On the 31st of December 2019 the local administration of the city of Wuhan, in the Hubei province of China, notified the local IHR Focal Point of an unfolding health emergency. The health emergency quickly evolved into something so massive that on the 11th of March 2020 the WHO declared the outbreak of this novel Coronavirus a pandemic. The rapid escalation of events sparked a debate on whether China’s alleged misconduct at the beginning of this world-changing event might constitute ground for the attribution of liability for the devastating consequences of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the issues related to China’s alleged liability in relation to both public and private international law. For what may concern the field of public international law, the aim is to examine the relationships amongst the People’s Republic of China, the WHO and every other Country that was affected by the pandemic. In light of some evidence that the Chinese government might have been aware of the health emergency earlier than the 31st of December, most States claim that China did not comply to the provisions of the IHR, using the delayed notification to build a case against the PRC. Nevertheless, China is not the only one that might be held responsible. Fingers were pointed both at the WHO and the affected States themselves. The WHO has been harshly criticised for its handling of the pandemic, whereas some find that States’ containment measures and their response to the outbreak as a whole could be ground for liability. The second part of this work is centred around private international law. After the initial proliferation of claims filed against China, many wondered whether such suits are even legitimate, thus prompting the analysis of the relationship between foreign States’ sovereign immunity and the relevant State’s own jurisdiction. Amongst the other factors that might influence the legal disputes arising from the situation at hand, force majeure is most likely to be the first one that jumps to mind, and rightly so, due to the rapid increase in delayed or defaulting performances as a consequence to the strict containment measures put in place by the States. This work also considers the impact these restrictions had on the contracting parties and what role did they play in the dispute concerning China’s alleged liability. The corporate response to the pandemic and its consequences is also briefly examined. In the end, it seems to be still early to give an exhaustive answer to the question whether China could be held accountable. It is likely that further discussions on the subject will focus on tailor-made solutions ensuing from a case-by-case scenario.
Il 31 dicembre 2019 l’amministrazione locale della città di Wuhan, nella provincia cinese dello Hubei, ha segnalato tramite una notificazione al locale IHR Focal Point la presenza di un’emergenza sanitaria sul proprio territorio. L’emergenza si è evoluta con estrema rapidità, espandendosi a macchia d’olio, tanto che l’11 marzo 2020 l’OMS ha modificato la classificazione della malattia, passando da epidemia a pandemia. Il rapido evolversi degli eventi ha scatenato un ampio dibattito circa la possibilità di imputare delle responsabilità in capo alla Repubblica Popolare Cinese, in seguito alle misure da questa inizialmente adottate per fronteggiare il virus. Questo lavoro mira ad analizzare le problematiche legate ad una presunta responsabilità della Cina nell’ambito del diritto internazionale sia pubblico che privato. Per quanto riguarda il diritto internazionale pubblico, lo scopo è di analizzare le relazioni tra la Cina, l’OMS e gli altri Stati colpiti dalla pandemia. Molti Stati hanno accusato la Repubblica Popolare Cinese di non aver rispettato quanto previsto nel RSI, basandosi su un presunto ritardo nella notifica dell’emergenza sanitaria. Nonostante ciò, la Cina potrebbe non essere l’unica colpevole. Anche l’OMS è stata aspramente criticata per la gestione della pandemia, mentre i singoli Stati sono finiti nell’occhio del ciclone per le misure precauzionali prese in risposta alla diffusione della malattia. In entrambi i casi ci si appresta a considerare se queste condotte possano comportare l’insorgere di una responsabilità in capo a questi soggetti. La seconda parte del lavoro è incentrata sugli effetti della pandemia prodottisi nel diritto privato internazionale. In seguito ad un’iniziale proliferazione di richieste di risarcimento a causa dei danni provocati dalla pandemia, in molti si sono domandati se queste richieste fossero legittime. Si è quindi considerato il rapporto tra l’immunità sovrana della Cina e la giurisdizione del Paese in cui il procedimento è stato instaurato. Tra gli ulteriori elementi che possono essere presi in considerazione nell’ambito di queste controversie, uno dei principali è sicuramente la forza maggiore. Questo concetto risulta essere particolarmente rilevante se si considera il drastico aumento di ritardi ed inadempienze legato alla pandemia e alle sue conseguenze, soprattutto per quanto riguarda l’ingerenza delle misure di contenimento previste dagli Stati colpiti dal virus. In questo lavoro si va inoltre ad analizzare come questi provvedimenti si inseriscano nel quadro generale e come si relazionino con le accuse mosse alla Cina. Da ultimo, viene brevemente valutata la risposta delle aziende alla complicata situazione creatasi come conseguenza della pandemia. Prendendo in considerazione quanto detto finora, i tempi non sembrano ancora maturi per dare una risposta definitiva alla domanda se la Cina possa essere considerata responsabile per i danni causati dalla pandemia. È molto probabile che in futuro la discussione si evolverà su base casistica, piuttosto che dare una risposta univoca a questo quesito.
The People's Republic of China's alleged liability for the Covid-19 pandemic
GALLI, FRANCESCA
2019/2020
Abstract
On the 31st of December 2019 the local administration of the city of Wuhan, in the Hubei province of China, notified the local IHR Focal Point of an unfolding health emergency. The health emergency quickly evolved into something so massive that on the 11th of March 2020 the WHO declared the outbreak of this novel Coronavirus a pandemic. The rapid escalation of events sparked a debate on whether China’s alleged misconduct at the beginning of this world-changing event might constitute ground for the attribution of liability for the devastating consequences of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the issues related to China’s alleged liability in relation to both public and private international law. For what may concern the field of public international law, the aim is to examine the relationships amongst the People’s Republic of China, the WHO and every other Country that was affected by the pandemic. In light of some evidence that the Chinese government might have been aware of the health emergency earlier than the 31st of December, most States claim that China did not comply to the provisions of the IHR, using the delayed notification to build a case against the PRC. Nevertheless, China is not the only one that might be held responsible. Fingers were pointed both at the WHO and the affected States themselves. The WHO has been harshly criticised for its handling of the pandemic, whereas some find that States’ containment measures and their response to the outbreak as a whole could be ground for liability. The second part of this work is centred around private international law. After the initial proliferation of claims filed against China, many wondered whether such suits are even legitimate, thus prompting the analysis of the relationship between foreign States’ sovereign immunity and the relevant State’s own jurisdiction. Amongst the other factors that might influence the legal disputes arising from the situation at hand, force majeure is most likely to be the first one that jumps to mind, and rightly so, due to the rapid increase in delayed or defaulting performances as a consequence to the strict containment measures put in place by the States. This work also considers the impact these restrictions had on the contracting parties and what role did they play in the dispute concerning China’s alleged liability. The corporate response to the pandemic and its consequences is also briefly examined. In the end, it seems to be still early to give an exhaustive answer to the question whether China could be held accountable. It is likely that further discussions on the subject will focus on tailor-made solutions ensuing from a case-by-case scenario.È consentito all'utente scaricare e condividere i documenti disponibili a testo pieno in UNITESI UNIPV nel rispetto della licenza Creative Commons del tipo CC BY NC ND.
Per maggiori informazioni e per verifiche sull'eventuale disponibilità del file scrivere a: unitesi@unipv.it.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14239/788