The Rule Of Law Approach To Mega Sporting Events

Abstract

This thesis examines the impact of temporary legislation on the rule of law. It delves into how such legislation creates unstable, uncertain, and imprecise legal dilemmas, which can lead to institutional application conflicts and the cost of legislative procedure. To illustrate these points, the thesis uses Qatar as the primary case study, comparing its approach to hosting the World Cup to Russia's approach. The study relies on a multi-method approach featuring doctrinal, textual and comparative law approaches in the analysis of data. The use of textual analysis was integral in the identification of themes and assimilation of evidence regarding the assertions made, while doctrinal analysis was used in analysing the laws and legal concepts included in the study. The findings of this thesis reveal that due to the disparities in the conceptualisation of the rule of law with references to MSEs, FIFA should either: select host countries which have fulfilled basic requirements under human rights law and can continue to do so; or, compel the selected host nations to meet the specified human rights criteria, that is based on the rule of law. However, since MSE legal frameworks are comprised of components that contribute to the achievement of the rule of law (based on stability, certainty and applicability), FIFA can create compromises, where government guarantees and commitments can be relied upon to address the existing rule of law challenges. These compromises can be addressed through a combination of temporary and permanent laws, which serve to fulfil the goals of the rule of law. However, each of these categories of laws has weaknesses that must be addressed accordingly. Recently, FIFA has undertaken a broad range of reforms, which target all phases of the MSEs. The practicality of these reforms has already been tested, with certain failures in the upcoming events revealing gaps between the plans and actual implementation of the reforms, in the form of capacity gaps (costs of rule of law), legal mandate gaps (jurisdiction of the entities involved), and the responsibility gaps(that arise due to differences in conception of rule of law under different legal systems such as domestic, international, global and Islamic law). Ultimately, this points to the imperativeness of goodwill by the MSE actors, including the ISGBs and host countries, to address the risks to MSE-related human rights violations.

Date of Award	2026
Original language	American English
Awarding Institution	HBKU College of Law