Article 49:
#2
“A competitor who is a national of two (2) or more countries at the same time may represent either one (1) of them, as they may elect. However after having represented one country in any Olympic, Asian continental, regional, or world championships recognized by the relevant IF (International Federation), he/she may not represent another country unless he/she meets the conditions set forth in the sub-section below that apply to persons who have changed their nationality or acquired a new nationality.”
#3
“A competitor who has represented one country in any of the Olympic Games, OCA GAMES, continental, regional, or world championships recognized by the relevant IF, and who has changed their nationality or acquired a new nationality, shall not participate in the OCA GAMES to represent their new country until three years after such change or acquisition.”
這是說以下規定適用於多重國籍選手如果要”轉籍” , 也就是說如果該選手不曾代表其他國家對參戰則不受第49條款的限制
這也是菲律賓現在跟FIBA吵的部分光看地49條法意上布拉奇沒代表過其他國家隊應該不受這個規定限制
Article 50:
“2. Competitors will be eligible if they comply with the following qualifications:
a. That they were born in the country they represent;
b. That they are nationals or citizens of the country they represent and have lived there continuously for a period of not less than three years;
c. That they have become naturalized in the country they represent and have permanent residence there.
3. Competitors born outside Asia cannot be qualified unless they meet conditions in 3 b & c, where applicable.”
這個是說要代表一個國家隊有三個選項
1. 出生地並且是公民
2. 得到公民籍 並住滿三年
3. 歸化並得到永久居留權
“如果非亞洲出生的球員適用於第二及第三項”
好看看這50條
以菲律賓來說用了這50條布拉奇就宣告死刑
他並不滿足任何一條因為她只有公民資格未獲永久居留權未放棄美國籍
戴維斯之所以之前一直被亞奧委會認為沒問題並回函確認是因為
他已有中華民國國籍得到永久居留權並放棄美國籍符合第三條之規定
我不知道翻盤的原因猜測韓國應該是忽略“where applicable”
這個字義直接強調必須同時符合第二條根第三條規定所以戴維斯差兩個月不具資格
但是連亞奧委會都一直認為法意上沒有問題的事情(還發公函確認)
被亞運籌委會扭曲並且堅持取消資格
能說他不是針對我們我倒是猶豫了
因為這條跟布拉奇的資格完全無關
唯一有結論的是這些有爭議的條文被韓國推向對他完全有利的極端而且推翻亞奧委會的資格人認定
所以這不是規則
這是被殷
到底是懂了沒?
KINGLBJ2332 wrote:
如果條款清清楚楚規定...(恕刪)
http://www.ocasia.org/OCA/Download/Default/1/OCA/4/1OCA400150.pdf
76頁開始看
就跟法條一樣
很多東西你律師跟法官就是在玩文字遊戲
看誰正確或有理
都逃不了鑽漏洞
就算律師頭頭是道,判決也不是自己在判
現在我們跟韓國就是在自我解釋
我們覺得3個選項是分開來的
老外本來就不可能符合a
所以當然就是附加一個條文說b跟c看哪一條適合
這是我們的解釋
但是韓國部這麼認為
他們認為照文法來說b&c應該就是一起的意思
阿實際上看附加條文之前abc本來就是分開來看的
但是如果你只看單行附加條文你就會被說成是b+c
這就是在玩你
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X