Özet:

The International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) causes a lot of confusions due to the concepts of "arbitration" and "court" that it contains within the same name, especially for the researchers studying in the field of Sports Law. The fact that the concepts of arbitration on the one hand and court on the other hand are in the name of the same jurisdiction brings to mind the question of whether the jurisdiction of this authority is an arbitration or a court proceeding. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method to court proceedings. So, does the Court of Arbitration for Sports conduct an arbitration proceeding or is it a Court? In this study, firstly, the type of proceedings performed by the CAS is revelaed including its justifications. Moreover, the arbitration proceedings, which we can call traditional arbitration, and the arbitration proceedings executed in the Sports Arbitration Court are also compared and their similarities and differences are revealed. In the conclusion part of the study, it is accepted that the concept of “Court” in the name of CAS refers to the arbitration institution and a name as “Institution of Arbitration for Sport”” is suggested instead of the name “Court of Arbitration for Sport”. Purpose: Sports Law is a field of law whose name has started to be heard much more in our country in recent years. Sports Law includes severel fields of lawand has its own judicial system, principles and dynamics. However, there are a limited number of sources written in our country on Sports Law, and the ones written need updating. The purpose of this article is to research and present the judicial system of the CAS with its recent changes to conclude the confusion between "court" and "arbitration", to compare it with traditional arbitration and to bring a current study regarding the Sports Law to the law field. Methodology: Sports Law has a legislation that can change rapidly. Therefore, while studying for a legal work, it requires to follow constant legislative arrangements. After all the recent changes in the CAS Code were followed while editing this study, research was carried out in accordance with the current version. The study also includes the method of comparison. Authenticity: Even though this contradiction in the name of the Court of Arbitration for Sports is mentioned in the sources, the subject has not been discussed in detail; however, this study has emerged as an original article that reaches detailed research and findings on this subject and is suitable for current developments.

Anahtar Kelimeler: