Suchergebnisse

On April 8, 2021, the Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights delivered an eagerly awaited judgment in the case of Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic. It addressed the question of mandatory vaccination in the light of the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Covid-19 has put a spotlight on the responsibilities of States under the International Health Regulations and on State accountability in case of a breach.[1] In addition, there has been much debate about how measures to protect against Covid-19 infringe on the enjoyment of civil and political rights, in particular rights to privacy and freedom of movement.[2] It will be important to evaluate these matters carefully given the current crisis. While these approaches and dimensions are valuable, we should also look beyond this crisis and address country preparedness to future infectious disease outbreaks. To this end, this Reflection assesses how according to international law, all countries around the world are required to be prepared to respond to a future public health emergency. It does so from the perspective of the right to health as an economic and social right, in interaction with the International Health Regulations (IHR). This contribution is grounded in the understanding that Covid-19 reflects, in essence, a crisis of the right to health: because countries do not deliver the right to health as reflected by the IHR, many other problems including violations of international law arise.

This contribution attempts to scope the multiple and complex relationships between measures to protect health and the protection of human rights. The article begins with a discussion of the meaning and current understandings of the notion of 'public health', after which it explores how 'public health' is framed in various branches of public international law, including international trade law, the law of armed conflict and international environmental law. Subsequently, in light of these developments, it discusses whether the 'right to health' can be used as a collective claim to advance the health of the public, possibly in support of the existing public health clauses under international law. In such cases the protection of public health, and potentially the 'right to health', may clash with the interests of international and domestic trade and commerce, intellectual property protection, and the conduct of warfare. Another tension exists where measures to protect the health of the public infringe on the civil and political rights of individuals, including their rights to privacy and freedom of movement, but also their individual right to healthcare. This may occur both within and beyond healthcare settings, for example when it comes to quarantine, (forced) testing, and border restrictions in the interests of public health, but also in the fields of biomedical research and the testing of medicines. The existing limitation clauses under civil and political human rights law provide some guidance as to how such measures should be taken, however there is a need for a better understanding on how to implement these tools.