迈克尔·莱桑德·弗雷穆思:新冠疫情时期的人权保护:对奥地利和德国做法的思考 - 第二单元:人权保障与抗击新冠疫情 - 中国人权网

首页 > 专题2020 > “疫情防控中的中西方人权观比较”国际视频研讨会 > 第二单元:人权保障与抗击新冠疫情 >

迈克尔·莱桑德·弗雷穆思:新冠疫情时期的人权保护:对奥地利和德国做法的思考

2020-06-02 14:40:10来源:中国人权网

\
维也纳大学路德维希·博尔兹曼人权研究所科学主任迈克尔·莱桑德·弗雷穆思教授(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。维也纳大学路德维希·博尔兹曼人权研究所科学主任迈克尔·莱桑德·弗雷穆思教授在”第二单元:人权保障与抗击新冠疫情“上作题为《新冠疫情时期的人权保护:对奥地利和德国做法的思考》的发言。

“疫情防控中的东西方人权观比较”网络研讨会发言稿

迈克尔·莱桑德·弗雷穆特博士、教授
(Michael Lysander Fremuth)

维也纳大学基本权利与人权教授

路德维希·博尔茨曼人权研究所科学主任

  引言

  2020年将名垂史册。不过,其究竟是将以正面还是负面形象被载入历史,目前来说还是一个悬而未决的问题。
新型冠状病毒的全球传播可以被视为全球化的另一个体现,它表明我们真的生活在同一个世界,我们当前的生活环境是相互依存的,国与国之间的政治是相互关联的,即,一个国家的政治可以对世界其他地区产生影响。大多数国家都采取了防疫措施,以遏制病毒在其行政辖区内的蔓延。虽然俄罗斯、巴西和美国等国形势依然严峻,但欧洲的局势正在好转,这其中亦包括意大利和西班牙等受到严重影响和冲击的国家。

  在奥地利,病毒传播的一个热点区域是滑雪圣地伊施格尔,许多游客来此度假时感染病毒并将其传播至多个欧洲国家。在德国,慕尼黑的一家公司和德国经济重镇北莱茵-威斯特伐利亚的一个城市,因在疫情期间未停止举办狂欢节,亦入列第一批爆发疫情的热点区域。当时,随着意大利事态日益严峻,两国迅速采取措施以遏制病毒进一步蔓延。我将在下文分别介绍并评估两国的防疫措施。

  各国所采取的多数措施都有一个共同的特点,即它们干涉了人权和基本权利。这个问题引起了人权律师和公民社会组织的极大关注:在奥地利和德国,人们不断举行反对限制公民权利的抗议活动。此外,联合国秘书长安东尼奥·古特雷斯也发出警告称,绝不能让新冠肺炎疫情危机演变为人权危机,我们需要抗击的是病毒,而不是人民。

  因此,在当前这一时期,不仅公众健康面临着风险,人权保护亦遭遇到严峻挑战。人权是全球化的另一个体现,其中的不同部分分别代表着全球化的法律层面和(就其所包含的价值观而言)道德层面。对于新冠肺炎疫情危机,人权发挥着双重作用:

  一方面,各国有义务保护人权,特别是人民的生命权和健康权,这使得政府采取措施遏制病毒和保护公众具有了合理性甚至是必要性。政府在这方面的义务更多地具有一种集体属性,而且侧重于更广泛的公众。另一方面,即使在危机时期,人的基本权利和人权仍然适用。对政府防疫措施进行评估时必须以此为尺度,而且它们自身亦持续保护着公民的个人利益。

  诚然,《欧洲人权公约》(下称《公约》)第15条的确允许各国宣布进入紧急状态,以限制许多常规权利的适用条件,然而只有10个缔约国(大部分是东欧国家)宣布启动了紧急状态机制,即使如此,它们也仍然受到国内法所规定的基本权利的约束。此外,必须谨记于心的一点是,有些权利将不受任何限制措施的影响,比例原则(the principle of proportionality)也适用于紧急状态下的社会管制。奥地利和德国都没有宣布进入紧急状态,认为危机可以在《公约》的框架内解决。事实也的确如此!新冠肺炎疫情危机可以在不限制《公约》所规定的人权的情况下得到解决:除了某些绝对权利,例如禁止酷刑或奴役之外,如果有合法正当的目的,并且如果政府采取的措施与其所保护的利益的价值是相称的,那么政府可以对《公约》规定的大多数权利进行限制。

  因此,政府的主要任务是在各种相互抵牾的利益之间达成一种公平的平衡。对生命和健康的保护非常重要,并可能成为限制其他人权的理由。此外,经济因素也是一种需要予以考虑的利益。

  事实上,我们看到,全球化的经济层面已受到严重影响。由于防疫措施的推行,大多数国家的经济状况面临着严峻挑战,生产和需求下降,供应链崩溃,许多国家的失业率达到历史最高水平。世界经济正面临自二战至今前所未有的压力。李克强总理在2020年全国人民代表大会上表示,中国正面临着空前的挑战,全世界同样如此。

  因此,新冠肺炎疫情危机是一个多层次的问题,其解决有赖于全球政治和人民的合理互动。
 
The Protection of Human Rights in Times of Corona

– Thoughts on the Austrian and German Approach –

Speech rendered

at the Network Seminar on “Comparison of Human Rights Values between the East and the West in Epidemic Control”

by

Prof. Dr. Michael Lysander Fremuth

Professor for Fundamental and Human Rights, University of Vienna

Scientific Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights


Introduction

The year 2020 will make history – even though it is an open question today whether it will be a good or a bad story.

The global spread of the Corona virus (Sars-CoV-2) can be identified as another emanation of globalisation, showing that we truly live in one world, that our current living conditions are interdependent and national politics are interrelated, i.e. that national politics are having an impact on the rest of the world. Most States have adopted measures to contain the further spread of the virus in their respective jurisdictions. While countries such as Russia, Brazil and the United States of America are still struggling, the situation in Europe is improving, even in countries that have been severely affected and harmed such as Italy and Spain.

In Austria, a hotspot of the virus has been the skiing area Ischgl, where i.a. many tourists have been infected and have spread the virus around several European countries. In Germany, a company in Munich and a city in Germany’s powerhouse North Rhine-Westphalia, exuberantly celebrating carnival in Corona times, have been the first hotspots. Warned by the devastating developments in Italy, both States quickly adopted measures I will introduce and assess in this short notice.

A common feature of most measures which States have adopted is that they interfere with human and fundamental rights. That is causing much concern among human rights lawyers and civil society organisations: Public protests against the restrictions are increasing in Austria and Germany. Furthermore, UN Secretary General António Guterres has warned that the Corona crisis must not become a human rights crisis,that we ought to fight the virus and not the people.

Accordingly, the current time does not only constitute a risk to public health but also challenge the protection of human rights. Human rights are another emanation of globalisation, they stand for a legal and – concerning the values they incorporate –an ethical dimension of globalisation. With regard to the Corona crisis, human rights play a twofold role:

On the one hand, there is an obligation of States to protect human rights, in particular the right to life and to health, justifying and even requiring the adoption of measures to contain the virus and to protect the public. This obligation is more of a collective nature, focussing on the broader public. On the other hand, fundamental and human rights remain applicable even in times of crisis. They serve as a yardstick for the evaluation of the measures adopted and continue to also protect the interests of the individual.

Admittedly, Art. 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does enable States to declare a state of emergency to derogate the application of many conventional rights. Yet, only ten (mostly East European) State parties have notified such a state of emergency and even they remain to be bound by fundamental rights under national law. Furthermore, it has to be borne in mind, that some rights are protected from any derogation and that the principle of proportionality also applies to the declaration of the state of emergency. Neither Austria nor Germany have notified such a state. They hold that the crisis can be solved within the architecture of the ECHR. Rightly so! The Corona crisis can be tackled without derogating the human rights under the Convention: Beyond absolute rights, such as the prohibition of torture or slavery, most rights under the ECHR can be restricted anyway if there is a legitimate aim and if the measure is proportionate in relation to the values of the protected interests and the affected interests.

The main task is, therefore, to strike a fair balance between the competing interests.The protection of life and limb is of high importance and might justify the restriction of other human rights. Economic considerations also belong to interests that can be taken into account.

In fact, we see that the economical dimension of globalisation is severely affected. In consequence of the public measures adopted against the spread of the virus, the economies in most countries broke down, production and demand decreased, supply chains collapsed and unemployment is on an all-time high in many States. The World Economy is under pressure like never before after the Second World War. Prime Minister Li Keqiang stated at the National People’s Congress 2020 that China is facing challenges unknown before – so does the entire world.

Accordingly, the Corona crisis is a multi-level-problem and its solution depends on the reasonable interaction of politics and people worldwide.


分享:
收藏 复制 打印