The Paris 2024 Summer Olympics will be the first Olympic Games for which human rights provisions were added to the Host City Contract (HCC). The Milano/Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics will be the first edition of the Games that were awarded with human rights requirements forming part of the candidature process. The inclusion of human rights provisions into hosting and bidding regulations can be seen as a reaction of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to the increasing pressure from civil society to address adverse human rights impacts of these events. This essay provides an analysis of the benefits and shortcomings of this development and reveals that from a rights-holder perspective, the benefits are meaningless. More specifically, it argues that potential benefits are cancelled out by the shortcomings and most importantly that there is a mismatch between intended and actual beneficiaries of these provisions.

Olympic Games do not happen in a vacuum or a sports bubble. They are embedded in both local and global realities of a social, economic, and environmental nature. Environmental factors, in particular, have impacted the Olympic Movement for several decades. In this context, climate change is a more recent, yet increasingly important, issue on the agenda. This essay examines the Olympic Movement's multi-level climate change policy. Based on the goals established in the Paris Agreement, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) launched the Sports for Climate Action Initiative in 2018. In the context of the Olympics, this Initiative is implemented through the interplay between the IOC and actors at the local, host city level. Consequently, the system is highly dependent on local organizers’ capabilities to meet the Initiative's ambitious targets, as well as on the IOC's willingness and ability to take an active role in steering and supporting host cities in this process.

The network of institutions that comprise the Olympic Movement include several whose authoritative scope now extends far beyond the mere staging of the Olympic and Paralympic Games to govern some important aspects of virtually all major regional and global competition and to foster the development of a comprehensive body of international sports law. The issues include nationality, which is the focus of this essay. More broadly, the proper resolution of nationality issues in the sports arena offers a limited model for reconciling tensions between national and international interests in the progressive development of international law.

One can hope that the convening of the Tokyo Olympics will be a cause for global celebration. Tokyo could prove a focal point for international solidarity, a moment of relief and release after all of humanity faced down an insidious, invisible, and largely indiscriminate attacker. Unified as we otherwise may be, athletes will still come to the Games as representatives of nation-states. That may be an unavoidable organizing principle. Less justifiable will be the requirement that athletes be nationals of the states they play for. Under the Olympic Charter and the rules of particular sporting federations, athletes are subject to a non-state nationality regime that restricts the capacity of individuals to compete for countries for whose delegations they would otherwise qualify. This regime looks to maintain the putative integrity of Olympic competition by maintaining the unity of sporting and sociological national identity. But that legacy of the twentieth century no longer works in the twenty first. Nationality and associated criteria for participant eligibility undermine the autonomy of athletes and the quality of participation. The rules can no longer guarantee any affective tie between athlete and nation, instead arbitrarily enabling some, but not all, to compete on the basis of citizenship decoupled from identity. We don't require that athletes playing for our professional sports teams hale from the cities they represent. There's no reason why we need to require more of our Olympic athletes.

Sport is a useful area of study to test assumptions of international law. International law has traditionally focused on states and on international organizations that oversee specialized areas of human activity. International sport is overseen by an NGO—the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Yet sport is of great interest to states, serving as a testing ground of national superiority by providing a simple narrative of “winners” and “losers” in competition. Meanwhile, entities that are not yet states have historically been able to participate in international sport more readily than in other areas of international relations. This essay will examine the connection between participation in the Olympic Games and claims to statehood. In doing so, this essay will outline the modern approach to statehood, consider sport's role in that approach, and examine two case studies: the German Democratic Republic, and Kosovo.

The Olympic Movement has been self-regulated from the beginning, and its private ordering is governed by the domestic law of the nations in which its organizations are domiciled and operate. Nevertheless, it is also an institution of global governance, with important ties to international law. This essay examines the nature of those ties and the push for additional alignment between the norms of the Movement and international legal norms. I first provide a taxonomy of Olympic Movement organizations, centered on the attributes that are helpful to understanding the place of each in the global governance of sport and the value the organizations produce for their diverse stakeholders. I then describe demands from international law for additional alignment with human rights and governance norms and the standard response from sport. In the final section, I argue that regulatory autonomy is necessary for sport to produce the values expected by its stakeholders; domestic law, including as it reflects international law, is generally an adequate check on abuses of that autonomy. International norms are useful not as binding law that would displace the Movement's autonomy, but as pressure for Movement organizations to consider aligning their policies and procedures with the public interests those norms reflect.