Saiger, Anna-Julia

Tigre, Maria Antonia

Zimmermann, Nesa

English

<intR>²Dok

COVID-19 and “New” Human RightsSymposiumAnna-Julia Saiger, Maria Antonia Tigre,Nesa Zimmermann2021-03-22T10:15:01Legal debates on the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the urgently neededcontainment measures, the distribution of vaccines, and the protection of humanrights are flourishing. A year after the WHO declared a global pandemic, countriesaround the world are still grappling with how to fight COVID-19 while respectinghuman rights. One key difficulty is that human rights both demand action against thespread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and set limits to this same state action. While theseconflicting injunctions put political leadership as well as parliamentary opposition andthe judiciary under pressure, so-called “new” human rights further complexify thepicture. Jointly hosted by Völkerrechtsblog and the Global Pandemic Network, theSymposium on COVID-19 and “new” human rights, which will follow this introduction,sheds light on some of the multiple ways in which the handling of the currentpandemic interferes with or, instead, enhances the protection of “new” human rights.New Human Rights – A Question of PerspectiveThis raises the question: what are “new” human rights? In our Call for Contributionswe referred to “the right to water, the right to food, the right to a healthy environment,and the right to energy” and, thereby, named “but a few”. Some of these – andsome others – will be discussed in the present Symposium: the right to a healthyenvironment and the right to energy, the right to science, and the right to defendhuman rights (defenders).The question of what counts as a “new” human right is an integral part of the conceptitself. In their recently published Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights,Andreas von Arnauld, Kerstin von der Decken, and Mart Susi approach the issuefrom a more theoretical perspective. They posit novelty and recognition (or lackthereof) as two main defining features of “new” human rights (p. 2). Both are, ofcourse, inextricably linked: having emerged only recently, “new” human rights havenot yet achieved the legal recognition that more “established” human rights benefitfrom. In addition to the purely temporal factor, the question of contestation plays acentral role: the more a “new” human right is contested, the longer the path towardsfull recognition will take. Having said this, the question whether a given humanright is to be considered “new” is itself contested and depends very much on theadopted perspective. Regional differences may also play an important role: whilefrom a European standpoint many of the rights are still to be developed, they may beconsidered as already established from a Latin-American perspective, a gap that isperhaps best illustrated by the right to a healthy environment.“New” human rights can be linked to technological, political, or environmentalchanges. Some of them more than others are related to what has been labelled- 1 -the “inadequacy of protection thesis”. Von Arnauld, von der Decken and Susi referto “the incapability of established human rights to provide adequate protection forcertain vulnerable or marginalised groups in comparison with others” as well asto “novel contemporary conditions [that] challenge the capability of an establishedhuman right to provide sufficient protection for an important social value” (p.2). Whether this calls for the recognition of “new” human rights or the reinterpretationof existing human rights is, of course, in and of itself a matter for discussion (for thecase for reinterpretation, see e.g. here; for a framing of “actualization”, see here).For the purposes of this Symposium, however, we retain that “new” human rights areintrinsically linked to (old and new) challenges to equality around the globe.The COVID-19 Pandemic and New Human Rights – A Multi-FacetedRelationshipWith high infection and mortality rates, the debates on COVID-19 can get lost inthe global, therefore losing sense of the individual, making the question whetherhuman rights cater adequately for the needs of marginalised groups more relevantthan ever. In this vein, Bérénice Schramm opens our Symposium reimagining thediscussion on vulnerability in the context of COVID-19. Alexander Gilder brings inthe concept of human security by inviting a shift in perspective from the collectiveto the individual, asking how individuals can take ownership of their human rights toreshape the international system.The Symposium gathers perspectives from around the world on a common healthcrisis. We will get insights from Brazil, Colombia, and India. However global thepandemic, it does not affect all parts of the world and all groups in one country in thesame way. The unequal ways in which the pandemic has affected different regionsreinforces the duty to cooperate at the international level: Bringing a perspectivefrom the Inter-American system of human rights, Daniel Noroña compares the dutyto cooperate at the international and regional levels, reinforcing the urgent needfor countries to work together to ensure human rights are respected, especially inthe Global South. This duty takes an even more important stance as we considervaccine distribution. As companies around the world discovered vaccines againstCOVID-19, the world celebrated as we finally saw an end to the pandemic in thehorizon. Yet, vaccine distribution also highlights massive inequality around theglobe. Claire-Marie Richter discusses a movement in “vaccine nationalism” as eachcountry rushes to inoculate their own populations. Calmon Dantas adds a Brazilianperspective to the debate on vaccine distribution. As one of the countries with thehighest infection rates and spreading a new COVID-19 strain, Brazil has facednumerous challenges in distributing vaccines, facing inequality within the countryitself. Adding to this debate, Monika Plozza specifically discusses the right to scienceas the ultimate normative tool to limit the spread of COVID-19 and overcome theinequalities concerning vulnerable groups.In addition to contributions focused on specific countries, our Symposium bringsperspectives from authors from different countries and parts of the world. Withthese multiple perspectives comes a different understanding of the concept ofrights, human rights, and new human rights. Essential in the perspective of newhuman rights is the right to a healthy environment. As a zoonotic disease, COVID-19- 2 -has deep roots in the underlying causes of environmental degradation, includingdeforestation, wildlife trade, and biodiversity loss. Adding a perspective from India,S. Sathiabama and S. Vedavalli ask to what extent the right to a healthy environmentwas respected during the pandemic. Significantly, a parallel must be drawn on thetwo major crisis the world faces today: the pandemic and climate change. With thisperspective in mind, Achinthi Vithanage and Robert Habermann ask whether thesecall for a new right to energy. Finally, the pandemic has disproportionally affectedhuman rights defenders around the world, who now face even greater challenges toensure that human rights are protected. With a view from Colombia, one of deadliestcountries for human rights defenders, Natalia Urzola asks whether the COVID-19pandemic can push for the recognition of an autonomous right to defend humanrights.We were delighted about the worldwide responses to our Call and are lookingforward to contributing to the discussion on the COVID-19 pandemic and “new”human rights in the following days. In this vein, comments and thoughts are verywelcome. We would also be happy to pursue the discussion on related issues withfuture blog posts, which could for example critically assess the question of “inflation”or “proliferation” of human rights.- 3 -

COVID-19 and “New” Human Rights Symposium

https://intr2dok.vifa-recht.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/mir_derivate_00010101/COVID19_and_New_Human_Rights_Symposium.pdf

COVID-19 and “New” Human Rights Symposium

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

<intR>²Dok