADR institution on sports disputes should be designed to be independent from sports organizations while receiving due cooperation and assistance from them. The institution must be free from the influence of sports organizations in order to make fair
    and objective judgments. So it should be independent in terms of its structure, finance, and operation. At the same time, however, sports organizations should be encouraged to make active use of the ADR institution to resolve sports-related disputes. To that end, education and promotion efforts should induce sports organizations to submit their disputes to the ADR institution. Furthermore, enough financial support should also be given to the ADR institution.
    Fourth, with regards to the scope of the ADR institution's intervention, a strategic approach should be taken: in early stages, it handles general sports-related disputes, and gradually expand its scope of enforcement step by step. It will be helpful to take into
    account the CAS and the JSAA's trajectory of expanding their scope.
    Fifth, the decisions of the ADR institution must be final and binding on both parties, and this should be ensured by expressed principles and enforcement measures. When there is an appeal that challenges the decision of the ADR institution, the courts shall either
    overrule the appeal or respect the decision of the ADR institution.
    Furthermore, if the parties failed to follow the decision of the ADR institution, relevant administrative body shall take proper countermeasures against such failure, for example by conducting an administrative guidance, and the ADR institution shall come up with ways to
    enforce its decisions, such as for example by bringing a lawsuit.
    It is an imperative of our times to establish the ADR institution.
    But we must not forget that there are steps we must take. It is crucial to put in place legal and institutional grounds and to come up with ways to ensure the institution's independence. In addition, the scope of its enforcement should be expanded gradually, while making sure that its decisions are final and binding. If these steps are not
    taken, the ADR institution will become nothing more than a house of cards, making a fair Korean sports community a more distant future.
    번역하기

    Sports, a competition in nature, are likely to cause conflicts on the outcome of the game. Sports organizations have gained significant influence and sports are increasingly affected by commercialization and politics. Against this backdrop, sports-rel...

    Sports, a competition in nature, are likely to cause conflicts on the outcome of the game. Sports organizations have gained significant influence and sports are increasingly affected by commercialization and politics. Against this backdrop, sports-related disputes are on the rise and it is a global trend.
    In Korea, media reports, the government's audit results and complaints from the sports community have shown that, in the field of sports, corruption and injustice are prevalent. However, the efforts of raising questions about these issues and improving these problems
    are not sufficient enough due to the absence of institutional foundation on which sports-related disputes can be resolved promptly and fairly. As a result, Korea is still suffering from rampant corruption and injustice in the field of sports, and the unresolved problems have piled up to become a ticking bomb on the verge of exploding.
    Resolving sports-related disputes by formal judicial proceedings has some limitations: it takes a lot of time and resources; information connected with the dispute will be disclosed to the public. Therefore, Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR is gaining attention as an alternative way to address disputes in the field of sports. ADR refers
    to the settlement of sports-related disputes not by formal judicial process but by other means such as mediation, arbitration, med-arb, conciliation, and etc.
    The most renowned institution that settles sports-related disputes by ADR is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In addition, the American Arbitration Association's arbitration procedure for sports issues is also a good example of the ADR institution. There are other examples of institutions in charge of ADR across the world: the Japan
    Sports Arbitration Agency (JSAA), the UK's Sports Resolutions(UK), Canada's Sports Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, New Zealand's Sport Tribunal, and Ireland's Just Sport Ireland.
    Korea also established the Korea Sports Arbitration Committee (KSAC) in 2006 and made it in charge of resolving disputes in the field of sports by arbitration and mediation. However, the KSAC was established prematurely without giving sufficient thoughts and
    research on how to introduce policies and how to operate the committee. As a result, the KSAC was abolished in 2010, only four years after its establishment, during which time the KSAC handled only one single case.
    It has become a global trend to establish an institution that arbitrates or mediates sports-related disputes. Therefore, discussing whether such an institution is needed or not would be a meaningless and anachronistic attempt. The question should be about what kinds of ADR institution is desirable and what are the ways to effectively operate the institution. This will lead us to a more timely and productive discussion.
    As mentioned above, the CAS is considered the most successful institution in place that settles sports-related disputes. Some even say that the CAS is a fertile ground for academic study. Korea should take into account various sports-related arbitration and mediation institutions like the CAS and other bodies in countries like Japan, the
    U.S., the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Ireland to establish a new and well-functioning ADR institution. To that end, there are a few steps that Korea must take.
    First, legislative efforts should be made passing a new law or amending the existing law - to set up the legal ground that stipulates the establishment of a sports-related arbitration institution in Korea. The most ideal way would be to stipulate the establishment by enacting a framework act on sports. Or, more realistically, making
    some revisions to an existing law would also work. For example, a statute that sets forth the establishment could be added to the National Sports Promotion Act.
    Second, institutional efforts should be pursued to make the arbitration agreement clause mandatory or at least be strongly encouraged, which, in turn, will ensure the active use of ADR procedures when settling sports-related disputes. This is important because only after the parties agree to have recourse to ADR, the ADR procedure can be initiated. Therefore, without such tools that guarantee the use of ADR, a new ADR institution may follow in the footsteps of the now-defunct KSAC, which failed due to the lack of cases it handled.
    Third, the new ADR institution on sports disputes should be designed to be independent from sports organizations while receiving due cooperation and assistance from them. The institution must be free from the influence of sports organizations in order to make fair
    and objective judgments. So it should be independent in terms of its structure, finance, and operation. At the same time, however, sports organizations should be encouraged to make active use of the ADR institution to resolve sports-related disputes. To that end, education and promotion efforts should induce sports organizations to submit their disputes to the ADR institution. Furthermore, enough financial support should also be given to the ADR institution.
    Fourth, with regards to the scope of the ADR institution's intervention, a strategic approach should be taken: in early stages, it handles general sports-related disputes, and gradually expand its scope of enforcement step by step. It will be helpful to take into
    account the CAS and the JSAA's trajectory of expanding their scope.
    Fifth, the decisions of the ADR institution must be final and binding on both parties, and this should be ensured by expressed principles and enforcement measures. When there is an appeal that challenges the decision of the ADR institution, the courts shall either
    overrule the appeal or respect the decision of the ADR institution.
    Furthermore, if the parties failed to follow the decision of the ADR institution, relevant administrative body shall take proper countermeasures against such failure, for example by conducting an administrative guidance, and the ADR institution shall come up with ways to
    enforce its decisions, such as for example by bringing a lawsuit.
    It is an imperative of our times to establish the ADR institution.
    But we must not forget that there are steps we must take. It is crucial to put in place legal and institutional grounds and to come up with ways to ensure the institution's independence. In addition, the scope of its enforcement should be expanded gradually, while making sure that its decisions are final and binding. If these steps are not
    taken, the ADR institution will become nothing more than a house of cards, making a fair Korean sports community a more distant future.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • 제1장 서 론 1
    • 제1절 연구의 목적1
    • 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 5
    • 1. 연구의 범위 5
    • 2. 연구의 방법 8
    • 제1장 서 론 1
    • 제1절 연구의 목적1
    • 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 5
    • 1. 연구의 범위 5
    • 2. 연구의 방법 8
    • 제2장 ADR과 스포츠분쟁 해결제도의 발전 11
    • 제1절 ADR의 개념과 유형 11
    • 1. ADR의 개념과 장․단점 11
    • 2. ADR의 유형14
    • 제2절 스포츠분쟁의 종류와 특성 18
    • 1. 스포츠와 분쟁발생18
    • 2. 스포츠분쟁의 종류 21
    • 3. 스포츠분쟁의 특성 24
    • 제3절 사법절차에 의한 분쟁해결의 한계 27
    • 1. Reynolds와 Krabbe 선수의 사례와 시사점 27
    • 2. 사법절차에 의한 분쟁해결의 한계 33
    • 3. ADR을 통한 분쟁해결의 필요성 36
    • 제4절 ADR 관련 스포츠분쟁의 유형 40
    • 1. 도핑 분쟁 40
    • 2. 대표선수 선발 분쟁 47
    • 3. 심판판정 분쟁 53
    • 4. 스포츠단체의 징계관련 분쟁 58
    • 제5절 주요국가의 ADR제도 발전 63
    • 1. 미국중재협회의 사건처리63
    • 2. 영국의 스포츠분쟁 해결기구 69
    • 3. 캐나다의 스포츠분쟁 해결센터 72
    • 4. 뉴질랜드의 스포츠심판소75
    • 5. 아일랜드의 스포츠공정기구77
    • 6. 요약 79
    • 제3장 주요 ADR제도의 비교분석 82
    • 제1절 총설 82
    • 제2절 국제스포츠중재재판소 제도 86
    • 1. CAS 및 ICAS의 설립86
    • 2. CAS의 개혁 및 발전 90
    • 3. 다른 중재절차와의 협력관계 정립 96
    • 4. CAS의 스포츠중재규칙과 중재절차102
    • 5. 임시중재절차의 도입112
    • 6. CAS의 사건처리 117
    • 제3절 일본스포츠중재기구 제도 122
    • 1. 스포츠중재기구의 설치122
    • 2. 스포츠중재제도의 발전127
    • 3. JSAA의 중재절차 132
    • 4. JSAA의 조정절차 138
    • 5. JSAA의 중재사건처리 개요 140
    • 6. JSAA의 유형별 중재사건처리 143
    • 제4절 한국스포츠중재위원회 제도 156
    • 1. 설치 배경 및 조직 내용 156
    • 2. 중재합의 활성화 시도 161
    • 3. 주요 중재절차 164
    • 4. 사건 처리 및 기구 폐지 168
    • 제5절 정리 및 요약171
    • 1. 분쟁해결기구의 이념형171
    • 2. 분쟁해결제도의 비교 174
    • 제4장 ADR기구 설립 및 운영방안 179
    • 제1절 ADR기구 설립의 필요성 179
    • 1. 스포츠분야 불공정 관행의 만연 179
    • 2. 시대적이고 당위적인 과제 185
    • 제2절 법적․제도적 기초 확립 187
    • 1. ADR기구의 설치근거 마련 187
    • 2. 중재합의 제도의 정비 194
    • 제3절 분쟁해결기구 설립방안 197
    • 1. ADR기구 독립성의 중요성 197
    • 2. ADR기구의 독립성 확보방안 200
    • 제4절 분쟁해결기구 운영방안 203
    • 1. 중재규칙 제정과 적용범위 설정 203
    • 2. 중재효력과 사법절차와의 관계 205
    • 제5장 결론 208
    • 참 고 문 헌 212
    • ABSTRACT 232
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1. ADR, 김상찬, 제주 : 도서출판 온누리, , 2012

    2. 분쟁해결방법론, 함영주, 서울 : 진원사, , 2010

    3. 「스포츠와 법」, 임운학, 서울 : 시간의물레, , 2012

    4. 경제법, 제4판 보정쇄, 정호열, 서울 : 박영사, , 2013

    5. 스폰서契約의 법적 고찰, 김동훈, 한국스포츠법학회, 스포츠와 법, 창간호, 한국스포츠법학회, , 2000

    6. 이념형의 차별적 다원성, 조혜인, 사회와 역사, 통권 제71집, 한국사회 사학회, , 2006

    7. 스포츠기본법의 제정방안, 연기영 ( Kee Young Yeun ), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, 스포츠와 법, 제11권 제4호(통권 제17 호), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2008

    8. 「신행정조직론(개정판)」, 최항순, 서울 : 대명출판사, , 2013

    9. 김채윤 역, 「현대조직론」, Amitai Etzioni, 서울 : 법문사, , 1968

    10. 김형배 역, 「법학방법론」, Reinhold Zippelius, 서울 : 삼영사, , 1976

    1. ADR, 김상찬, 제주 : 도서출판 온누리, , 2012

    2. 분쟁해결방법론, 함영주, 서울 : 진원사, , 2010

    3. 「스포츠와 법」, 임운학, 서울 : 시간의물레, , 2012

    4. 경제법, 제4판 보정쇄, 정호열, 서울 : 박영사, , 2013

    5. 스폰서契約의 법적 고찰, 김동훈, 한국스포츠법학회, 스포츠와 법, 창간호, 한국스포츠법학회, , 2000

    6. 이념형의 차별적 다원성, 조혜인, 사회와 역사, 통권 제71집, 한국사회 사학회, , 2006

    7. 스포츠기본법의 제정방안, 연기영 ( Kee Young Yeun ), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, 스포츠와 법, 제11권 제4호(통권 제17 호), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2008

    8. 「신행정조직론(개정판)」, 최항순, 서울 : 대명출판사, , 2013

    9. 김채윤 역, 「현대조직론」, Amitai Etzioni, 서울 : 법문사, , 1968

    10. 김형배 역, 「법학방법론」, Reinhold Zippelius, 서울 : 삼영사, , 1976

    11. 미국 연방중재법에 관한 연구, 정용균, 강원대학교 법학석사학위논문, , 2012

    12. 스포츠 분쟁해결에 관한 연구, 채우석, 스포츠와 법, 제12권 제1호(통권 제18호), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2009

    13. 「한국행정론〔제4전정판〕」, 박동서, 서울 : 법문사, , 2000

    14. 「한국행정조직론 제5개정판」, 박수경, 김원집, 대전 : 도서출판 이화, , 2013

    15. “스포츠중재의 효율성과 과제”, 오석웅, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 제22회 학술대회, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2007

    16. 「개정판 스포츠법, 이론과 실제」, 손석정, 서울 : 태근문화사, , 2011

    17. “미국법원에 있어서 ADR의 제도화”, 정갑주, 재판자료, 제58집, 법원도서관, , 1992

    18. 스포츠분쟁해결에 관한 헌법적 연구, 김상겸, 스포츠와 법, 제5권, 한국 스포츠법학회, , 2004

    19. “스포츠분쟁 해결기구의 설립방안”, 연기영, 스포츠와 법, 제5권, 한국스 포츠법학회, , 2004

    20. 한국스포츠중재위원회의 설립과 활동, 연기영 ( Kee Young Yeun ), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, 스포츠와 법, 제10권 제4 호(통권 제13호), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2007

    21. “한국 스포츠분쟁 ADR의 현황과 전망”, 양병회, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트 법학회 제22회 학술대회, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2007

    22. “국민체육진흥법의 제정과 변천과정 고찰”, 신현규, 손석정, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, 스포츠와 법, 제11권 제4호(통권 제17호), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2008

    23. “국내 스포츠 분쟁과 중재제도 활성화 방안”, 김성룡, 「아시아 스포츠법의 새로운 지평, 제4회 아시아스포츠법학회 학술대회 겸 제9회 한국스포츠엔터 테인먼트법학회 국제학술대회」, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2011

    24. “한국체육행정조직의 발전방안에 관한 연구”, 김현석, 한양대학교 대학원 박사학위논문, , 1998

    25. “올림픽 헌장은 국가올림픽위원회를 직접 규제하는가?”, 한희원, 중앙법학, 중앙법학회, , 2011

    26. 대안적 갈등해결방식(ADR)제도의 운영실태 및 개선방안 연구, 임동진, KIPA 연구보고서 -39, 서울 : 한국행정연구원, 2012.12, , 2012

    27. “일본 스포츠중재기구의 중재절차 및 사건처리와 시사점”, 지철호, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, 스포 츠와 법, 제16권 제3호, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2013

    28. 스포츠 분쟁해결에 있어 국내 중재제도의 문제점과 개선방안, 김성룡 ( Sung Ryong Kim ), 안건형 ( Keon Hyung Ahn ), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회(한국스포츠법학회), 스포츠와 법, 제15권 제1호, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2012

    29. ADR을 활용한 스포츠사건의 해결에 관한 고찰- 중재제도를 중심으로 -, 김용길, 중재연구, 제21권 제1호, 한국중재학회, , 2011

    30. 미국의 스포츠 및 엔터테인먼트 중재(Sport and Entertainment Arbitration in United States), 이동수, 년도 제2차 지식문화산업포럼 발표자료 요약본, 중재인회보, 제12호, 대한중재인협회, 2010.11.30, , 2010

    31. “「프로테스탄트 윤리와 자본주의 정신」과 웨버의 이념형 방법에 관한 소고”, 金信德, 덕성여자대학교, 덕성여대논문집, Vol. 9, 덕성여자대학교, , 1980

    32. “각국 스포츠법과 국제스포츠기구 및 분쟁사례로 조명한 스포츠와 법의 위상”, 송기성, 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원, 과학기술법연구, 제8집, 한남대학교 과학기술법연구소, , 2002

    33. 「프로테스탄트 윤리와 자본주의 정신」에 나타난 막스 베버의 이념형적 방법론, 우홍준(禹洪俊), 한국행정학회, 한국행정학보, 제42권 제3호가을), , 2008

    34. 국제스포츠중재재판소(CAS)에 비추어 본 한국스포츠중재위원회(KSAC)의 역할과 과제, 연기영 ( Kee Young Yeun ), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, 스포츠와 법, 제11권 제1호(통권 제 14호), 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회, , 2008

    35. 중국 스포츠중재법의 현황과 제도개선 방안- 영국 중재제도와의 비교 고찰을 중심으로 -, 김종우, 중재연구, 제24권 제1호, 한국중재학회, , 2014

    36. “월드컵 한일 공동개최와 스포츠 국제법의 과제 -국제스포츠 분쟁 해결 제도를 중심으로-”, 강병근, 동국대학교 비교법문화연구원, 스포츠와 법, 창간호, 한국스포츠법학회, , 2000

    37. “국제 스포츠에 있어서 중재를 통한 분쟁의 해결 -유럽의 프로 축구분쟁 관련 중재절차를 중심으로-”, 김종호, 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소, 외법논집, 제35권 제2호, 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소, , 2011

    38. “스포츠자치권과 스포츠분쟁”, 스포츠와 법, 제5권, 한국스포츠법학회, , “스포츠 조정․중재제도의 법적 과제”, 정승재, 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트, , 2004

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼