On Self-preservation Power of State under Emergency Conditions

doi:10.13766/j.bhsk.1008-2204.2014.0622

Abstract

Abstract:

Disease threats are as old as mankind. In history, man has used germs to attack others. In precaution against extremely deadly disease, the self-preservation power of state in the face of threats of extreme lethality is particularly noteworthy. The theory of the self-preservation power of state has developed from right theory of state violating international law responsibilities to just cause theory and then to just as exemption excuses theory. But its ambiguity still exists. It is difficult for state to balance the relations between state power and human rights under the threat of danger. Article 25 and 26 of Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts purpose to resolve these problematic issues. These articles have some strict applying conditions. It is helpful to correctly understand and grasp the self-preservation power of state by exemplifying how these conditions are applied.

Key words: Country, threats of extreme lethality, self-preservation power, Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, exemption excuses

CLC Number:

XIONG Jianjun. On Self-preservation Power of State under Emergency Conditions[J]. JOURNAL OF BEIJING UNIVERSITY OF AERONAUTICS AND A, 2016, 29(4): 54-60.

References

[1] MARK W. Biological warfare at the 1346 siege of caffa[J]. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2002(8):971.
[2] LAWRENCE O G. Public health law in the age of terrorism:Rethinking individual rights and common goods[J]. Health Affairs, 2002(21):81.
[3] GEORGE J A. The statute of security:Human rights and post-9-11 epidemics[J]. Journal of Health Law, 2005(38):342-343.
[4] JESSICA S. The prospect of domestic bioterrorism[J]. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 1999(5):517.
[5] MARTⅡ K. Book review[J]. German Law Journal, 2003(4):1087.
[6] HUGO G. The rights of war and peace[M]. Indiana:Liberty Fund, 2005:83.
[7] ROMAN B. State of necessity as a justification for internationally wrongful conduct[J]. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 2000(3):5-6.
[8] CHARLES G F. International law[M]. New York:Century Company, 1924:142-143.
[9] TRAVERS T. The law of nations considered as independent political communities[M]. Charleston:Nabu Press, 2012:179.
[10] IAN J. The plea of "necessity" in international legal discourse:Humanitarian intervention and counter-terrorism[J]. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 2005(43):351.
[11] Gabc[AK?]íkovo-nagymaros project (Hung. v. Slovk.)[N]. International Court of Justice, 1997-09-25(208).
[12] East timor (Port. v. Austl.)[N]. International Court of Justice,1995-06-30(193).
[13] JOHN T. The colony:The harrowing true story of the exiles of molokai[M]. New York:Scribner, 2007:147.
[14] DANIEL D. The necessity of precaution:The future of ecological necessity and precaution[J]. Fordham Environmental Law Journal, 2002(13):384-385.
[15] PAUL A O. The cutter incident:How america's first polio vaccine led to the growing vaccine crisis[M]. New Haven:Yale University Press, 2007:89-90.
[16] RICHARD J E. Death in hamburg:Society and politics in the cholera years[M]. London:Penguin Books, 2005:22.
[17] JASON W S. SARS and international legal preparedness[J]. Temple Law Review, 2004(77):159-162.