Table of Contents – Domestic – Lamm Vanda: Health Workers Are Not Soldiers

Since spring, they have been working on a draft international treaty to establish key rules for cooperation between states during a pandemic. Where is this job going?

We go with him. There is agreement on many things, there is no agreement on many things. But there will certainly be consensus material that already seems quite voluminous, almost a hundred pages long with explanations and justifications. This should be presented to the 2021 Beijing General Assembly of the Institute of International Law, there will also be a debate about it, and then it can be presented to the UN, WHO and other international forums.

Isn’t this process slow compared to the fact that the pandemic has already required a wide range of restrictive and other measures in most countries, and we don’t see at all where the pandemic has ended?

It can be long, I prefer to say that given the speed of international legislation, this is a very short period. Only after the Chernobyl nuclear explosion were two international treaties approved: rapid notification in case of radiological emergency and international assistance in such cases, only four months after the events, but this was a state of grace that permeated the entire planet. there was deep fear and, of course, the will of the Russian leaders at that time also played a role.

What do the members of the working group agree on and where are the fault lines?

There is a general agreement, which is why a treaty is necessary that addresses more intense cooperation between states in times of pandemic, be it on human rights, etc. But there is already a lot of debate about the details, but I can’t talk about them.

Can you tell us that the disagreement may be due to a disagreement due to racial, religious, or social differences?

In this case, no way. The members of the scientific community of the best international lawyers in the world are not only highly respected people, but also independent experts, hence the disagreement is absolutely professional. This institute is slowly looking back on a 150-year history, one of the oldest jurisprudence societies, whose work was also recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1904. It is not easy to get here, the members are elected and no delegates, and the number is limited, practically around 120-125.

A few years ago, the United Nations International Law Commission drew up an international treaty on international cooperation in the event of disasters. Can’t this be adapted to a pandemic period?

The disaster treaty is only a draft and the conference that approved it has yet to take place. In principle, sections on pandemics could be added, but international pandemic law should be set out in a separate document. On the one hand, because the draft was worked on for several years by the International Law Committee of the World Organization, which would mean that they would have to renegotiate all the material.

On the other hand, Covid-19 showed that a pandemic is very different from a disaster. An earthquake, but even an industrial disaster, generally affects only a few countries, the consequences are generally not global, unlike the current situation where the new type of coronavirus has spread very quickly to practically all countries in the world. Compared to a disaster, perhaps even more so, the impact of a meteorite could have such an impact on the entire Earth.

Wouldn’t it be enough to apply the International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization, which came into force in 2005, in the current situation?

Of course, it applies, but it is a question of whether this additional WHO regulation is appropriate to the current situation, is it sufficiently detailed, and takes into account the characteristics of the current pandemic.

Which areas do you consider to be most worrying at the moment, where should some kind of consensus be reached as soon as possible?

I think that regardless of the commission’s work, a number of existing laws need to be reconsidered. We are facing a completely new situation, Covid-19 is quite specific even between epidemics, since the virus can infect even asymptomatically. Therefore, it is necessary to review and update, for example, the aforementioned WHO regulations. The emergency regulations should also be reassessed. Major human rights conventions, such as the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, contain provisions that state that states can restrict certain rights enshrined in the conventions during a state of emergency or emergency. (freedom of expression, right of assembly, holding religious meetings, etc.).

They also require states to notify the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General of the United Nations of such measures and restrictions on their rights. At the time of the current epidemic, only a fraction of states have notified international organizations of restrictions on their rights – worth thinking about, okay, what is the reason?

Perhaps now, with a bit of exaggeration, the situation is changing from hour to hour, and individual states are judging in very different ways whether to declare an emergency or not.

You have to ask yourself from the beginning if a pandemic is a threat to the very existence of a nation, because these conventions say that in such a case a state of emergency or a state of emergency can be declared. When evaluating this, individual states think very differently. The Hungarian Basic Law is very innovative in this regard, as it distinguishes between six special legal periods: state of emergency, state of emergency, preventive defense situation, terrorist emergency, unexpected attack and emergency.

At home in the spring and now a state of emergency was declared again.

That is true, but it is an epidemic in a special legal category, so there is no question about that. The point is not that, but that

This is a fundamental but fundamental question, the answer to which the State must always know. However, the measures have an internationally agreed limitation, namely the necessity and proportionality test. In other words, only the necessary measures should be taken in the present case to control the epidemic and that are proportionate to the seriousness of the threat. The need is relatively easy to decide, but the issue of proportionality is a much more limited area, which, however, it would be good to regulate at the international level.

Many already have difficulty wearing a mandatory mask, others see travel restrictions as a trampling of their freedoms, but perhaps the most important thing is the socioeconomic aspects of the emergency, or even what we are experiencing now that not everyone who needs it. they have access to medical care. because caring for Covid patients is a priority.

These are really specific problems. A fundamental human right is the right to life and the State has the duty to protect the lives of its citizens. In the context of the epidemic, this means, on the one hand, taking care of those who have already been infected and, at the same time, protecting those who have not yet been. We also have to think about a third group of the population, which I myself consider very important, and that is the protection of front-line workers, medical personnel or even teachers. In military law and international humanitarian law, medical personnel working on the battlefield are entitled to special protection in order to care for the sick and wounded.

In my opinion, this must be the case in the current situation as well, and just as states provide special units against protesters or terrorists with the most modern and expensive equipment, doctors and nurses must be provided with the highest level of protective equipment. and means to combat the virus. . Otherwise, we cannot expect to risk their own health and lives during the healing.

Can we expect to be deployed anywhere, at any time, even as members of armed forces? Under a recently adopted law, doctors and nurses can be transferred to another institution for up to two years and, although there are exemptions, most find it unacceptable.

The expectations that society and the state may have for those who work in health care is not a matter of international law. However, my position is clear: health workers are not soldiers. Doctors and nurses were committed to their profession, they swore to heal, and when they chose that profession, they knew there were dangers.

But there must be a line between exercising your profession and putting your own life and health at risk.

especially since they are at higher risk and become infected at a high rate during major epidemics, as is the case now. But as long as it is not an unrealistic expectation that a soldier will even sacrifice his life to fulfill his duty because he is obliged to do so by his oath, society cannot expect the same from a doctor or nurse.

What if patients need them elsewhere?

Then such a measure must be surrounded by guarantees that make it acceptable also for health workers.

Is the issue of access to basic health care, such as whether there are enough health personnel, equipment, or perhaps there will be enough vaccines, is it addressed in the draft international treaty that is being prepared?

No. The draft is not expected to reach this depth.

Can someone who believes that their right to medical care is violated during an emergency go to an international court?

I don’t think such an action will be successful.

Do you see any concern that, taking advantage of the current epidemic situation, disproportionate and unnecessary measures are being introduced anywhere in the world, creating restrictive legislation?

Abuse can always happen, and yes, it can happen that in a state, such decisions are made on behalf of political opponents or even simply out of discomfort. But even more worrying is that discriminatory measures are being taken that are discriminatory against race, religion or minority, citing the epidemic situation. There are still rules for this today, they just need to be followed.

While it is not an epidemiological measure, can the planned amendment to Hungary’s Electoral Law, which was presented to the National Assembly in the hours before the austerity measures and which may negatively affect opposition parties, be included here? in the next election?

This is a typical example of a measure that has nothing to do with the epidemic. The same applies to the planned ninth amendment to the Basic Law.

(Cover image: Andrea Lamm in 2011. Photo: Szilárd Koszticsák / MTI)