Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T23:21:28.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Responsibility for COVID-19: Does International Contagion Constitute Transboundary Harm?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2021

Sophie CAPICCHIANO YOUNG
Sophie CAPICCHIANO YOUNG*
Affiliation:
School of Advanced Study, London, UK
*
Email: sophie.capicchiano@postgrad.sas.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the damage caused by COVID-19 has increased exponentially, so too has the insistence that China bears some international responsibility for the unquantifiable damage sustained as a direct result of the state having failed to contain the virus, and to notify the international community of its existence. Some have suggested that the international contagion of the virus may be classified as transboundary harm. The current article analyses the law of transboundary harm, and proposes a set of criteria based on treaty and precedent that may be relied on to properly classify an event as such. It concludes that it is not only incorrect to classify international contagion as transboundary harm, but that to do so would pose a significant risk to the position and treatment of the individual in international law.

Keywords

History and Theory of International LawEnvironmental LawHuman RightsOther Areas of International Law
Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , July 2021 , pp. 372 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Peter TZENG, “Taking China to the International Court of Justice over COVID-19” EJIL: Talk! (2 April 2020), online: EJIL: Talk! <www.ejiltalk.org/taking-china-to-the-international-court-of-justice-over-covid-19/>; David FIDLER, “COVID-19 and International Law: Must China Compensate Countries for the Damage?” Just Security (27 March 2020), online: Just Security <www.justsecurity.org/69394/covid-19-and-international-law-must-china-compensate-countries-for-the-damage-international-health-regulations/>; Chimène KEITNER, “Don't Bother Suing China for Coronavirus” Just Security (31 March 2020), online: Just Security <www.justsecurity.org/69460/>; James KRASKA, “China is Legally Responsible for Covid-19 Damage and Claims could be in the Trillions” War on the Rocks (23 March 2020), online: War on the Rocks <www.warontherocks.com/2020/03/china-is-legally-responsible-for-covid-19-damage-and-claims-could-be-in-the-trillions/>; Romel REGALADO BAGARES, “China, International Law, and COVID-19” Inquirer (22 March 2020), online: Inquirer <www.opinion.inquirer.net/128226/china-international-law-and-covid-19>; Lewis LIBBY and Logan A. RANK, “To Protect the Future, Hold China to Account” National Review (21 March 2020), online: National Review <www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-hold-china-accountable/#slide-1>; Devashish GIRI, “Responsibility of China for the Spread of Covid-19: Can China Be Asked to Make Reparations?” Jurist (10 April 2020), online: Jurist <www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/04/devashsish-giri-china-covid19-reparations/>.

2. BRADLEY, Curtis A. and HELFER, Laurence R., “Introduction to ‘The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic’” (2020) 114 American Journal of International Law 571CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. See for example, Russell MILLER and William STARSHAK, “China's Responsibility for the Global Pandemic” Just Security (31 March 2020), online: Just Security <www.justsecurity.org/69398/>; Eunjung CHO, “Americans Join Coronavirus Lawsuit to Make China Pay” Voice of America (10 April 2020), online: Voice of America < www.voanews.com/usa/americans-join-coronavirus-lawsuit-make-china-pay>; Abhishek KUMAR, “Covid-19: China's Responsibility and Possible Legal Actions” Jurist (10 May 2020), online: Jurist <www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/05/abhishek-kumar-china-covid19-responsibility/>; Jay Manoj SANKLECHA, “COVID-19 Outbreak: Can China be Legally Made to Pay ‘Damages’?” The Quint (5 April 2020), online: The Quint < www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/china-covid-19-who-responsibility-international-law>; Binoj BASNYAT, “Geo-Politics in the Era of COVID-19” Diplomatist (11 April 2020), online: Diplomatist <www.diplomatist.com/2020/04/11/geo-politics-in-the-era-of-covid-19/>; Kate ALLMAN, “Legal threat or mere puff? Groups are lining up to sue China over coronavirus” LSJ Online (15 April 2020), online: LSJ Online <www.lsj.com.au/articles/legal-threat-or-mere-puff-groups-are-lining-up-to-sue-china-over-coronavirus/>.

4. Gian Luca BURCI, “The Outbreak of COVID-19 Coronavirus: are the International Health Regulations fit for Purpose?” EJIL: Talk! (27 February 2020), online: EJIL: Talk! <https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-outbreak-of-covid-19-coronavirus-are-the-international-health-regulations-fit-for-purpose/>.

5. Coco and De Souza Dias have provided a thorough analysis of due diligence in international law. See Antonio COCO and Talita DE SOUZA DIAS, “Part I: Due Diligence and COVID-19: States’ Duties to Prevent and Halt the Coronavirus Outbreak” EJIL: Talk! (24 March 2020), online: EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/part-i-due-diligence-and-covid-19-states-duties-to-prevent-and-halt-the-coronavirus-outbreak/. See also Part II by the authors, EJIL: Talk! (25 March 2020), online: EJIL: Talk! <https://www.ejiltalk.org/part-ii-due-diligence-and-covid-19-states-duties-to-prevent-and-halt-the-coronavirus-outbreak/>; and Part III, EJIL: Talk! (25 March 2020), online: EJIL: Talk! <https://www.ejiltalk.org/part-iii-due-diligence-and-covid-19-states-duties-to-prevent-and-halt-the-coronavirus-outbreak/>.

6. Kraska, supra note 1; Regalado Bagares, supra note 1; Massimo INTROVIGNE, “Coronavirus: CCP Beware, the Lawyers Are Coming” Bitter Winter (25 March 2020), online: Bitter Winter <https://bitterwinter.org/coronavirus-ccp-beware-the-lawyers-are-coming/>; Fidler, supra note 1.

7. Tzeng, supra note 1.

8. Federica PADDEU and Freya JEPHCOTT, “COVID-19 and Defences in the Law of State Responsibility: Part I” EJIL: Talk! (17 March 2020), online: EJIL: Talk! <https://www.ejiltalk.org/covid-19-and-defences-in-the-law-of-state-responsibility-part-i/>; see also Part II by the authors EJIL: Talk! (17 March 2020), online: EJIL: Talk! <https://www.ejiltalk.org/covid-19-and-defences-in-the-law-of-state-responsibility-part-ii/>.

9. That title belongs properly to the Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA), [1928] 2 R.I.A.A. 839.

10. MERRILL, Thomas W., “Golden Rules for Transboundary Pollution” (1997) 46 Duke Law Journal 931, at 933CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. RUBIN, Alfred P., “Pollution by Analogy: The Trial Smelter Arbitration [Abridged]” in BRATSPIES, R. and MILLER, R., eds., Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2006), at 46Google Scholar.

12. Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Explanatory Note 3 (1965), American Law Institute, cited in RUBIN, supra note 11 at 46. The Third Restatement (1987) only mentions pollution in the context of transborder pollution not requiring Congressional consent.

13. DRUMBL, Mark, “Trail Smelter and the International Law Commission's Work on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts and State Liability” in BRATSPIES, R. and MILLER, R., eds., Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 86 at 87Google Scholar.

14. Ibid; ELLIS, Jaye, “Has International Law Outgrown Trail Smelter?” in BRATSPIES, R. and MILLER, R., eds., Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 56Google Scholar.

15. Ibid., at 58, citing Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v Canada), [1941] 3 R.I.A.A. 1965 at 714.

16. Eagleton, Clyde, The Responsibility of States in International Law (New York: New York University Press, 1928) 19Google Scholar; Trail Smelter, supra note 15 at 714.

17. Ibid., at 9, cited in Ellis, supra note 14 at 60.

18. ANDERSON, Mark, “Derivative versus Direct Liability as a Basis for State Liability for Transboundary Harms” in BRATSPIES, R. and MILLER, R., eds., Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, cited in Ellis, supra note 14 at 60.

19. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1972), Chapter I. See also, SOHN, Louis B., “The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment” (1973) 14 Harvard International Law Journal 423Google Scholar.

20. Article 1.

21. Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with commentaries, (2001) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vo. II.2, at para 1. The text of the draft articles was adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2001, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission's report covering the work of that session.

22. Ibid., at para. 2.

23. Rubin, supra note 11 at 46.

24. Miller and Starshak, supra note 3; Cho, supra note 3; Kumar, supra note 3; Sanklecha, supra note 3; Basnyat, supra note 3; Allman, supra note 3.

25. Tenant v. Goldwin, [1704] 92 Eng. Rep. 222, 224 (K.B.); G.A.I., “Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas” (1907) 5 Michigan Law Review 673.

26. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, [1992] 505 U.S. 1003; Chaney v. Travellers Insurance Company, [1971] 249 So. 2d 181; Perkins v. F.I.E. Corp, [1985] 762 F.2d 1250; Green v. General Petroleum Corp, [1928] 205 Cal. 328; Cline v. Dunlora S., LLC., [2012] 726 S.E.2d 14.

27. Principle 21, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1972), Chapter I; Principle 2, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (1992); Article 20, Association of South East Asian Nations Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 9 July 1985; Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, 13 November 1979 (entered into force 16 March 1983). See also Second Report on the Protection of the Atmosphere, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/681 (2015) at 22; Third Report on the Protection of the Atmosphere, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/692 (2016) at 6–17.

28. Trail Smelter, supra note 15.

29. See notably, State of Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company and Ducktown Sulphur, Copper and Iron Company, Limited, [1907] 206 U.S. 230; State of Missouri v. the State of Illinois, [1906] 200 U.S. 496; Kansas v. Colorado, [1902] 185 U.S. 125; State of New York against the State of New Jersey, [1921] 256 U.S. 296; State of New York against the State of New Jersey, [1931] 283 U.S. 473. See also D. SCHINDLER, “The Administration of Justice in the Swiss Federal Court in Intercantonal Disputes” (1921) 15 American Journal of International Law 172, at 174.

30. Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom v. Albania), [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4 at 22.

31. Ibid.

32. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 253. In several separate and dissenting opinions, the question was raised as to whether the prohibition of transboundary harm could be considered an existing rule of customary international law. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Separate Opinion of Judge Petrén, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 253 at 304 See also Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Dissenting Opinion of Judge de Castro, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 253 at 388; Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Onyeama, Dillard, Jiménez de Aréchaga, and Sir Humphrey Waldock, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 253 at 367.

33. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, [1996] I.C.J. Rep 66 at 14.

34. Ibid., at 185.

35. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), [1997] I.C.J. Rep 7, at 140.

36. Coco and De Souza Dias (Part I), supra note 5.

37. Ibid.

38. Miller and Starshak, supra note 3; Cho, supra note 3; Kumar, supra note 3; Basnyat, supra note 3.

39. Sanklecha, supra note 3.

40. Trail Smelter, supra note 15 at 1963.

41. Auburn Cato Plank Road Co. v. Douglass, [1854] 9 N.Y. 444 at 446.

42. Marte JERVAN, “The Prohibition of Transboundary Environmental Harm: An Analysis of the Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Development of the No-Harm Rule”, Pluricourts Research Paper No. 14-17 (2014) at 4.

43. Backhouse V. Bonomi, [1865] 9. H. L. C. 503; Hale v. Farmers Electric Membership Corporation, [1940] 44 N.M. 131.

44. Ibid.

45. Jervan, supra note 42, citing XUE, Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2003) at 4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also SCHACHTER, Oscar, “The Emergence of International Environmental Law” (1991) 44 Journal of International Affairs 457 at 463–467Google Scholar; BALLARINO, T., “Questions de droit international privé et dommages catastrophiques” (1990) 220 Recueil des cours at 293Google Scholar.

46. Jervan, supra note 42 at 4; Schachter, supra note 45 at 464.

47. Drumbl, supra note 13.

48. Jervan, supra note 42 at 5; Schachter, supra note 45 at 464.

49. Jervan, supra note 42, citing Hanqin XUE, Transboundary Damage in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) at 4–10. See also Schachter, supra note 45; Ballarino, supra note 45 at 293.

50. Jervan, supra note 42 at 5; Schachter, supra note 45 at 464.

51. Sanklecha, supra note 3.

52. Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), [2015] I.C.J. Rep 665.

53. JOANIS, Jennifer PEAVEY, “A Pyrrhic Victory: Applying the Trail Smelter Principle to State Creation of Refugees” in BRATSPIES, Rebecca M. and MILLER, Russell A., eds., Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 254 at 265Google Scholar; Gervase J. L. COLES, State Responsibility in Relation to the Refugee Problem, with Particular Reference to the State of Origin: A Study (1993) at 146; Luke T. LEE, “The Right to Compensation: Refugees and Countries of Asylum” (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law 532 at 555; HOFMANN, Rainer, Refugee-Generating Policies and the Law of State Responsibility (1985) 45 Heidelberg Journal of International Law 694Google Scholar; AKHAVAN, Payam and BERGSMO, Morten, “The Application of the Doctrine of State Responsibility of Refugee Creating States” (1989) 58 ActScandJurisGent 245Google Scholar.

54. JENNINGS, Robert Yewdall, “Some International Law Aspects of the Refugee Question” (1939) 20 British Yearbook of International Law 98Google Scholar.

55. Ibid., at 112.

56. G.A.I., supra note 25.

57. AHMAD, Nafees, “Refugees: State Responsibility, Country of Origin and Human Rights” (2009) 10 Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Akhavan and Bergsmo, supra note 53 at 246; Hofmann, supra note 53 at 694; Coles, supra note 53 at 146, citing Jennings at 98; Lee, supra note 53 at 532; GARVEY, Jack I., “Toward a Reformulation of International Refugee Law” (1985) 26 Harvard International Law Journal (1985) 483Google Scholar; WILLIAMS, John Fischer, Chapters on Current International Law and the League of Nations (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1929)Google Scholar; GOODWIN-GILL, Guy S., The Refugee in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983)Google Scholar. Note though that references to Jennings’ work and the application of the maxim to international refugee law are absent from the third edition. GOODWIN-GILL, Guy S. and MCADAM, Jane, The Refugee in International Law (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

58. Hofmann, supra note 53; Coles, supra note 53 at 146, citing Jennings at 98.See also Lee, supra note 53 at 532; Garvey, ibid., at 483; Williams, ibid.

59. Ahmad, supra note 57 at 20. See also Akhavan and Bergsmo, supra note 53 at 246.

60. Goodwin-Gill, supra note 57. Note though that references to Jennings’ work and the application of the maxim to international refugee law are absent from the third edition. See Goodwin-Gill and McAdam, supra note 57. See also Peavey Joanis, supra note 53 at 265.

61. Lee, supra note 53 at 532; Ahmad, supra note 57 at 14.

62. Lee, supra note 53 at 558.

63. Merrill, supra note 10 at 953.

64. Ellis, supra note 14 at 63.

65. Paparinskis, Martins, “The Once and Future Law of State Responsibility” (2020) 114 American Journal of International Law 618 at 621CrossRefGoogle Scholar.