The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Executive Board has confirmed that the IOC will be strengthening how the organisation addresses human rights issues – including the development of an IOC human rights strategy and policy commitment, the embedding of human rights in the good governance principles, and the establishment of a Human Rights Advisory Committee. The IOC is looking at its responsibility across its three spheres of influence, namely: (1) its own administration’s activities, (2) its role as organizer of the Olympic Games and (3) its role as an authoritative leader of the Olympic Movement. The IOC released in full the recommendations informing its approach developed by human rights experts Rachel Davis and Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein – which emphasize in particular the need for the IOC to move from a model based on legal liability and control to one based on responsibility and leverage.
Background
Proposed Strategic Framework on Human Rights for the IOC Aligned with UN Standards
The report proposes a three-part strategic framework to help the IOC understand its responsibility to respect human rights, and to operationalise this framework.
Source: Rachel Davis and Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, Recommendations for an IOC Human Rights Strategy (March 2020)
Key recommendations
Building on six overarching principles that should inform the IOC’s strategy going forwards, the authors make five key recommendations to the IOC:
1. “Articulating the IOC’s human rights responsibilities, including by adopting appropriate amendments to the Olympic Charter and other core documents, developing a detailed human rights policy commitment reflecting the expectations of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and setting similar expectations for the Olympic Movement as a whole through the ‘Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement.’”
2. “Embedding respect for human rights across the organization to ensure that the IOC’s commitment is driven into its values and culture, including by: hiring a Head of Human Rights to lead implementation of a new human rights strategy, supported by a Human Rights Unit; establishing a cross-functional steering group on human rights at Director-level; ensuring the IOC’s governing bodies take full account of human rights in their decision-making (including through the role of the proposed Human Rights Advisory Committee); and ensuring that there is human rights expertise in the IOC’s consultative Commissions.”
3. “Identifying and addressing human rights risks by strengthening human rights due diligence across the IOC’s operations, including by: routinely integrating the perspectives of affected stakeholders (such as athletes, journalists, volunteers, fans, workers and local communities) into the process of identifying and taking action on human rights risks; significantly strengthening the way in which athlete voice and representation informs decision-making within the IOC and the [Olympic] Movement more broadly; taking a more robust approach to using the IOC’s leverage with National Olympic Committees and International Federations on human rights issues; and integrating a focus on salient human rights issues (such as child protection and respect for athletes’ human rights) into existing areas of the IOC’s work.”
4. “Tracking and communicating on the IOC’s progress, including by: evaluating the human rights performance of the IOC’s partners, especially that of OCOGs [i.e. Organising Committees for the Olympic Games] for upcoming editions of the Olympic Games; deepening the IOC’s engagement with affected stakeholders and their legitimate representatives (including trade union representatives where athletes are unionized), or with credible proxies for affected stakeholders’ views where direct engagement is not possible; and enhancing transparency about the IOC’s human rights efforts.”
5. “Strengthening the wider remedy ecosystem in sport by contributing to a significant improvement in the quality of grievance mechanisms at all levels of sport, including strengthening sports bodies’ own mechanisms, supporting social dialogue processes in sport, and enabling access to state-based forms of remedy for severe human rights harms. We recommended that this should begin with an initial focus on: improving access to remedy in cases of harassment and abuse; improving Games-time grievance mechanisms (run by the IOC as well as by OCOGs); and reviewing the preparedness of the IOC’s own systems to handle human rights complaints.”
Source: Rachel Davis and Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, Recommendations for an IOC Human Rights Strategy (March 2020)
Read the full report here: ILO, A Global Comparative Study on Defining Recruitment Fees and Related Costs: Interregional Research on Law, Policy and Practice (November 2020)
“Human rights are about valuing and ensuring individual dignity. And respect for peoples’ dignity is fundamental to the values enshrined in the Olympic Charter. As we assessed what the IOC had in place, we found many examples of how the organization has carried out important work on human rights, even if it has not always been described as such. But this work has typically happened in silos, independently of an overarching or coordinated approach on human rights. Recently, this has begun to change as the IOC has become more explicit about the centrality of human rights in its own operations, its role as custodian of the Olympic Games, and its leadership of the Olympic Movement. However, more remains to be done.”
Rachel Davis and Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, Statement on the Publication of the Report ‘Recommendations for an IOC Human Rights Strategy’ (December 2020)