Lex Olympica and Human Rights at Paris 2024

21.10.2024

The Olympic Rings on The Eiffel Tower in Paris ahead of the forthcoming 2024 Paris Olympic Games. (AFP)

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has committed through both its Strategic Framework on Human Rights and the Olympic Charter to respect internationally recognised human rights. Despite this commitment, there remains a range of problems with the IOC’s approach to its human rights responsibilities. Using Rules 50.2 (Rule 50) and 40.2 (Rule 40) of the Olympic Charter as examples, this post will examine whether the IOC is providing adequate protection to athletes’ freedom of expression. It will explore in particular the lack of definitions of key terms that restrict or prohibit free speech at the Olympic Games and the inconsistent application of these Rules. 

The Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games was a highpoint of public athlete activism. Athletes from a range of countries and in many different sports demonstrated their support for causes including LGBTQI+ rights, mental health discrimination, and for the survivors of sexual abuse. Their demonstrations were made using gestures, coloured face masks, drawing signs on their bodies, and using coloured elasticated bands, and their expressions took place before events started, during some events, and on the medal podiums. Although nobody was charged with breaching Rule 50 for their conduct, the lack of explanations for why the IOC considered that there was no breach of Rule 50 and its accompanying guidelines has left a situation that is both confusing and clouded in definitional uncertainty. 

This confusion was supposed to be cured, but I argue has been exacerbated, by changes to the Olympic Charter that were made at the 141st Session of the IOC in Mumbai in 2023. These changes, to Fundamental Principles of Olympism 1 and 4, require ‘respect of internationally recognised human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement.’ More specifically, and in what appears to be in direct contradiction with the requirements of Principles 1 and 4, two Rules of the Olympic Charter continue to prohibit and restrict athletes’ freedom of expression at the Olympic Games. Rule 50 prohibits all demonstrations and any political, religious or racial propaganda in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas. In an attempt to alleviate the potential impact of this absolute prohibition, the new Rule 40, which was also introduced at the Mumbai Session, restricts freedom of expression where it is exercised otherwise than in accordance with the IOC’s Guidelines on Athlete Expression. The Guidelines, which were introduced for the first time at Tokyo 2020 and were updated to reflect the 2023 amendments to the Olympic Charter, restate that there is no protection for athletes’ freedom of expression at the opening, closing and medal ceremonies, on the playing area during the course of an event, or in the Athletes’ Village. 

As at Tokyo 2020, a number of incidents occurred at Paris 2024 that challenge the IOC’s position, as stated in the IOC Strategic Framework on Human Rights, that they protect, respect and provide remedies for the breach of athletes’ human rights. To highlight the inconsistencies of approach to athlete activism and the freedoms of expression and religion, three examples will be examined: the disqualification of Afghani breaker, Manizha Talash; the commemoration of independence protesters by the Algerian delegation during the opening ceremony; and the prohibition on wearing of hijabs by French female athletes. Each of these incidents raises slightly different issues, but together they demonstrate the inconsistent approach that the IOC has both towards the respect of athletes’ human rights and the application of its own Rules. 

Breaker Manizha Talash, (b-girl Talash), was disqualified by the World DanceSport Federation (WDSF) for wearing a cape with the phrase ‘Free Afghan Women’ embroidered on it whilst competing in the early rounds of the breakdancing competition. The WDSF stated that this was a political demonstration and, therefore, prohibited by Rule 50. As the expression was made whilst she was competing, it cannot be protected by the Rule 40 Guidelines. Although on the face of it this can be argued to be a demonstration or political propaganda (there is not definition of either in the Olympic Charter, so it is unclear which the WDSF considered her to have breached by her expression), the position is not so clearcut. Talash had been selected to compete for the Olympic Refugee Team as the Taliban-controlled National Olympic Committee of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan will not select women to represent its team. This refusal to allow women to engage with sport is contrary to Principles 1 and 4, which are supposed to require respect for human rights and state that the practice of sport is a human right, and Principle 6, which requires that sport is practised in the absence of all forms of discrimination. Failure to comply with these requirements of the Olympic Charter helps to explain why there is no official Afghan team at the Olympics. Talash’s expression can be read as both the explanation for why she was selected for the Olympic Refugee Team and an exhortation to the Afghan Olympic Committee to comply with the Olympic Charter, in particular Principle 6. As her selection for the Olympic Refugee Team can be seen as both a political rebuke to the Taliban, which itself is a potential breach of the principle of political neutrality, and as a statement of Olympism in action that supports the Olympic Charter’s anti-discrimination stance, it is counter-intuitive that Talash was disqualified for expressing herself in this way. Despite calls to overturn the disqualification, which would have no impact on the event’s overall results, the IOC has not commented on her expression or why Rule 50 was breached in this case.  

On 17 October 1961, French police opened fire on Algerian independence protesters. It is estimated that over 100 people were killed, hundreds injured and over 11,000 arrested. The Paris 2024 Opening Ceremony incorporated a parade of boats carrying the athletes and National Olympic Committee delegations down the River Seine. At a point close to where the massacre took place, the Algerian delegation scattered roses and rose petals on to the surface of the water to commemorate those who had been killed in the protests. The Guidance on athlete expression makes it clear that freedom of expression does not extend to the Opening Ceremony. At Sochi 2014, members of the Norwegian cross-country skiing team were warned that they were breaching Rule 50 by wearing black armbands to demonstrate their support bereaved teammate Astrid Uhrenholdt Jacobsen, whose brother died on the eve of the Games. No action was taken against the Algerian delegation, nor was any explanation given by the IOC for why their commemoration was allowed, where previous commemorations were considered to be in breach of Rule 50.  

Finally, since 2004, France has passed a variety of increasingly strict laws that have prohibited the wearing of religious symbols, including in particular, items of clothing worn by practising female Muslims. This prohibition was extended by the government to include wearing a hijab when representing the French team at Paris 2024. This meant that in order to compete in what she considered to be appropriate apparel, French sprinter Sounkamba Sylla had to wear a cap as French athletes cannot compete if they wear a specially designed sports hijab. Anna Błuś, Amnesty International’s Women’s Rights Researcher in Europe has said that, ‘Banning French athletes from competing with sports hijabs at the Olympic and Paralympic Games makes a mockery of claims that Paris 2024 is the first Gender Equal Olympics and lays bare the racist gender discrimination that underpins access to sport in France.”  

Despite calls to overturn the ban, the IOC refused to engage with the discussion, claiming that France had the right to determine what it considers to be an appropriate interpretation of freedom of religion. The hijab ban raises an important question about whether France is acting in breach of its Olympic obligations and should, therefore, have had the right to host the Games withdrawn. The ban could be seen as being in breach of the Olympic Charter’s anti-discrimination provisions, as stated in Principle 6, and could also be seen as being contrary to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and so a failure to respect internationally recognised human rights. Rule 33.3 of the Olympic Charter states that:  

'The national government of the country of any candidature must submit to the IOC a legally binding instrument by which the said government undertakes and guarantees that the country and its public authorities will comply with and respect the Olympic Charter.'

So, should France have had the invitation to host the Games of the XXXIII Olympiad withdrawn for being in breach of the requirements of the Olympic Charter? Or could, or perhaps should, the IOC have required a change to the French law to ensure that its ‘public authorities complied with the Olympic Charter? 

These questions are deliberately provocative. At present, there are no definitions of demonstration, propaganda or free expression in the Olympic Charter, meaning that it is difficult to determine in advance whether one’s actions will breach or comply with the Charter’s requirements. Similarly, the Charter requires respect for internationally recognised human rights, whilst providing an absolute prohibition on some forms of freedom of expression in Rule 50, and a restricted version of freedom of expression in Rule 40 and under the accompanying Guidance. The IOC’s ongoing silence means that further clarification is not provided. Instead of repeatedly resisting the need to comply with its human rights responsibilities, it is time for the IOC to exert its leadership on the rest of the Olympic Movement and to implement fully its own Strategic Framework. 

Authored by: Prof. Mark James is the Editor-in-Chief, International Sports Law Journal and is the Faculty of Sports Law at Manchester Metropolitan University.

Edited by: Tarun Singh and Souniya Dhuldhoya