English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

There has never been any State practice in pursuing State responsibility for alleged malfeasances in pandemics. What effect does this absence of practice have on the framework of applicable law regarding this pursuit of State responsibility? How can we make sense of this absence in the context of global public health? One way would be to see the absence as reflecting a lex specialis providing for no State responsibility for any alleged malfeasances; another as reflecting States’ assessment that there is no or slight chance of success even under a lex generalis not excluding potential responsibility. The former appears more consonant with the uniform lack of practice in pursuing State responsibility over the long course of history of dealing with pandemics. If there can be a better state of affairs, it will be up to States to search for it and to bring it to fruition in the future.

chinese journal of international law

To Deal with a New Coronavirus Pandemic: Making Sense of the Lack of Any State Practice in Pursuing State Responsibility for Alleged Malfeasances in a Pandemic—Lex Specialis or Lex Generalis at Work?