Сovid-19 and International Law: General Issues
Authors: Tolstykh V. L. 
Published: October 2021

INTRODUCTION.InDecember2019,anoutbreakofcoronavirusinfection(SARS-CoV-2)transmittedbyairbornedropletswasrecordedinWuhan,China.Inmid-January,theviruswasdetectedinThailand andJapan;inMarch,thecenterofthepandemicmovedtoEurope;inearlyApril,theUnitedStatescameoutontopintermsofthenumberofinfections.Tocombatthevirus,manystateshaveintroducedemergencymeasures,includinglockdowns,socialdistancerequirements,masstesting,etc.Thepandemichasaffectedallspheresofpubliclife,includinginternationalrelationsandinternationallaw.MATERIALSANDMETHODS.Thearticleanalyzestheresponsetothepandemiconthepartofstates,organizationsandthedoctrineofinternationallaw;examinestheinternationallegalaspectsofthepandemic:applicationoftheInternationalHealthRegulations2005,possibleresponsibilityofChinaandotherstates,impactofthepandemiconhumanrights.Theproblemsoflegalregulationinconnectionwiththepandemicaredefinedandthewaysoftheirsolutionaredetermined.Thesubjectofanalysisisthematerialsofforeignlegalpress,firstofall,postsandarticlesontheInternet.Inadditiontothedataofinternationallaw,scientificcategoriesofphilosophy,economicsandpoliticalscienceareused.RESEARCHRESULTS.MajorUNbodieshavereactedtothepandemicwithgeneralstatements.WHOpositioneditselfasaninternationalcenterforthefightagainstthevirusandmaderecommendationsthat,however, werenotimplementedbystateswhichadoptedmorerestrictivemeasures.ThemaindocumentthatguidedWHOistheInternationalHealthRegulations2005(IHR).SomestatesandthemediaaccusedChinaofa 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.DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONS.Theforeigndoctrinenotesan nsufficient response frominternational organizations and makes proposals aimed at expandingthepowersoftheUNSecurityCouncilincombatingthepandemicandatreformingtheWHO.Inaddition,thereareshortcomingsoftheIHRthathindertheireffectiveuse.ThepossibilityofholdingChinaaccountableisquestioned:thereisnsufficient evidenceoftheviolation; the threshold for breach of duediligence obligationsisveryhigh;Chinaisunlikelytoagreetoparticipateinthelawsuitagainstit. Nevertheless, several lessons canbelearnedforthelawofresponsibility(thepossibilityofdeviatingfromtheprincipleoffullcompensation,etc.).Theprocedureforderogatingfromhumanrightsobligationsduringa 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.