Reviewed by:

• The Ideals of Global Sport: From Peace to Human Rights ed. by Barbara J. Keys
• Theresa Keeley (bio)

The Ideals of Global Sport: From Peace to Human Rights explores whether international mega-sporting events, namely the Olympics and the men's World Cup, serve as catalyst for ideals such as peace and human rights, as many claim. The volume's contributors include historians, political scientists, and anthropologists from every continent but Antarctica who use sources in multiple languages. The volume offers strong, stand-alone chapters that also reference once another. Barbara J. Keys doubles as contributor and editor. Her two prior manuscripts focus on international sport and human rights, respectively.

The Ideals of Global Sport is divided into two sections. Part I: "The Core Ideals," interrogates some of "the most enduring idealistic claims associated with international sport:" friendship, antidiscrimination, peace, and democracy.¹

Simon Creak explores the notion that sporting contests "promote friendship and mutual understanding" by examining the Southeast Asian (SEA) Games. As Creak notes, friendship is not among the Olympic rules, but it has been part of the charter since the 1950s. Southeast Asian countries embraced these Olympic ideals in their own games, through which they have aimed to enhance friendship, "mutual understanding and cooperation."² Creak concludes that although the SEA Games have fostered interpersonal friendships among participants, these relationships have not impacted broader international friendships among the countries that participate.

Instead of friendship, Robert Skinner interrogates the relationship between the Olympic Charter's discrimination prohibition and the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) reluctance to deal with apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid contradicted the principles of "equality and universal opportunity" in international sport, and this paradox provided global anti-apartheid activists with a moral basis to call for cultural boycotts and isolation of South Africa.³ While the IOC balked at disciplining South Africa, activists and African states pushed for exclusion. Skinner argues that the eventual expulsion of South Africa happened not because sport aims to be anti-discriminatory, but due to "changes in global norms that shaped sport during the process of decolonization."⁴

Joon Seok Hong probes the relationship between democracy and the Olympic Games by focusing on the 1988 Seoul Summer Games. The Olympic Charter does not contain the word democracy; nor has the IOC attempted to promote "democracy as the preferred (or even aspirational) governing political ideology or set of political institutions in a bid or host country."⁵ While others have claimed [End Page 234] the Olympics' spotlight on South Korea pushed the country's peaceful move from dictatorship, Hong disputes the notion. Instead, the Olympics "amplified multiple unifying factors" both internationally and domestically that brought the country together over the seven-year preparatory process for the Games. As Hong asserts, "South Korea democratized not because of the Olympics but in spite of them."⁶

Roland Burke, in the final contribution to Part I, analyzes the Olympic Games' promotion of peace by examining the relationship between the IOC and the United Nations (UN). As Burke points out, Olympic internationalism stresses its apolitical nature, yet it is steeped in political history. Burke examines how the IOC and UN moved from indifference to hostility to cooperation in the 1990s. The shared animosity began to shift in the 1980s as both the IOC and the UN confronted "moral marginality and monetary distress."⁷ In the 1990s, the IOC was beset by corruption scandals and rising costs, while the UN was condemned for withdrawing forces from Rwanda. Self-interest and a desire to improve their respective sullied reputations, Burke argues, prompted the shift toward cooperation, and culminated in the 1993 reintroduction of the Olympic Truce, in which countries at war call a truce during the Games.

While Part I studies ideals of sport and focuses on the Olympic Charter, Part II, "The Rise of Human Rights," considers how calls for human rights have become associated with the Olympics and the men's World Cup. Part II also considers how various groups have advocated for human rights and used the concept for...

审核人：

• 全球体育理想：从和平到人权ed。由芭芭拉·J·凯斯（Barbara J.Keys）
• 特蕾莎·基利（Theresa Keeley）（生物）

许多人声称，全球体育的理想：从和平到人权探讨了国际大型体育赛事，即奥运会和男子世界杯，是否可以促进和平与人权等理想。该书的撰稿人包括南极洲以外每个大陆的历史学家，政治学家和人类学家，他们使用多种语言。该卷提供了功能强大的独立章节，这些章节也互相引用。芭芭拉·凯斯（Barbara J. Keys）兼任撰稿人和编辑。她的前两部手稿分别侧重于国际体育和人权。

全球体育理想分为两个部分。第一部分：“核心理想”，审视了“与国际体育有关的最持久的理想主义主张：”友谊，反歧视，和平与民主。^1个

西蒙·克里克（Simon Creak）通过研究东南亚（SEA）运动会探讨了体育竞赛“增进友谊和相互了解”的概念。正如Creak所指出的那样，友谊不是奥林匹克规则中的一项，但自1950年代以来，它就已成为宪章的一部分。东南亚国家在自己的运动会中秉承了这些奥林匹克理想，旨在增进友谊，“相互理解与合作”。² Creak得出结论，尽管SEA运动会增进了参与者之间的人际友谊，但这些关系并未影响参与国之间更广泛的国际友谊。

罗伯特·斯金纳（Robert Skinner）而不是友谊，而是质疑《奥林匹克宪章》禁止歧视与国际奥委会（IOC）不愿处理南非种族隔离之间的关系。种族隔离与国际体育中的“平等和普遍机会”原则相抵触，这一悖论为全球反种族隔离激进主义者提供了道德基础，呼吁进行文化抵制和对南非的孤立。³虽然国际奥委会拒绝对南非进行纪律处分，但活动家和非洲国家纷纷要求排斥南非。斯金纳认为，最终驱逐南非并不是因为体育运动旨在反歧视，而是由于“在非殖民化过程中塑造体育运动的全球规范的变化”。⁴

Joon Seok Hong着眼于1988年汉城夏季奥运会，探讨了民主与奥林匹克运动之间的关系。《奥林匹克宪章》未包含民主一词；国际奥委会也没有试图提倡“民主是竞标国或东道国首选的（甚至是理想的）统治政治意识形态或政治机构集”。⁵当其他人声称拥有版权时[结束第234页]洪对这个概念持怀疑态度，因为奥运会对韩国的关注使该国从独裁统治中和平迈出了一步。取而代之的是，奥运会在国际和国内都“放大了多种统一因素”，使该国在奥运会的为期七年的筹备过程中团结了起来。正如洪先生所断言的那样，“韩国民主化不是因为奥林匹克运动，而是尽管有奥林匹克运动。” ⁶

罗兰·伯克（Roland Burke）对第一部分的最后贡献是，通过研究国际奥委会与联合国之间的关系，分析了奥运会对和平的促进作用。正如伯克指出的那样，奥林匹克国际主义强调其非政治性，但深深扎根于政治历史。伯克研究了国际奥委会和联合国在1990年代如何从冷漠，敌对走向合作。随着国际奥委会和联合国都面临“道德边缘化和货币危机”，共同的敌意在1980年代开始转移。⁷在1990年代，国际奥委会受到腐败丑闻和成本上涨的困扰，而联合国因从卢旺达撤军而受到谴责。伯克认为，出于个人利益和提高各自声誉的渴望，促使人们转向合作，并最终于1993年重新引入了奥林匹克休战，战争中的国家在奥运会期间宣布休战。

在第一部分研究体育理想并着重《奥林匹克宪章》的同时，第二部分“人权的兴起”则思考了呼吁人权如何与奥林匹克运动会和男子世界杯相关联。第二部分还考虑了各个团体如何倡导人权并将这一概念用于...