ABSTRACT
This article seeks to define the exceptionality in the fulfillment of rights and free-doms of European citizens related to the free movement of people. The situation arising from the COVID-19 pandemic made the members of the European Union and the Schengen Area decide to impose movement restriction measures for citizens and residents in them. These ones, understandable at first due to the uncertainty of a new a new disease, endangered the European system of free movement itself, as well as the relevance of the systems of restriction of this right linked to European citizenship. © GKA Ediciones, authors.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article was to use an interpretivist approach to analyse the state–citizen nexus in general and the conflict between civil and social rights imposing restrictions on people's freedom of movement during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Nordic countries: Sweden (restrictions were voluntary and relied on nudging and individual implementation), Norway (restrictions of movement were for everyone and was enforced by authorities), and Finland (restrictions of movement were for the capital region and was enforced by authorities). Sweden focused more on upholding the civil rights vis-à-vis social rights whereas in Norway and Finland social rights have trumped civil rights in the face of the pandemic. Thus, the analysis suggests that the Nordic countries cannot be understood as monoliths in all respects. The article thereby contributes to a greater understanding of how the Nordic governments prioritise civil and social rights differently when they are forced to choose.
ABSTRACT
The major restrictions on rights and freedoms imposed by the management of the COVID-19 crisis have caused significant psychological, and sometimes physical, suffering for older people with decreased independence living in collective housing. Without calling into question the decisions made by these housing establishments, which for the most part were motivated by a desire and need to protect their residents, the aim of this contribution is to question the processes that led—and still lead—to decisions restricting freedom, the proportionality of which may be questioned. In fact, those managing such establishments have had to make decisions in an ambiguous legal and social context, marked by the proliferation of non-decisive guidelines and recommendations (soft law acts), which has led to practical difficulties in the implementation of health standards within the establishments and has had a considerable impact on residents' individual freedoms. Some of these restrictions could be described as forms of abuse. © 2022 Fondation Nationale de Gerontologie. All rights reserved. Les restrictions majeures de droits et libertés imposées par la gestion de la crise épidémique de Covid-19 ont engendré des souffrances psychiques et parfois physiques importantes pour les personnes âgées vivant en établissement d'hébergement pour personnes dépendantes. Sans remettre en cause les décisions des établissements qui, pour une large majorité, ont été motivées par la volonté et la nécessité de protéger leurs résidents, l'objectif de cette contribution vise à interroger les processus qui ont conduit – et conduisent encore – à des décisions restrictives de liberté dont la proportionnalité peut être discutée. En effet, les directions d'établissement ont dû prendre des décisions dans un contexte juridique et social ambigu, marqué par le foisonnement d'orientations et de recommandations non décisoires (actes de droit souple), ce qui a engendré des difficultés pratiques dans la mise en œuvre des normes sanitaires au sein des établissements et a eu un impact considérable sur l'exercice des libertés individuelles des résidents dont certaines restrictions pourraient être qualifiées de forme de maltraitance. © 2022 Fondation Nationale de Gerontologie. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
These are just three of more than 11,000 reports of hate against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) shared with the Stop AAPI Hate coalition during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many more acts continue to go unreported, making the actual number much higher-potentially in the millions. Reports of anti-AAPI hate come from all fifty states and the District of Columbia, with nearly 40 percent from California. In response to the rise in hate against AAPI communities, Stop AAPI Hate introduced No Place for Hate California, a package of first-in-the-nation, state-level policy proposals. Together, these proposals take a gender-based, public health, and civil rights approach to addressing the racialized and sexualized verbal harassment experienced by AAPIs (especially AAPI women) in public, which comprise a majority of the reports submitted to Stop AAPI Hate. Stop AAPI Hate partnered with state legislators and mobilized a coalition of over fifty community-based organizations.
ABSTRACT
Determinados elementos diferenciales de la arquitectura política-institucional interna de la Unión Europea (UE) y su propia naturaleza jurídica condicionan y determinan su comportamiento y la eficacia de sus decisiones, convirtiendo a esta organización internacional sui generis en un actor internacional de primer nivel. Esta condición ha hecho que, en el marco de las Relaciones Internacionales y, en concreto, tras la pandemia, deba estudiarse de manera diferenciada su impacto sobre conceptos de las Relaciones Internacionales como la interdependencia. Todas las restricciones a la movilidad durante la pandemia se adoptaron a nivel nacional, sin ser acordadas ni coordinadas previamente a nivel de las instituciones de la UE. En el marco institucional, la Comisión Europea se limitó a adoptar un conjunto de medidas de derecho indicativo o softlaw destinadas a coordinar las medidas nacionales y a subrayar la importancia de la no discriminación y la proporcionalidad en su aplicación que, en muchos casos, no se respetó. La UE es una entidad compleja y dividida que implica a muchos actores -sociales, regionales, Estados miembros, instituciones supranacionales- y por tanto los modelos que adopta en situaciones de crisis repercuten no solo en los Estados miembros, sino que muestra la importancia de la complejidad en la era de la globalización. Un estudio de estos modelos, en cierta medida, nos facilita la posibilidad de establecer patrones que, a pesar de la complejidad de la sociedad (internacional) y las relaciones internacionales, nos permitirían ofrecer múltiples canales que faciliten la colaboración global en la solución de fenómenos específicos. La presente propuesta pretende contribuir a esclarecer esos patrones y consecuentemente establecer nuevas líneas de desarrollo en la investigación sobre el concepto de la interdependencia tras la pandemia ocasionada por la covid-19 en el espacio Schengen. Este nuevo marco de interpretación de la interdependencia contribuirá a la comprensión de algunos aspectos actuales de las Relaciones Internacionales contemporáneas. Así, la interdependencia que se genera en uno u otro modelo de convivencia entre estados determina en última instancia la respuesta de estos a mutaciones tan excepcionales como la generada por la covid-19 en 2020 y su impacto en lo que siempre se ha considerado uno de los logros más notables de la integración europea, el mercado único.Alternate :This research starts from the situation generated by the pandemic in 2022 in the Schengen area. Paradoxically, a few days before the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Schengen area, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of Coronavirus, a global pandemic which forced the closure of most European borders. What seemed to be a guaranteed right, freedom of movement, was suspended in order to control the pandemic. The decisions taken by states unilaterally generated complex derivations in the framework of complex interdependence within which the European Union operates. National measures, far from guaranteeing the four fundamental freedoms, highlighted the discrepancies and lack of integration in this area. The temporary restrictions on free movement indirectly signified the proclamation that public health and those freedoms cannot coexist in critical situations, eliminating any pretense of EU leadership. Transnational relations, which on the one hand led to the increasing interconnectedness of societies, on the other hand also resulted in the restriction of states' foreign policy spaces for action. This has led to the emergence of international governance, a model that has a strong influence on the development and functioning of the EU. Most EU Member States reacted quickly to the risk of the exponential spread of the coronavirus and adopted stringent preventive measures that culminated in unprecedented restrictions on the free movement of persons within the EU, with important consequences for the functioning of the internal market. The narrative of Europe as a ma ket power emerges as an alternative. The normative approach to European identity assumes that the very nature of the EU as a market predisposes it to use its economic capabilities as a foreign policy tool. Thus, an approach that emphasizes this fact will be analytically more appropriate than an approach based on the normative identity of the Union. This points to the gestation of a new form of global governance and the design of new mechanisms for cooperation between states in the framework of interdependence and could be seen as a starting point for the debate on whether interfering in the internal market with restrictions and prohibitions on mobility was a reasonable alternative for member states to take, considering other competing interests. That is, whether the situation generated by the pandemic justified the degree of interference with free movement within the EU. The European system of governance, the most developed in contemporary international relations, showed many weaknesses and even a regression during the pandemic;that is, to a pre-eminently intergovernmental process, led by the most powerful EU countries. The EU's international cooperation systems, mechanisms and instruments must lay the foundations for a new agenda adapted to the reality of a post-Covid multipolar and interdependent world. This article is organized in three parts. The first part focuses on situating the concept of interdependence in both traditional and contemporary International Relations. This interdependence is generated for different reasons, each of which specifically defines the model to be followed by states in their transnational relations. The progressive redistribution of global power towards multipolarity and the deepening of interdependence between states have given rise to a transition towards interpolarity in which cooperation/integration, multilateralism and the role of the great powers or polarity occupy a prominent place. This is due to the increase in the number, quality and nature of the different interconnections that, at the international level, take place between different types of actors. Once the concept of interdependence has been placed in a global framework, the impact of this phenomenon on the Schengen area will be studied as an element common to all Member States, but for which different solutions were offered. The temporary suspension of the Schengen area affected the four fundamental freedoms and, although some were affected more than others, there is no doubt about its impact on European systems. This impact, far from being gauged by the European Union as an organization, was managed unilaterally by the states that persisted in their isolationist attitude, reinforcing the scarce integration that the Schengen area has always experienced but which was necessary in this context. The difference in scope and rigidity of national travel restrictions and bans resulted in a spectrum of diverse and sometimes inconsistent restrictions across the Union. As an example, most entry bans to national territories contained exceptions for domestic nationals and residents: some provided exceptions for nationals, residents, and persons confirmed negative for Covid-19, whereas others offered exceptions to nationals, residents, and persons entering the national territory for valid reasons. The second part of our research focuses on a qualitative analysis of the restrictions in the Schengen area and whether the interdependence experienced in this area and its lack of integration favour or harm the EU's behaviour on the international stage. Member States justified all travel restrictions -including entry and exit bans to and from national territories- on public health grounds. In this sense, the removal of multilevel governance elements in different EU policy areas elevated issues originally from the European framework to the international level without considering their long-term impact. Thus, some EU covid-19 measures, such as the severe restrictions on free movement that affected refugee and asylum rights during the pandemic s owed that the terms of solidarity underpinning the framework for the implementation of refugee and asylum rights in the EU, which does not go beyond the national level, are not commensurate with the real need for concrete solutions in this area. The human rights implications of all these border closures are alarming and put at serious risk vulnerable populations that should be protected by these national and international legal obligations. With regards to the internal aspect, the Schengen area is a space where interdependence between states is clearly visible in such obvious and important areas as global trade in goods and services, capital transfers, and information connectivity, thanks to the Internet and social networks. For example, we see that during the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a direct link between, for example, the suspension of the Schengen area, the health systems of the Member States, and the health systems of the EU Member States.
ABSTRACT
Los retos a los que se enfrenta la Unión Europea crean en ocasiones situaciones de tensión, en las que la organización debe responder al mismo tiempo a la protección y garantía de los derechos fundamentales de su ciudadanía, y a necesidades de índole global que excepcionalmente requieren la suspensión de esos mismos derechos por un bien mayor. Este fue el caso durante la pandemia de 2020, en el que la Unión Europea y los Estados miembros decretaron cuarentenas en contra de la libertad de movimiento, para restringir los contactos e intentar contener los contagios. En este contexto se produjo también una implementación de políticas digitales para afrontar la gestión de la crisis, en concreto nos referimos a las aplicaciones covid de rastreo y vigilancia de los contactos entre individuos. Estas aplicaciones estaban sujetas a los requisitos y garantías del marco legislativo comunitario, que hemos visto evolucionar en los últimos dos años, para hacer frente a la creciente digitalización de los servicios públicos. El caso de las aplicaciones covid es paradigmático para observar cómo se ha producido esa adaptación. La injerencia de los estados de forma excepcional durante la crisis, pero regulada hoy en instrumentos de coordinación comunitarios, ha creado nuevos marcos de navegación en internet. Los usuarios cuentan ahora con un nuevo nivel de protección de sus datos personales y su derecho a la privacidad, que si bien venía garantizada por el Reglamento de Protección de Datos (679/2016), ha dado un importante paso adelante con la aceleración de la digitalización de la administración durante la pandemia. Además, a través de una crítica desde la teoría contractual, podemos ver cómo la Unión Europea ha respondido a las dinámicas globales a nivel de normativa digital, priorizando hoy un sistema de contrapesos y límites tanto a las empresas como a las administraciones públicas, en su intercambio con los usuarios en internet. Las aplicaciones covid materializan esas limitaciones y garantías de protección de los usuarios (esencialmente de su privacidad y derechos fundamentales), que nos llevan a plantear la creación de un nuevo contrato social digital, igual que se ha transformado en otras ocasiones para responder a cuestiones como la clase, el género, la raza y la ecología.Alternate :The challenges facing the European Union (EU) can sometimes create tensions, in which the organization must answer both to the protection and guarantee of the fundamental rights of its citizens, and to global needs that exceptionally require the suspension of those same rights for the greater good. In its liberal political tradition that believes in the existence of a public and a private sphere, it has established systems of checks and balances, rule of law and stable institutions to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens.Yet sometimes these must be suspended in cases of exceptionality for their own preservation. This was the case during the 2020 pandemic, when the European Union and its member States decreed quarantines against the consolidated and fundamental freedom of movement of persons, to restrict contacts and try to contain contagions. In this context, digital policies were also implemented to deal with crisis management, like Covid applications for tracing and monitoring contacts between individuals. This invasion of the private sphere of citizens had to be accompanied by a set of limitations and guarantees, to protect this inherent and private individual's right. These applications were subject to the requirements of the European legislative framework (the commonly known acquis communautaire), which included several legal instruments laid out by the EU to create a framework to guide the performance of its member-state Governments on this matter. Apart from the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive, we underline the importance of Recommendation (EU) 2020/518 that connects health rights, health management and data protection;and also, the importance of Communication 2020/C 124 I/01 th t set a series of ideal elements to guide apps functions, and established the importance that it is Government agencies that manage digital apps, so there is a guarantee of the protection of citizens' rights. Through the comparative study of how apps were managed when they first appeared in 2020 throughout most of 2021, and how apps evolved (both in management and use) in 2021 and throughout 2022, we can address the evolution of EU policy on digital matters, which have meant to create new frameworks for internet navigation. At first, there were 24 different apps for the 24 out of 27 Member States who decided to create and promote the use of these instruments among their citizens. Most of them were managed by national authorities (except for Austria and Romania who were managed by Red Cross and a local NGO respectively), and were developed by a public-private collaboration, or only public agencies.At the end of the crisis, at least politically since societal weariness and the economic crisis rendered it difficult to keep up the restrictions introduced in the spring of 2020, in June 2021 the EU created its GreenPass or vaccination passport.This policy was implemented in most countries and even though 24 different national health services were still in place, they all used the EU passport, available to citizens via their national health websites or apps. Even though the exceptionality of the pandemic has ended, one of the outcomes has been the establishment of a system of data gathering, storage and management for public means, managed by National Authorities, which has technically created a digital contract where the State guarantees citizens' digital rights. This is even more important as we attend to an increase in the digitalization of public services, especially since 2020.The changes were thus promoted in a state of exception during the crisis to regulate Government interference in the citizen's private sphere but have laid a roadmap for the development of the digital framework, which may lead to the conclusion of a digital social contract. The social contract appears in the EU's liberal tradition as a metaphor of the relation between the State and the individual, it defines the notion of sovereignty as the set of rights possessed by the citizen that may be subject to special protection. Hence, the social contract serves as the basis for creating modern societies, yet it is not permanent and can (and will) change when societies change accordingly. Several critiques have been made to the original social contract, creating new and developed contracts, including the class critique (from worker's movements and Marxism during the 19th Century to Piketty's present denouncing of social inequalities), the gender critique (as Carole Pateman's Sexual Contract puts it, the social contract institutionalized patriarchy), the racial critique (where Charles W. Mills develops the gender critique from a racial point of view where the social contract created a system of domination by the Western world) and finally the environmental critique (where its advocates claim for an eco-social contract or a nature social contract that shifts the approach to a bio-centric system). Therefore, the contract serves as a theoretical framework that can be changed, and in this case, it challenges the evolution towards a digital social contract. The evolution of internet and tech structures that support the web and its processes has been marked by three stages: its birth in the 80s by the hand of the State and linked to military research;its deregulation during the 90s and the privatization of the main telecommunications enterprises (in the case of the EU, the digital policy followed this trend);and the consolidation of a digital sphere in the 21st century, where the EU has taken a step back and created a set of instruments to guarantee the protection and freedom of its citizens when they navigate the internet. We can see how the EU has responded to global dynamics at the level of digital regulation, prioritizing today a multistakeholder system with s veral actors, and counterweights and limits for both companies and public administrations in their exchange with users on the internet. With the emergence of new spaces for social relations such as in the digital sphere, new types of sovereignty must be considered in order to guarantee the rights and privacy of users (we must not forget the importance of the separation between spheres, as fear liberalism reminds us, and of limiting exceptionality to those circumstances that really appear as such). Once the foundations on which the model of digital guarantees can be developed have been laid, the next step can be the creation of a real digital contract between users and the state on the internet. However, the contract is but an idea of reason for understanding politics and institutions, which begs the question of what digital politics we aspire to as societies.
ABSTRACT
El trabajo se centra en el estudio de la fundamentación jurídica de las normas que, en Estados Unidos y en los países miembros del Consejo de Europa, establecen la obligatoriedad de las vacunas contra la covid-19 en determinadas circunstancias o para determinados colectivos. La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo, en particular la sentencia Jacobson (1905), y del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, singularmente la reciente sentencia Vavricka contra la República Checa (2020), es objeto de particular estudio. En ambas regiones del mundo existe una amplia coincidencia en varios aspectos: la competencia para acordar la obligatoriedad de las vacunas corresponde a los estados;esa obligatoriedad resulta respetuosa con los derechos de los ciudadanos cuando se adopta bajo determinadas circunstancias: riesgo grave de pandemia, existencia de vacunas eficaces y seguras, y ausencia de medidas alternativas menos invasivas. Las normas que establecen la obligatoriedad de la vacuna contra la covid-19 se enmarcan en el conjunto de las políticas públicas sobre vacunas que se han impulsado tanto a nivel estatal como de los organismos intergubernamentales. No se puede entender completamente el alcance de esas normas que obligan a los ciudadanos a recibir la vacuna si no ampliamos previamente el foco de atención y ofrecemos una panorámica de todas las cuestiones controvertidas que ha traído consigo el proceso de desarrollo, autorización, producción, priorización, distribución e información sobre esta vacuna. En cada una de estas cuestiones los estados han ido adoptando distintas posiciones, y frecuentemente lo han hecho con el propósito de reforzar su posición de poder en el contexto internacional. Como en tantas otras ocasiones, los principales actores estatales han sido Estados Unidos, China, Rusia y la Unión Europea. La aproximación somera a dichas controversias nos ilustra acerca del papel crucial que las vacunas contra la covid-19 han tenido y siguen teniendo en las relaciones internacionales: han servido por igual para tejer redes de colaboración, reforzar rivalidades y mantener desigualdades flagrantes.Alternate :The most important and effective action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, once it was verified that the initial immunity due to contagion or generalized confinements did not solve the problem in the medium term, has been vaccination. The success of vaccines is nothing new. Throughout the history of humankind, vaccines have served to reduce and even eliminate some serious communicable diseases. It is not an exaggeration to say that, together with the purification of water and penicillin, the vaccination of the population against certain diseases is one of the greatest achievements both in the fields of public health and the health of individuals. However, the success of vaccines, not only in this pandemic, but throughout history, has always been in doubt. Despite the evidence of the preventative effect of vaccines, the anti-vaccine movement has endured over time and has even grown in recent decades. Such opposition has not diminished with the efficiency and safe results that the new vaccines against Covid-19 have produced using mRNA technology;on the contrary, it has continued to expand. After the development and authorization of vaccines against covid-19 in record time, the first challenge faced by vaccination campaigns around the world was to determine the priority in access to the resource when the availability of vaccines was still scarce. The criteria followed at this point were, at least in Europe, quite uniform, prioritizing the vaccination of those most in need. That is, the elderly, who are the most prone to suffering serious illnesses. Access to vaccines was very unequal worldwide and, to avoid this, different strategies were proposed, including the suspension of patent rights or the creation of the COVAX vaccine initiative to supply countries that could not buy them. Once a greater number of vaccines were available, and prioritizing access to them was no longer the main ethical-le al issue, the debate arose in many countries about the opportunity to incorporate vaccination as a legal duty. This involved changing the majority opinion in the world;although already the subject of discussion before the pandemic, it was argued to be a moral duty to receive the recommended vaccines to preserve public health and that of others. World public opinion was very attentive to this issue of compulsory vaccination, perhaps due to the rejection that vaccines aroused in certain sectors of the population and, in particular, the vaccine against Covid-19. The discussion about the balance between the freedom of individuals and the achievement of a collective interest as important as public and individual health was resolved at the legal level by the courts of justice. Specifically, the rulings of the Supreme Court in the United States and the European Court of Human Rights in Europe established criteria that were basically convergent. Both courts understand that states have the competency to oblige the population to be vaccinated in order to safeguard their health as long as certain requirements are met: a serious risk of a pandemic, a safe and effective vaccine to combat the disease exists, and the absence of less invasive measures to achieve the same result. These rulings have served to support the specific legal measures that were adopted during the pandemic by both the different states of the United States and the member states of the Council of Europe. Necessarily different concepts have been confused in the debate, in particular those of mandatory and forced vaccination, which do not belong to the same category because they limit different fundamental rights and do so with different levels of intensity. When speaking of mandatory vaccination, reference is made to a duty whose non-compliance determines a legal consequence, be it an economic sanction or a limitation of a right. Thus, the individual who neglects the obligation to be vaccinated will be fined, have their freedom of movement restricted, their working conditions altered or their employment and salary suspended. The legal consequence is not the forced vaccination of those who resist the vaccine, but generally an economic fine. On the contrary, when it comes to forced vaccination, the individual who disregards the obligation will be legally compelled to be vaccinated, resorting even to force if necessary. In other words, the right affected directly by the measure here is the integrity of the individual. These are, therefore, two measures of different significance, from the perspective of the rights ultimately affected by the limitation, and this difference must be taken into account from the principle of proportionality. In this paper we offer an overview of the various responses adopted by different States in relation to whether or not vaccination is mandatory, which have ranged from mandatory for certain groups or even for the entire population. Among those measures of indirect persuasion for vaccination are "covid passports". Our work identifies a broad agreement in the international community on the compatibility between mandatory vaccination and the safeguarding of fundamental rights when certain conditions are met. It is also recognized that proportionality in the adoption of measures is the most effective way to achieve the desired objective of reaching high levels of vaccination in the population. In any case, it would have been desirable to have advanced formulas of persuasion that would have gone beyond information and training, without incurring in the adoption of measures that strongly restrict personal liberty, such as compulsory vaccination. Faced with this international agreement, we do not find shared criteria in other areas related to vaccines: their development and authorization, their fair distribution, or information about them. This absence of shared visions and cooperation gives rise to rivalries that reinforce the traditional clashes between powers. As the purpose of the work is to compare the legal foundations of the mandatory na ure of vaccines in two territories that exert significant influence in other parts of the world, and to do so from a contextual perspective. The work has not attempted to carry out an exhaustive approach to any of the many questions raised, but rather to outline, based on some of the most accredited jurisprudential and doctrinal sources, some provisional conclusions which, at least in some cases, must be subject to successive revisions.
ABSTRACT
Vaccination passports are being issued by governments around the world in order to open up their travel and hospitality sectors. Civil liberty campaigners on the other hand argue that such mandatory instruments encroach upon our fundamental right to anonymity, freedom of movement, and are a backdoor to issuing "identity documents” to citizens by their governments. We present a privacy-preserving framework that uses two-factor authentication to create a unique identifier that can be used to locate a person's vaccination record on a blockchain, but does not store any personal information about them. Our main contribution is the employment of a locality sensitive hashing algorithm over an iris extraction technique, that can be used to authenticate users and anonymously locate vaccination records on the blockchain, without leaking any personally identifiable information to the blockchain. Our proposed system allows for the safe reopening of society, while maintaining the privacy of citizens. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
ABSTRACT
This article aims to highlight the restrictions imposed by the Spanish State on freedom of movement. Once these restrictions are described in the first three waves of the Covid-19 pandemic, we reflect on the possible excesses of the government by increasing its control over a concerned citizenry and in fear of the pandemic. However, there is an unexpected consequence in people's political attitudes: a reduction in preferences towards democracy, in favor of authoritarianism. © GKA Ediciones, authors.
ABSTRACT
The aim of the work is to study the institution of restriction of human rights and freedoms in the face of an emergency danger to human health, the legal grounds and limits of such restrictions in the doctrine of international law. The empirical basis of the study was the norms of international treaties and other legal acts, as well as materials from foreign periodicals. In the course of the study, the corresponding special-legal methods were applied: formal-legal, comparative-legal, hermeneutic. The author came to the conclusion that international law allows in some cases the restriction of human rights and freedoms, including in the presence of a serious threat to public health. The institution of human rights and freedoms in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is undergoing a major transformation, which may result in the emergence of a new paradigm of human rights. Many states that are the founders of the European humanism, which appeared to be a fundament of modern international law, but, under the influence of the pandemic, they are gradually moving away from its basic principle of recognizing a person as the highest value, implemented through the idea of autonomy and universality of the individual. Some modern states are actively cultivating other values and principles compared to European humanism, in which the public (collective) good, in particular, the health of the whole society, is a priority, while limiting the autonomy of human person and individual rights. Arbitrary introduction by states of restrictions on human rights and freedoms, bypassing international law, and in particular ignoring the recommendations of the World Health Organization, a specialized international body authorized to ensure public health at the global level, undermines the international legal order and creates additional difficulties in the fight against the pandemic. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that the study substantiated the criteria for restricting human rights and freedoms in the face of a global threat to public health in a pandemic. Such restrictions must be proportionate to the threat and scientifically justified. When introducing restrictions, arbitrariness or discrimination is excluded;restrictions must be limited in time and must not prejudice the democratic functioning of society. The practical significance of the study is that significant contradictions were identified between the proper (formal) procedure for restricting human rights and freedoms established by international law and the actual practice of subjects of international law. Overcoming these contradictions is possible only through strict observance of the norms and principles of international law. Significant changes in the political and legal essence of the modern state are revealed. The model of the state that developed in the Modern Times is undergoing a major transformation: the concept of a social contract based on the limitation of state power in the interests of the individual is increasingly giving way to the unlimited right of state intervention in private life.
ABSTRACT
Globalization as an economic-political process, based on the freedom of movement of labor, capital, goods, services, information, solidarity between countries and the in recent decades, is imposed as a basic option for growth, development and increasing living standards. Globalists have never emphasized the negative effects of globalization, such as creating conditions for increasing drugs trafficking and other illicit things, human trafficking, creating conditions for increasing terrorism, creating growing disparities between rich and poor, and what is, no less important, exploitation of the underdeveloped by the developed. The migrant crisis has completely exposed everything that was proclaimed years ago. Already "erased" borders have become stronger than ever (countries have literally fenced themselves off with multi-level physical barriers) [11], rigorous entry measures have been introduced, etc. A further collapse of globalization has been caused by a corona virus pandemic. The countries that most proclaimed freedom of movement made it impossible, there was a lack of solidarity in the equal distribution of medicines and other medical devices, especially vaccines. Thus, globalization is no longer a common interest, but the interests of nation-states have become the only interests and disregards for other countries and their interests. The aim of this paper is to show that globalization, as an economic and political process, results in the creation of wealth for the already rich and the poverty of the poor, as well as the exploitation of the poor by the rich. In addition, the paper should show that in case of crisis (migrant crisis and pandemic), globalization shows all its negative effects manifested by lack of solidarity, taking into account only their own interests, breaking trade and international trade chains, increasing prices of all products, etc. During this research, the method of analysis and synthesis, the method of induction and deduction and descriptive analysis will be used, and a conclusion will be made on the basis of all relevant data.
ABSTRACT
The need to prevent the rapid spread of Covid-19 has led to restrictive measures. Such trends require proper scientific and legal analysis, rethinking existing approaches to realising rights. At the same time, the legal nature and essence of such restrictions should be clarified. This is due to the nature of the Covid-19 pandemic, as such restrictions have a positive effect on curbing the spread of the viral disease. Currently, the vector of major human rights violations is related to compulsory vaccination. It is necessary to continue this research and follow the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The study used general and special scientific methods of scientific research of legal phenomena, namely: comparative, formal-logical, system-structural, dialectical, and other methods. The dialectical method of cognition allowed us to study the national civil legislation, taking into account the international standards. The public interest in the form of preserving safety, health, and human life determines the establishment of restrictions in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic. Here, the goal of the state to ensure the security of the nation and the public interest are closely related. The comparative legal method was used to determine the common and distinctive features. The formal-logical method contributed to establishing the conceptual apparatus and content of current legislation, highlighting the contradictions in current legislation. The system of human rights was studied by system -structural analysis. The aim was to solve complex problems of restrictions on human rights due to Covid-19.
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus broke out in Europe in January 2020, throughout February and March, the number of pandemic-related measures increasing significantly. The crisis leads to the introduction of unprecedented restrictions across Member States, and the variety of national responses intensified with the evolution of the pandemic. In terms of internal measures, the most common choice was the introduction of a lockdown, while external measures generally included travel and entry restrictions and the reintroduction of border checks. Restrictions and bans on travel have an especially important meaning in the Schengen Area, the 'borderless ' part of Europe. The article aims at making a radiography of government measures introduced in the fight against the pandemic in the European Union, with a special focus on Romania the effects of the restrictive measures on cross-border travel behaviour and patterns across the Romanian-Hungarian border. To achieve this, an online survey was conducted to analyse to what extent restrictive measures targeting travel affected cross-border travel towards Hungary. Both Romania and Hungary have followed the EU trend in their measures, and it seems that these, more or less, had an impact only on the frequency of travels across their shared border. Other aspects, such as changes in border-crossing process and citizen's acceptance of their domestic restrictions are also analysed here.
ABSTRACT
The study examines the legal nature of administrative measures to curb the COVID-19 pandemic and their impact on the development of law. The recognition of the global spread of COVID-19 as a pandemic by the World Health Organization led to the adoption of large-scale administrative measures around the world to minimize the effect of the pandemic on public health. In the Russian Federation, these measures are expressed in the form of a special legal regime - a high-readiness regime. The purpose of the paper is to reveal various aspects of the impact of administrative measures for the protection of public health during the pandemic on the trends in the development of law as a regulator of public relations. To achieve the set goal, the study addresses the following objectives: the concept of public health is examined as a category that requires comprehensive support on the part of the state, the dynamics of law-making activities of Russian authorities in the course of the pandemic are analyzed;the measures adopted to preserve public health in the spread of COVID-19 that are associated with the restriction of certain constitutional rights of citizens are examined. A comparative study of anti-COVID restrictions in different countries of the world is carried out, their categories depending on the degree of severity are identified. The influence of the restrictions on the development of legal regulation of social relations is studied. An argument is presented that the imperative method of permissive type of regulation is predominant in the fight against the pandemic. The problem of admissibility of limitation of certain constitutional rights of citizens when introducing anti-COVID restrictions is analyzed. Based on the results of the study, proposals are formulated to bring in line the fundamental acts on human rights and the new legislation on the protection of public health.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 has overtaken human freedom of movement and association. Moreover, the infection has claimed numerous lives of more than a million people by the middle of 2021. Given the numerous forest ecosystems services and benefits to humans and biodiversity, urban forests and parks provide a significant part by offering urban dwellers recreational and leisure space, mental health relief, and meditation. Consequently, this data aims to give a clear state of forest visits to a forest near Brno City before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical experts, leaders, and policymakers could use this data to make better decisions regarding lockdown rules, recreational services during the lockdown, and epidemiological situations. Moreover, this data will help other researchers on health and welfare issues concerning forest and urban nature visits and other recreation services. Using TRAFx Infrared Trail Counter, we counted visitors in the Training Forest Enterprise Masaryk Forest Křtiny in the outskirts of Brno City in the Czech Republic. Data (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8NAKW) has been prepared and presented herein for further use. © 2022 Public Recreation and Landscape Protection - With Environment Hand in Hand? Proceedings of the 13th Conference. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
The essay concerns the ordinances of 2021 with which, in order to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, some regional Presidents introduced entry bans for non-residents in their respective territories. After having scrutinized their conditions and ascertained their illegitimacy for violation of art. 120 of the Constitution, the Author put these ordinances in the context of the emergency regulation of the pandemic. This regulation has subjected the fundamental principles of the Republican Constitution to formidable tension. © 2021 Societa Editrice il Mulino. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
This paper aims at analyzing, on the one hand, the territorial and time limitations of the freedom of movement imposed in Spain due to the Covid-19 pandemic on the basis of the health legislation. On the other hand, it also aims at studying the new authorization and ratification mechanism of health measures. The purpose of that all is to check the legal viability of that measures imposed outside of the law of exception and the problems it has recently raised. © UNED. Revista de Derecho Político
ABSTRACT
La covid-19 planteó varios retos a todas las organizaciones en general y, especialmente, a las cooperativas de solidaridad social. Sin embargo, los desafíos que enfrentan estas cooperativas tienen características únicas que provienen de las características especiales en comparación con el otro tipo de cooperativas. Por lo tanto, es vital estudiar estos desafíos y los impactos de covid-19. Este estudio tiene como objetivo principal entender esos retos e impactos. Se realizó un estudio exploratorio realizando 11 entrevistas a 11 cooperativas de solidaridad social. Las cooperativas fueron elegidas por ser heterogéneas entre las cooperativas existentes en Portugal. Este estudio corresponde a la primera fase de un proyecto que aún está en marcha. Este artículo presenta los principales resultados del análisis de contenido de los datos recogidos con las entrevistas. Los datos muestran que las cooperativas pudieron adaptarse rápidamente y continuar con su misión bajo la presión de la pandemia, a pesar de las primeras dificultades presentadas en una situación nueva y desconocida, mostrando una capacidad de adaptación y de servicio a sus socios. Sin embargo, estos socios también se vieron sometidos a varios retos nuevos y crecientes. Las adaptaciones fueron posibles gracias a los cambios legales en la ley de organización del trabajo, desde el despido hasta el teletrabajo, al apoyo gubernamental que implica programas financieros, al IVA y a la flexibilización de otros impuestos, así como a la reorganización de los recursos humanos y a la actitud positiva del personal de las cooperativas ante las dificultades (tanto de los dirigentes como de los trabajadores en general). Las diferencias entre las cooperativas de solidaridad social estudiadas en relación con las tecnologías digitales mostraron que las que ya contaban con alguna infraestructura tuvieron pequeñas dificultades para adaptarse.Alternate :Covid-19 posed several challenges to all organisations in general and to social solidarity cooperatives in particular. However, the challenges faced by these cooperatives have unique features arising from their special characteristics compared to other types of cooperatives. Therefore it is vital to study these challenges and the impacts of covid-19. This study has as main goal to understand those challenges and their impact. An exploratory study was undertaken by applying 11 interviews to 11 social solidarity cooperatives. The cooperatives were chosen to be heterogeneous among the existent cooperatives in Portugal. This study corresponds to the first phase of a project that is still underway. This article presents the main results of the content analysis of the data collected from the interviews. Data show cooperatives could promptly adapt and continue their mission under pressure from the pandemic despite the first difficulties encountered in a new and unknown situation, showing a capacity to adapt and serve their members. However, these members were also submitted to several increasing and new challenges. The adaptations were possible due to legal changes in the work organisa- tion law, from layoff to telework, government support involving financial programs, VAT, and other tax relaxation, as well as due to human resources reorganisation and the cooperatives' staff positive attitude towards the difficulties (both leaders and general workers). Differences between the social solidarity cooperatives under study concerning digital technologies showed that those already having some infrastructure had minor adapting difficulties.
ABSTRACT
In December 2019, the world experienced a pandemic that called into question what we always took for granted, such as our freedom of movement. Tough restrictions imposed across the world were necessary to stem the transmission of the COVID-19 virus and have largely affected the mobility and transport sector. In a first phase, due to the mandatory confinement that forced people not to leave their houses;in a second phase, when the measures eased and people started to have the need to move again, it was necessary to look for alternative means of transport that avoided the gathering of people. In view of the advances that were being made in recent years towards a Mobility-as-a-Service paradigm that advocates multimodal and shared transport, the pandemic has raised many challenges. In this paper, a statistical analysis of the mobility data made available by Apple from January 2020 to March 2021 is presented, where the reduction in the use of public transport becomes evident, leading us to question what the future of Mobility-as-a-Service will be as its foundation advocates, among other aspects, the use of a shared transport model. Despite the challenges that the pandemic has brought to Mobility-as-a-Service, a set of opportunities are presented that can be used in the short and medium term to strengthen the paradigm and enhance its massive adoption. © 2021 IEEE.
ABSTRACT
The year 2020 and also 2021 brought both progress and setbacks in terms of fundamental rights protection. The COVID-19 Pandemic triggered multiple crises not only at the sanitary level. In this context, people in Europe and also all over the world had the impress that their fundamental rights are not respected and limited. The paper offers a perspective about the impact of COVID-19 on human rights and emphasis some highlights weaknesses.