جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « covid- 19 » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

The emergence of epidemics and their rapid spread is the result of the nature of international life, which has seen a significant increase in the movement of people and goods. states have realized this issue for a long time, especially after the Second World War, this task was entrusted to the World Health Organization as the guardian of the health and safety of the people of the world. The World Health Organization has faced many challenges during its lifetime, which spans more than seven decades, but the most difficult of these challenges was the Covid-19 crisis. The organization has already tried to deal with this epidemic, and considering that there are 4 million deaths worldwide, it can be described as a failure. This lack of success is rooted in several reasons, which are either related to the structure of the organization or related to its working mechanism. This article is trying to investigate the possible reasons for the failure of the World Health Organization and in this regard, it tries to examine and discuss the necessary solutions to improve the performance of this organization in order to fight against epidemics.

"The right to health" is considered one of the fundamental rights of citizenship and the basic pillars in the international human rights system, which among its threatening factors is the spread of infectious diseases that can lead to the creation of a public health emergency; A situation that causes public health risk for people and requires taking special measures to manage and control it. Considering the epidemic of the corona virus as the most important example of epidemic diseases at present, this research, using the library method and descriptive-analytical approach, sought to answer the question that what are the necessity, rules and criteria for the formulation of the public health emergency law? The findings show that first; Although the current legal system of Iran has considered the capacities to realize the aforementioned cases, but considering the specific requirements of the public health emergency, the adoption of a comprehensive and independent law in this area is considered useful and of course necessary. Secondly; Cases such as "Prediction of the central decision-making headquarters", "Information, transparency and accountability in dealing with epidemic diseases", "Recognition of responsibility for the government and citizens", "Establishing necessary restrictions regarding public health" and "Criminalizing behaviors that threaten the health of citizens" They can be identified as the most important rules and criteria governing the public health emergency law.

International responsibility, as one of the most basic international legal institutions, creates rights and obligations for members of the international community, especially governments, which provides the basis for the establishment of the rule of law in the international community. In this regard, he first discussed the nature of human rights, the right to access medicine and vaccines, and examined the obligations and role of international community cooperation in dealing with and controlling global diseases, including Covid-19, and then examined the international responsibility of governments towards Violation of obligations related to access to treatment and vaccines for global diseases for people under their sovereign authority has been discussed and subsequently the international responsibility of governments in the field of dealing with newly emerging diseases, including Covid-19, is discussed.

The present research has been scrutinized, analyzed, and investigated using a descriptive and analytical method based on documentary studies with a survey tool.

International Health Regulations (2005) along with some rules of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (1994), the core of the obligations between international organization of governments to control and deal with global diseases, including covid-19, and on the other hand, paying attention to the importance of the cooperation of governments in dealing with global diseases, commitment It is against the international community and neglect and negligence on the part of the governments in this field, including treatment,

With the outbreak of the Covid19  pandemic, the ways to prevent the spread of the virus challenged the privacy at national and international scope. Conflicting the right to privacy with other rights, such as protecting the lives and health of others or securing public interests requires taking an appropriate approach to balancing privacy protection with the need for reasonable and necessary information and action due to prevention of the spread of the pandemic. This article takes a comparative view; it uses library resources, studies the guidelines and follows practical measures at the pillars and legal status of the conflict between privacy and citizens' right to health and the fight against the Covid 19 pandemic in Iran and France to address the questions whether control of pandemic can be one of the exceptions to the need to protect the privacy of individuals, and if so, what the legal principles and rules governing this response are. In order to answer these question, the author emphasizes the legal gaps in the current legal system of Iran, both in the field of substantive laws and in the field of defining organizations and technical institutions whose existence and powers are derived from legislative channels. It is argued that the privacy, as one of the most vulnerable areas of fundamental rights and its provision mechanisms in the event of widespread diseases as an emergency situation, should be comprehensively supported in light of specialized legislation based on universal principles of human rights. It is emphasized that providing public health should not act as an extra-legal tool to violate the right to privacy, and governments can make decisions and take action in this field within pre-defined legal and technical frameworks.

Infectious diseases, especially Covid-19, have spread rapidly worldwide in recent years and have caused severe human, financial, economic, and other damage to countries. Space technologies have been essential in dealing with the disease and providing services to all people. However, using the technologies raises some legal issues. Providing services and information from space technologies without discrimination among all countries and their availability will be crucial in curbing these diseases. Do the existing space laws present the necessary platform for using space technologies to confront diseases and develop international cooperation? Moreover, what legal regulations are necessary to improve the availability of information to everyone and protect privacy in the future? The international space community should develop new regulations and guidelines to monitor data transfer and international cooperation between countries. To achieve this goal, they should facilitate international cooperation in space information transmission for all countries and prevent privacy violations. While examining some principles of the existing international space laws that frame the use of space technologies to confront infectious diseases, this article discusses legal issues and provides solutions.

The epidemic, and indeed the pandemic, of COVID-19, which has engulfed the world for over three years, has affected tens, if not hundreds of millions of people, claiming the lives of several million worldwide and leaving extensive human and financial losses in its wake. In Iran, besides the loss of life, the government's suspension of economic activities and the costs of prevention and treatment of this disease have caused substantial damage to the country's economy and individuals. These human and financial losses sometimes resulted from individuals not adhering to the guidelines of the National Coronavirus Headquarters and health protocols, and at other times, due to the actions or inaction of government officials. For example, due to improper government management, the disease spread during certain periods, leading to fatalities and financial losses for some.Considering the government's ample resources and authority for controlling the coronavirus and implementing healthcare measures, can it be argued that government negligence, shortcomings, and mismanagement will result in attributing the losses to it? This research, conducted descriptively and analytically, examines the legal provisions that address the government's responsibilities in the field of healthcare and evaluates the government's performance during this period. It can be concluded that, in some cases, the principle of "Ehsan" (benevolence) will come to the government's aid, and based on the general principle "We are beneficent to those in need," it will be immune from liability. However, in certain instances, the damages inflicted on the people due to government shortcomings can be deemed compensable.

Blocking borders in times of emergency has been associated with conflicting interpretations and approaches, so that its interpretation as a governance-oriented issue is intertwined with criteria such as national security. However, it is necessary to adapt the issue of border movement restrictions to the special situations of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in the realm of international law and to answer the question: Can these restrictions be synonymous with violating human fundamental rights? be considered Therefore, in this research, which is based on a descriptive-analytical method, it was firstly determined that preventing the access of refugees by blocking the borders is a clear violation of Articles 9 and 33 of the Geneva Convention and governments cannot impose restrictions on their movement. especially that the situation of refugees or asylum seekers is different from ordinary people. Based on the method of analogical reasoning, it was determined: national security cannot act as an element to justify the blocking of borders in widespread epidemics, because the needs of national security must be interpreted based on an objective and potential threat and in practical terms, the threat against national security has also been raised. from a collective reaction.

The international community was for more than three years embroiled in a health-biological catastrophe caused by Cuvid-19 disease, which has probably spread due to the inherent speed of air transport and has seriously endangered the health of the world's people and unprecedently reduce or stopped all activities, including air transport activates around the world and sent many people into the jaws of death.
Undoubtedly, civil aviation has long been recognized as the fastest means of transportation and commercial transfer within and beyond national borders and it has often been used as a means of appeasing people, especially in providing relief to communities in distress, whether natural disasters, famines, diseases, or wars. In other words, air transport has played two opposite roles in this type of crisis in the last two decades in two different directions: First - to accelerate the transmission of epidemic and pandemic diseases; Second, to play a positive role in managing and controlling disease due to having a previous plan for the readiness and sustainability of global aviation in a critical situation. This paper seeks to explain the above duplicate with analytical and descriptive view with library and field method in the context of
international aviation law. it seems civil aviation effects on control and outbreak of Contagious diseases

The outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in 2019 prompted global efforts to develop vaccines and combat its spread. As countries grappled with the devastating effects of the pandemic, discussions on compulsory vaccination, particularly for children, emerged from the intersection of human rights and bioethics. This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach, relying on library resources, to investigate the implications of compulsory vaccination for children, especially in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine. The central question explored is whether such requirements align with bioethical principles and respect human rights. Human rights documents universally recognize the fundamental importance of respecting human rights, including the right to health and individual freedoms. Governments and health systems worldwide have pledged to uphold these rights as a priority. However, the unprecedented challenges posed by the pandemic brought forth a complex ethical dilemma: striking a balance between protecting public health and safeguarding individual liberties. The crisis  underscored the tension between ethics and rights, necessitating a thoughtful evaluation of compulsory vaccination policies. The Principle of Solidarity and Compulsory Vaccination for Adults The principle of solidarity, a cornerstone of bioethics, calls for collective responsibility and unity for the greater good of society. Governments may take measures to promote public health, even if they entail some limitations on individual freedoms. In emergency situations like a pandemic, the principle of solidarity justifies compulsory vaccination for adults. Vaccination not only shields the vaccinated individuals but also provides protection to those who cannot receive the vaccine due to medical reasons. By achieving herd immunity, societies can combat the spread of the virus more effectively. However, the principle of solidarity does not unconditionally justify mandatory vaccination. While it can support compulsory vaccination for adults, the intervention must be necessary, proportional, and respectful of individual rights. Governments must carefully consider the balance between public health benefits and potential infringements on individual autonomy. Informed Consent and the Rights of Children When it comes to children, additional ethical considerations emerge. The principle of informed consent is paramount, underpinning human rights conventions such as the Nuremberg Laws. Consent must be obtained from the parents or guardians before vaccinating children. This requirement highlights the importance of respecting the autonomy of parents in making decisions on behalf of their children while safeguarding their well-being. The Ethics of Compulsory Vaccination for Children To assess the ethics of compulsory vaccination for children, an examination of COVID-19's impact on different age groups is crucial. Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that the disease's severity and mortality are disproportionately higher among the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. In contrast, the statistics reveal that children experience milder cases and lower mortality rates. Consequently, prioritizing compulsory vaccination for at-risk groups, particularly adults, aligns with the ethical principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the unique nature of COVID-19 vaccines demands careful ethical evaluation. Traditional childhood vaccines, such as those for Poliovirus (OPV) and MMR, have long-established safety records and proven efficacy, developed through a thorough biological cycle spanning 10 to 15 years. In contrast, COVID-19 vaccines are relatively new and have undergone expedited development due to the urgency of the pandemic. This situation raises ethical concerns about the extent of knowledge regarding their long-term effects and efficacy, especially in the context of compulsory vaccination for children. Morality, Proportionality, and Necessity Enforcing compulsory vaccination for children requires a thorough evaluation of moral justifications. Given the relatively low infection and death rates among children due to COVID-19, implementing such policies without adequate consideration of the principles of necessity and proportionality could be deemed immoral. Balancing the potential benefits of vaccination against the limited risk children face from the disease is essential to ensure ethical decision-making. Conclusion This study sheds light on the complex interplay between human rights and bioethics concerning compulsory vaccination for children, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the principle of solidarity supports mandatory vaccination for adults in emergencies, the ethical implications of enforcing vaccination for children demand careful consideration. Respect for informed consent, the principle of proportionality, and a commitment to protect individual rights are essential in navigating this challenging terrain. Striking a balance between public health imperatives and individual freedoms is crucial to ensuring morally justifiable and ethically sound policies regarding compulsory vaccination.

Open government, as a government based on the right to know, has positive functions in interacting with citizens, and it affects the acceptability of the government and its actions. Open government data has recently attracted a lot of attention as a tool to innovate, add value and improve outcomes in various sectors, public and private. Although some of the benefits of open government plans have been evaluated in the past, especially in terms of economic efficiency and the like, its evaluation in the field of law and politics, emphasizing the application of open government policy to manage the Covid-19 pandemic, has been less observed. The main challenge of the current research was to investigate the role of open government in the management of the Covid-19 epidemic in comparison with the policies implemented by the Iranian government. It was found that Iran's laws in the field of separation of publishable and non-publishable information, the need to publish all information, except in exceptional cases, and the methods of monitoring and complaining in cases of non-publishing of information are faced with fundamental weaknesses. In general, the indicators of open government, such as transparency and trust, have fundamental weaknesses, and the lack of timely and effective provision of information and reasons for decisions led to the poor management of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The pandemic and globalization of the corona virus disrupted normal life all over the world, and there is always the fear of its reoccurrence or similar diseases. Among the consequences of these widespread diseases are school closures, restrictions, remote work, education and social distancing, which have affected everyone in some way. Children also suffer from problems and injuries in this situation and they need special care and support to fully benefit from their rights. The extent of the impact of pandemics on the life of children, including not attending school and staying away from their peers, lack of activity in the environment and outdoors, changes in economic conditions, anxiety and worry about health, have been among the most important topics analyzed in this research and the answer to the issue of how to protect children, support them and secure their rights in this situation has been examined.

This article is descriptive-analytical and using the library method, by reviewing articles, books and legal instruments.

The Corona crisis has put the future of a generation at risk, the vulnerability of children in this era has increased significantly compared to before, and as a result, it is necessary to make the right decision and it requires more understanding and effort from the family, society and the government.

Neglecting the effects of mental injuries and educational and educational problems resulting from the pandemic on children is irreparable. Based on paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the best interests of the child; It is necessary to plan short-term and long-term programs in the three branches of the country, including the establishment of more explicit regulations, as well as informing the audience through communication tools such as media, virtual space, and educational brochures in order to prevent serious risks and minimize their damage, so that families and society can are working hard together to protect the rights of children.

The sudden emergence of Covid-19 in the world has caused great concern in human life, so that the high rate of coronavirus transmission has endangered the health of members of society and provided the ground for an offense against the person in a in a different way. In English and Welsh law, where a person intentionally or recklessly transmits Covid-19 to another, without causing death, or causes a fear of transmitting the coronavirus, a form of assault is committed, and also an aggravated punishment followed in the circumstances such as committing an assault against one of the emergency workers, or with racial or religious motives. But in Iranian law, despite the fact that the crime against the limbs involves various injuries, the specific criminal title of the aforementioned behaviors, especially where they have been committed recklessly, is ambiguous; At the same time, the possibility of increasing punishment due to the aforementioned factors is unknown. Therefore, in the present paper, with a comparative method, the transmission of Covid-19 to another in the light of criminal laws of the mentioned countries has considered and solutions such as providing a specific criminal title for the transmission of dangerous diseases as well as aggravating factors are proposed.

Following the characterization of the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic by World Health Organization, it was discovered that one of the early sources of the virus spread was a cruise ship. The peculiar nature of the coronavirus and the unique characteristics of cruise ships proved to be a major barrier to disease prevention and control. Due to the current international legal framework, the pandemic left negative impacts on the fundamental human rights of travelers and crews, including right to health, right to life and repatriation. The high costs of medical treatment, flag of convenience, port and coastal state conflict of jurisdiction, the self-centered approach of states to prioritize their citizens’ health and national security, and lack of cooperation between cruise-industry stakeholders caused an unprecedented crisis at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic defined a new threshold for international health crisis, so any future cooperation should be at the international level and based on solidarity between all stakeholders in order to be effective.

While the origin of Covid-19 is a controversial issue, there is no doubt that accountability for its outbreak requires incorporation of environmental aspects to international crimes. This paper aims to establish the relationship between the Covid-19 pandemic and international criminal justice by analyzing the content of international instruments and legal authorities. It will be argued that pandemics are related to violations of fundamental human rights and systematic poverty and that international criminal justice must address the underlying factors of the pandemic, although it presently lacks the ability to achieve this important goal. Regarding the impact of Covid-19 on the process of transitional justice for victims of international crimes and violations of human-rights and humanitarian law, it will be observed that the efforts of the relevant governments are somewhat shaky and the implementation process has been slow and constrained. In order to achieve criminal justice as regards Covid-19, the intervention of the International Criminal Court is worth considering, as the court's efforts to fulfill its mission of combating the impunity of international crimes are becoming increasingly conspicuous.

This article aims to address the human rights obligations of pharma companies regarding access to vaccines and other drugs that are produced for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. It seems that the UN Guidelines on Trade and Human Rights are among the most important documents and organizations which give pharma and vaccine companies some responsibility and fair access to vaccines and special medicines, in case of emergency. Since the right of access to vaccines is a fundamental human right, access must be provided fairly in the emergency conditions of a pandemic virus. Besides, discrimination, monopolies and nationalism must be avoided as much as possible. The results illustrate that public access to the COVID-19 vaccine is justified under the heading of social contract and it persuades human rights to support the idea of corporate social responsibility more broadly. Other results of this article indicate that there are many challenges to achieving universal access to vaccines, including nationalism, monopolies, exorbitant pricing, and the spread of corruption. It is hoped that, with proper monitoring by international organizations and the World Health Organization, these challenges can be reduced to pave the way for fair access to vaccines as a fundamental human right.

A citizenship is a person who is located in a certain political society and has a common citizenship with them, and citizenship rights are rights and duties that are provided by domestic law for a person because he is a member of a political society and has a bilateral relationship with the government Has been determined. Because these rights are created or recognized by governments, these rights are also violated by governments. The present article examines in a descriptive and analytical manner the actions that the Afghan government has taken or should have taken against Corona, which led to the violation of at least three generations of citizenship rights. Finally, these results were obtained that the right to freedom of movement, the right to access information on Number of Quaid19 patients and Deads, the right to Social insurance and access to medicines and peripheral equipment against Quaid19 have been violated in this country. Even the burial of the dead in Corona has not been regulated in this country.

The outbreak of Covid 19 since 2019 has posed many challenges to the world. During this period, people, on the one hand, seek to prevent disease by following guidelines such as social distancing and quarantine, and on the other hand, by adopting methods such as wearing masks, washing hands regularly, and using disinfectants such as alcohol. .. are looking to adopt a health-oriented lifestyle. Due to the rapid changes in social life during the coronavirus period, in practice, people experience a new life in this period. Although social distancing as a social theater is the main tool for regulating interpersonal relationships that determines how people relate to each other, in the pandemic period, the emphasis on the medical model of social distancing has confused people. During this period, rapid changes in social life not only destroyed the social balance in interpersonal relationships, but also affected criminal patterns. According to the findings of this study, the corona virus conflict with conventional forms of social life and repetitive patterns of human activities, has caused the collapse of normal patterns of social life and has created unbalanced structures in this area. In this context, citizens experience feelings of loneliness, fear, dissatisfaction, frustration, and anger from new situations due to the confusion caused by emerging patterns of behavior, and are influenced by new patterns of interaction to commit behaviors such as suicide, domestic violence, and economic crime.

The emergence of a new disease called Corona in 2019 made the world face a new crisis that affected all aspects of human life. One of the goals of establishing the World Health Organization was the need to fight against epidemics that are beyond the borders of countries. However, the financial and technical opportunities needed to achieve their goals and the cooperation of the member countries were not always at the optimal level and are not. Experience has shown that half of the financial resources include voluntary contributions for specific programs, but the organization refuses to develop a binding legal rule regarding them. Covid-19 are acting according to the guidelines and guidelines of the World Health Organization. It should be noted that despite all the problems and some mistakes, the organization managed this process correctly with the experience gained from previous epidemics. In domestic law, with the occurrence of this crisis, the functions of the government have also changed, which can be discussed in the three areas of prevention, treatment and the creation of new administrative structures to manage and control the disease. The main question that this research seeks to answer is the investigation of the impact of Corona on the functioning of the government in domestic law as well as the international body in charge of health, namely the World Health Organization. The research method in this study is descriptive-analytical, and the library method was used to collect the sources.

Taking into account the requirements of collective medicinal benefit, countries may choose to engage in domestic laws related to conclusion and validity of contracts as well as the scope of their effects in order to adjust contractual freedoms. At the international level, one of the derivatives of the principle of free will which has come to be known as the right to free competition (as opposed to the right to intellectual property) has had destructive effects on access to medicine as a human right, the significance of which has dramatically increased with the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic in 2019. Taking this into account, governments adopt different methods to impose restrictions on freedom of will in order to improve the public health of the society and to provide the ground for formulation of coordinated and systematic combat plans against diseases such as Covid-19. The present study was an attempt to review Iran's domestic laws and international documents that can impose restrictions on freedom of will in the field of public health (as during the outbreak of the Corona virus). The results indicate that in international law, restrictions on freedom of will are usually imposed with respect to collective interests (the need to protect public interests) and prohibition of the abuse of rights. As for Covid-19 pandemic, the need to have universal access to the vaccine and effective drugs against the disease makes sense with respect to the theory of social contract, and convinces human rights bodies to lend more weight to the idea of social responsibility of companies producing Covid-19 vaccine and drugs.