Show Notes
Professor Paul Gragl, European Law at the University of Graz, Austria, gives a talk for the Public International Law seminar series. Abstract: Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines are, in general, safe and effective, vaccine hesitancy continues to thrive due to various reasons, such as misinformation, the wish to protect one’s personal autonomy, and/or religious or moral beliefs. Vaccine hesitancy therefore endangers attaining and maintaining herd immunity which protects those that cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons. Some States have consequently implemented compulsory vaccination schemes in order to close this gap in protecting public health, which, however, raises two essential questions in the context of human rights protection: (i) if a State has done so and implemented a compulsory vaccination scheme, does it potentially violate Articles 2,8, and 9 of the ECHR? In other words, are the ECHR Contracting Parties under a negative obligation to abstain from introducing such measures? Or (ii) if a State has not done so (yet), is it actually under a positive obligation to introduce such measures in order not to violate these provisions? On the basis of the ECtHR’s recent judgment in Vavřička and others v. the Czech Republic (April 2021), I will discuss these questions and conclude that States are, if specific requirements are met, not prohibited from implementing such measures, whilst they are also not obligated to do so under the ECHR as long as they protect those most vulnerable to infectious diseases through other means.
The presentation is based on a paper which will be published in the European Convention on Human Rights Law Review.
Paul Gragl is Professor of European Law at the University of Graz, Austria. His research interests include public international law, EU law, human rights law, and legal theory as well as philosophy, which is reflected in his most recent monograph Legal Monism: Law, Philosophy, and Politics (OUP, 2018).
More from Public International Law Part III
Oona Hathaway, Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, discusses her ongoing project supported by the Guggenheim Foundation, entitled ‘War Unbound.’
Informal courts created in PoW camps and Jewish ghettos during World War II illustrate the disruption of law in war and the ways in which legal pluralism can help to structure thinking about the concept of law in such a context.
Eitan Diamond and Ellen Nohle explore the application of the prohibition of forcible displacement in armed conflict and the extent to which the non-consensual relocation of civilians may be prohibited under the IHL rules on the conduct of hostilities.
Tom Dannenbaum, Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University, examines approaches to addressing the crime of aggression within a normatively coherent framework of immunities and international crimes. He particularly focuses on the legal and normative considerations on the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.
Dr. Alessandra Spadaro of Utrecht University outlines several challenges to the applicability of the doctrine of superior responsibility in the context of the use of autonomous weapons systems.