Сovid-19 and International Law: General Issues

.InD ecember2019,a no u tbreakofcoronav i rusi nf e ct i on(SARS-CoV -2)t ransm i tte dbya i rborn edropl e tswasr ec ord e di nW uha n,Chi n a.I nm id-J anua r y , the v i ruswasd e t e ct e d i n Tha i land andJ apan;i nM ar c h,thecenterofthepandem i cmov e dtoEurop e;i ne arlyA pr il,theU n i te dS t a tescam eout ontopi ntermsofthenumberofi nf e ct i ons.T oc omba tthev i rus,manyst a teshav ei n t rodu ce demergencymeasu re s,in cl udin glock d ow ns,socialdi sta n cereq ui rements,m asstest in g ,et c.Thepa nd em i ch asaffecte dallsp h eresofpubl i cl i fe,i n c lud i n gi n ter na t i onalr e la t i onsandi n ter n at ion allaw . MA TERI ALSAND METHO DS.Th ea rt i c l eanalyz esther e spons etothepandem i conthepartofstat e s,or ga nizat i onsandthedoctr i neofi n ter na t i onallaw;ex a min est h ein ter n at i o n al legalaspectsoft h e pa nd em i c:appl i c ationoftheI n te rnationalH e althR eg ulations2005,poss i bl er es pons i b i l i tyofChi naandotherst a te s,im pactoft h epa nd em i co nhum a nr i ghts.Theproblemsoflegalre g u lat i o ninco nn ect i o nw i t ht h epa nd em i caredefinedandthewaysoftheirsolut i onar ed eter m i n e d.Thesubjectofanalys i si sthemater i alsofforei g nlegalpr e ss,firstofal l,postsandart i cl e sontheI n ter n et .I nadd i t i ontothedataofi n ter na t i onallaw ,scient i ficcat egor i esofph i lo s ophy ,e conom i csandpol i t i c alscienceareu se d. RESEARCHRESULT S.M ajorUNbod i e shav ereactedtothepandem i cw i thgeneralst a t ements.WHO pos i t i on e di ts e lfasani n ter na t i onalcenterforthefighta ga i nstthev i rusandmader ec ommenda t i onsthat , h owe v er , were n ot im plemente db ystatesw hi c ha d opt e dm orerestr i ct iv em eas u re s.Them a ind ocu m entt h atg u i dedWHO i stheI n ter na t i onalH e al t hR eg ula t i ons2005(IHR).Somest a tesandthem e d i aaccusedChi naofa belated reaction and withholding information. As a result, the doctrine has discussed the issue of bringing a claim against China to the International Court of Justice. The legal basis for this claim could be the provisions of the IHR, the WHO Constitution and a number of duediligence obligations. The jurisdictional basis for applying to the ICJ could be Art. 75 of the WHO Constitution, and to an arbitration Art. 56 IHR. In response to the pandemic, many states have limited human rights; references have been made to the possibility of a temporary derogation from human rights obligations in an emergency and the possibility of limiting human rights in the interests of national security, health and the protection of the rights of others. D ISCUSS IO NANDCO N CL US IO NS.Th efor eig n d o c t r i n e n o te s a n nsufficient  response frominternational organizations and makes proposals aimed at expand i n gthepowersoftheUNSecur i tyC ouncili nc omba t i n gthepandem i candatreform i n gtheWHO .I nadd i t i o n,ther ear eshortcom i n g softheIHRthath i ndertheiref fect iv eu s e.Theposs i b i l i tyofh ol din gChin aacco un tablei squ e st i on e d:ther ei s nsufficient   ev i denceofthev i ola t i o n ; the threshold for breach of duediligence obligationsi sveryh i gh;Chi nai sunl i k e lytoa g r eetopart i cipat ei nt h elaws ui taga i nst it. Nevertheless, several lessons canbelear n e dfort h elawofrespons i b i l i ty(t h eposs i b i l i tyofd e vi at in gfro mt h epr in ciple off u llco m pensat i o n,et c.). Thepro ce dur eford erogat i n gfromhumanr i ghtsobl i ga t i onsdur i n ga pandemic also needs clarification. In general, the international legal doctrine coped with the task of understanding of the pandemic phenomenon: it systematized and qualified the facts, discovered and formulated legal problems, both private and public, and suggested means to solve them. Few questioned the advisability of such a harsh global reaction and formulated a radical criticism; instead, the shortcomings of individual measures were noted and proposals were made to improve their effectiveness.