فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی
سال بیست و دوم شماره 67 (تابستان 1399)

Natural and unnatural events and disasters always threaten human life, so the protection of human life against them is very important. As one of the most contagious diseases, Corona virus (Covid-19) has affected the lives of all people around the world and has damaged the fundamental rights of mental health, which is more vulnerable than other human rights cases. During the Covid-19 pandemic, most people experience a psychological crisis, but certain groups such as the mentally ill, single people, children, workers, the elderly, asylum seekers, the poor, and health workers are more affected than others. The main purpose of the research is to explain the relationship between mental health and human rights and to analyze the mechanisms of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and General Comments 14 of the Committee in support of Mental Health against Covid-19 with a descriptive-analytical approach. The results of the research show that Article 12 of the Covenant and the General Comments mentioned have the necessary capacities to protect the right to mental health and prescribe the obligations of the state in fulfilling the right to mental health of vulnerable people.

The spread of Coronavirus in Italy has created the conditions for the government to declare the State of emergency. It has given the opportunity to manage the crisis, but has also limited people's fundamental rights. In this research, through the deductive-descriptive method, we will try to answer this main question: the actions of the Italian government to counter Coronavirus until what point are compatible with the fundamental rights present in the Constitution? After describing the concept of State of emergency, the government's decisions and the challenges about restriction of fundamental rights, we conclude that the government's actions have had a very negative impact on fundamental rights and freedoms. Not only these emergency decisions have had a very negative impact on people's rights in a democratic system, but the lack of parliamentary oversight about the actions of the Executive makes it reasonable to take a critical look at the actions of the Italian government.

Coronavirus crisis that began since November 2019 in China influenced the entire World rapidly. This crisis provoked some important questions regarding its legal aspects. One of these questions was about the duty of States in realm of individuals’ rights. Due diligence in international law should be considered a key notion for regulation of States’ behavior concerning the coronavirus crisis. Content of this flexible principle as a conduct rule is not a new innovation. No-harm rule as corollary of that principle could be described as an appropriate framework in regulating the conduct of States regarding their neighbors during Covid-19 outbreak. States’ obligations for respecting the human fundamental rights as a key point have been studied in this article. The shadow of due diligence principle on fulfillment of International Health Regulation by States has been the core of this study.

Three months after the outbreak of the Coronavirus (Covid-19), more than 200 countries around the world have been infected with this virus. The wide and transboundary dimensions of this disease make it necessary to examine those obligations that States must bear to prevent and compensate transnational harm in general and those originated from the pandemic in particular. This article tries to define the scope of the States’ obligations. The most common cause of Corona is related to the sale and purchase of some wild animals in China's Wuhan Wet Market, but since the exact cause of the Corona virus has not yet been exactly determined, this article examines the States' commitment to prevent and compensate Corona’s transboundary damages in two hypothetical scenarios to cover all aspects of this issue. In the first hypothetical scenario, assuming the effect of the Wuhan Wildlife Wet Market in China, the obligation of the State of origin (China) to prevent and compensate for Covid-19 is being examined. In the second one, it is assumed that there is no specific cause for the disease, and then the general commitment of States to prevent transboundary harm is studied.

According to the international human rights system, human beings have an inherent right to enjoy human rights. In the meantime, although governments are obliged to fully comply with them, those rights are linked to life and survival issues, as well as the security and stability of the States. However, due to the entanglement of the right to health and public health with other human rights, the use of the suspension to cover the protection of the right to health in the extraordinary state of Corona has made the realization of this fundamental right doubly challenging. Therefore, the intrinsic part of this challenge is the adoption of health measures compatible with human rights. This article, descriptively-analytically, assuming the possibility of suspending human rights in the Corona emergency, seeks to answer the fundamental question of how the realization of the right to health is possible with the suspension of other human rights. At the same time, what measures are needed to reduce the friction between the right to health and other human rights cases? Since human rights provide a framework for balancing individual and societal interests, balancing rights instead of suspending one right for the benefit of another can help resolve this conflict.

Citizens' freedom of expression in the field of public health is closely related to other concepts such as national security, public morality, rights and freedoms of others And with justifiable restrictions on its expression by citizens in a number of international instruments, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; The principles of Syracuse and General Comments 31 and 34 are challenged because governments use a variety of ways to promote public health, In the event of diseases such as corona with a high prevalence, they can carry out coordinated and principled struggles based on global standards. In this study, international documents that could impose suspensions or restrictions on public freedom of expression in the field of public health (such as the outbreak of coronavirus) have been studied in a descriptive-analytical manner, Because the authors of this article believe that absolute freedom of expression in the field of public health promotes many consequences, including promotion of the use of non-medical methods in the fight against diseases among the people And restrictions on freedom of expression in cyberspace, advertising, and news can be imposed or temporarily suspended.

As the reports of World Health Organization have proved so far, source of Covid-19 is the zoonotic virus which has been transmitted to human. Consumption of wild animals by humans as a source of nutrition is the main reason of emergence of these deadly diseases which has not only threatened the safety of millions but unfortunately has also put an end to lives of hundreds of thousands. This study through descriptive-analytical method tries to find the possible bases for prohibiting the production, consumption or trade of wild animals for nutritional purposes in international law. For this purpose and by legal arguments, it is explained that firstly; the right to food doesn’t ban these activities. Secondly, obligations of States on prevention of disasters oblige them to prohibit the production, consumption and their trade for nutritional purposes. In addition, in case of not finding an explicit basis for prohibiting these acts, States which don’t comply fully with their obligations in this regard will be presumed internationally liable. There is a lack of an obligation for States to prohibit these activities in order to preserve the biological diversity. Therefore, the conclusion of an international treaty is recommended for putting an end to the current trend.

With the outbreak of Covid-19 in the world, many measures have been taken to reduce the effects of this pandemic. The most important of these was the recommendation to "stay home", which became the main line of slogans. With this recommendation, schools, offices and factories were closed. Covid-19 pandemic has so far made wide impacts in people's lifestyles, and is likely to have some other implications. The main question of this article is, what environmental opportunities and challenges does Covid-19 bring, and how do these affect environmental law? Quarantine policies have led to a reduction in production and transportation, and a significant reduction in pollution caused by these behaviors. Other implications may not be immediately apparent. Covid-19 may increase residuals vulnerability to future contamination. Other changes may occur, including revisions in environmental and economic changes and revisions in allocating and consumption of resources, as Covid-19 affects the global, national, and local economies. Considering each of these implications and their effects can help develop environmental rights and develop effective strategies.