Focal Interest
Focal Interest
AI Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

This page presents an AI-generated summary of a published research paper. The original authors did not write or review this article. [See full disclosure ↓]

Publishing process signals: MODERATE — reflects the venue and review process. — venue and review process.

Sport remedy systems remain fragmented for human rights claims

Three professionals in business attire are seated around a table reviewing documents together, with a woman in a white shirt holding papers while two colleagues examine the materials in what appears to be a professional office or conference setting.
Research area:LawHuman rightsDispute resolution

What the study found

Access to remedy for human rights harms in sport remains fragmented and often difficult to use. The authors map the current sport and human rights remedy landscape and argue for a “remedy ecosystem,” meaning a set of mutually reinforcing processes and institutions that can help people seek remedy.

Why the authors say this matters

The study suggests this matters because sport can both advance and harm human rights, and existing systems do not adequately handle claims about discrimination, abuse, privacy, labour rights, and fair trial guarantees. The authors conclude that inquiries may help fill gaps in the current remedy ecosystem and should be designed to respect the right to remedy and centre affected persons.

What the researchers tested

The article maps the current remedy landscape in sport and discusses gaps in relation to “effective remedy” under international human rights law and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It also analyses a series of public and quasipublic inquiries into structural and spectacular harms in sport, looking at how they are established, how they function, and what remedial value they offer.

What worked and what didn't

The abstract says internal sport-body mechanisms and external state and international mechanisms are slowly adapting, but access to remedy remains fragmented and often inaccessible. The article concludes that inquiries can fill some gaps in the present remedy ecosystem, and it offers practical recommendations for designing inquiries.

What to keep in mind

The available summary does not provide specific details of the inquiries studied or the practical recommendations. It also does not state quantitative results or compare the effectiveness of different mechanisms in detail.

Key points

  • Access to remedy for human rights harms in sport is described as fragmented and often inaccessible.
  • The article maps remedy options in sport and discusses gaps under international human rights law and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
  • The authors propose a “remedy ecosystem” approach based on mutually reinforcing processes and institutions.
  • Public and quasipublic inquiries are analysed for how they are established, how they function, and what remedial value they offer.
  • The authors conclude that inquiries may help fill gaps and should be designed to respect the right to remedy and centre affected persons.

Disclosure

Research title:
Sport remedy systems remain fragmented for human rights claims
Authors:
Shubham Jain, Daniela Heerdt
Institutions:
University of Cambridge, Asser Institute
Publication date:
2026-03-10
DOI:
10.1007/s40318-026-00336-0
OpenAlex record:
View
AI provenance: This post was generated by OpenAI. The original authors did not write or review this post.

More posts