荷兰阿姆斯特丹自由大学跨文化研究中心高级研究员乔聪睿（网络会议视频截图）
2020年5月30日下午，由中国人权研究会指导、华中科技大学人权法律研究院主办的“疫情防控中的中西方人权观比较”国际视频研讨会召开。会议采取现场和网络相结合的形式，来自联合国人权高专办、联合国人权高专办驻几内亚办事处、奥地利、荷兰、英国、巴基斯坦、尼泊尔和中国等国家和地区的40余名人权专家、官员参加了线上研讨。荷兰阿姆斯特丹自由大学跨文化研究中心高级研究员乔聪睿女士在”第二单元：人权保障与抗击新冠疫情“上作题为《从比较角度看政府行为责任》的发言。
摘要
自新型冠状病毒引发全球疫情以来，多国政府陆续采取被称为“社交疏远”或者“拉平疫情曲线”的抗疫政策，通过限制人际交往和人群聚集等方式减缓受感染群体的增长。在不同国家，这类抗疫政策均引发政府行为是否过度侵害个人自由和权利的讨论，也有人主张对抗疫政策提起诉讼并提出行政赔偿请求。在此背景下，有必要厘清这些讨论、争议及诉讼事件涉及的共同问题：在何种情形下，国家的行政行为构成对公民或法人合法权益的侵犯、并应当提供相应赔偿？对此问题，提供两个层面的解答：第一，确认行政行为侵权的原则依据（即“规范基础”）；第二，认定行政行为侵权的主要方式（即“内容要件”）。本文主体分析将采取比较视角，尝试厘清不同司法体系下法院审理行政侵权案件的异同；本文结尾部分将基于这些异同，简要评述它们会如何影响对政府抗疫行为是否构成侵权的界定。
Abstract
As COVID-19 has become an ongoing pandemic in the past four months, governments across the globe have been taking measures known as ‘social distancing’ or ‘flattening the curve’ some of which are considered to be intrusive to individual freedoms and rights and hence resulted in a number of claims against governments’ anti- COVID actions. These cases and debates alike all concern a fundamental issue that deserves timely clarifica- tions: whether and to what extent can a government be held liable for damages arising from its actions? To that end, this article has two tasks to fulfil: first, explaining what elements constitute the ground for recognising government liability (i.e. normative bases)? And second, detailing what factors would suffice to establish gov- ernment lability (i.e. essential elements)? It does so from a comparative perspective, hoping to uncover both similarities and differences in the government liability mechanisms in various legal systems. It concludes with a reflection upon hypothetical consequences of initiating a lawsuit against governments’ anti-COVID-19 actions.
