ZHANG Han*

 

Abstract: Guided by the China Society for Human Rights Studies and organized by Southwest University of Political Science and Law,the First Session of the Series of International Seminars on “Global Epidemic Prevention and Control and Human Rights Protection” was held in Chongqing on May 9, 2020. The seminar featured the theme of “Guarantee of the Right to Life in Epidemic Prevention and Control” and two sub-topics: “Value Status and Legal Protection of the Right to Life” and “Safeguarding the Right to Life of Vulnerable Groups under the Pandemic”. Over 40 experts and scholars from China, the Netherlands, France, Pakistan and Sri Lanka attended the conference, and conducted in-depth discussions on specific issues such as “life supremacy”, “attributes of the right to life”, “government responsibilities”, “protection of vulnerable groups”, “balance of the right to life and other human rights”, and“science-based approaches to epidemic prevention”. This conference reaffirmed the key idea of “life supremacy”, which is conducive to strengthening the safeguarding of and attention to the right to life in the global pandemic prevention and control.

 

Keywords: epidemic prevention and control · human rights protection· the right to life · vulnerable groups· international seminar 

 

Guided by the China Society for Human Rights Studies and organized by Southwest University of Political Science and Law, the First Session of the Series of International Seminars on Global Epidemic Prevention and Control and Human Rights Protection was held in Chongqing on May 9, 2020. The theme of the seminar was “Guaranteeing the Right to Life in Epidemic Prevention and Control”. Discussions and exchanges were organized on two sub-topics, “Valuing the Status and Legal Protection of the Right to Life” and “Safeguarding the Right to Life of Vulnerable Groups During the Epidemic”. For the first time, virtual and on-site modes were employed. Professor Fu Zitang, vice-president of the China Society for Human Rights Studies and president of the Southwest University of Political Science and Law, delivered a speech at the opening ceremony. Over 40 experts and scholars from China, the Netherlands, France, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka participated in the session.

 

 

Without doubt, the novel coronavirus outbreak is a global catastrophe. We call it a catastrophe because it has claimed numerous lives. Confronted with such a major pandemic, saving those who are most vulnerable should be the first consensus that is reached. From the perspective of human rights, the right to life is fundamental to all human rights. It is the first and foremost human right, and the basic prerequisite and necessary condition for enjoying all other human rights. Where life cannot be safeguarded,other rights will be out of the question.¹

 

 

Professor Han Dayuan, director of the Human Rights Research Center at Renmin University of China, holds that life being paramount means that the value of life is higher than anything else. Life is the yardstick of all things, and nothing in the world is more precious than life.

 

The evolution from life to the right to life is an outcome of constitutional civilization. In the constitutional system, the greatest human right is the right to life. Only when the right to life is respected and safeguarded can the fundamental rights and freedoms in the Constitution make sense. As the subject of fundamental rights, human beings first own their right to live. The constitutional values cannot be realized unless the right to life is protected by the Constitution. Therefore, that life is paramount constitutes the foundation and core value of the Constitution and embodies its spirit.² Professor Zhuo Zeyuan from the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (National Academy of Governance) believes that epidemic prevention and control efforts must aim at safeguarding people’s lives to the greatest extent. The life of each and every individual in the world is threatened by the virus. For a long time, the international community and the public did not give the right to life the attention it was due. Yet as we know today, every individual’s right to life, also concerns the right to life of others.³

 

Professor Cheng Zhimin of Hainan University thinks that so far, we have not paid enough attention to the right to life. Rather, we have given too much attention to rights, such as “dignity” and “freedom” that seem more superior, neglecting the foundation or noumenon meaning of the right to life, thus constituting a paradox in modern Western society. Self-protection of individuals is the starting point of the politics and laws of Western society. Yet in the excessive pursuit of self-existence the foundation of human existence as a class is completely destroyed. Without the right to life, everything else is out of the question. The right to life is the foundation of the foundation. In other words, it is not the lowest requirement, but the highest objective. The under-standing and demonstration of the right to life involves the ontology and the concept of natural law in philosophy.⁴ Professor Zhang Yonghe, executive dean of the Human Rights Institute at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law, notes that we must cherish the life of each individual. It concerns the bottom line of humanity. If we cannot keep this bottom line, we do not deserve to be human.⁵

 

In the view of Professor Peter J. Peverelli from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands, the concept of “life is paramount” is critical to both China and Western societies and we need to respect rather than blame each other.⁶ Professor Qi Yanping,director of the Center for Science, Technology and Human Rights Research at the Beijing Institute of Technology, reckons that promoting the right to life is of immense significance to enhancing education, promoting ethics, and identifying the way forward.⁷ For Professor Liu Huawen, executive director of the Human Rights Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the right to life and health is not an ordinary human right but requires greater attention and guarantees.⁸ Professor He Zhipeng,executive director of the Human Rights Research Center at Jilin University, notes that where the life and health of some social groups collide with individual needs for freedom, we should respect the former. To place this right in an optimal position is an effective means to safeguard human rights in a broader societal scope in the future.⁹ For Professor Li Zhongxia, executive director of the Human Rights Research Center at Shandong University, the right to life as a fundamental right is the basis of the Constitution, and other needs for economic development must give way to guaranteeing the right to life.¹⁰

 

 

For Professor Han Dayuan, the right to life is both a right of freedom and a social right. In the sense of the right to freedom, the right to life is absolute. However, the right to life in modern society cannot solely rely on the right to freedom. The value of life should be realized through the active functions of the state. This pandemic has demonstrated that the Western constitutional order with freedom as its core has inevitable defects and that social rights cannot be absent. It needs to not only avoid the violation of the state but use the power of the state to protect and realize the value of life itself. Professor Chang Jian, director of the Human Rights Research Center at Nankai University, says that in the context of the sudden onset of a major epidemic, human rights protection first involves the right to life. However, at the level of legal principles, we should clarify the definition of the right to life. The right to life that the international community most often discusses is the right to life in a negative sense, yet it must not only be interpreted in this negative sense. Instead, it should be further extended to a positive level. As Article 3 of General Comment No. 36 (CCPR/C/GC/36) adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2018 points out,the right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. It concerns the entitlement of individuals to be free from acts and omissions that are intended, or may be expected, to cause their unnatural or premature death, as well as to enjoy a life with dignity.¹¹ This means that in order to guarantee the right to life in a positive sense, the state needs to undertake more active obligations.¹²

 

Professor He Zhipeng remarked that according to the theory of natural rights, human rights as a birthright can be realized as long as the government does not intervene. This view has often been challenged in the debates and institutional development of human rights since the 19th century. Although new thoughts and concepts of human rights have been established, this traditional concept is still deeply rooted in many countries and scholars. If we stick to this concept, we might find ourselves in situations where we cannot interpret reality. That is to say, the government cannot ensure that people make rational choices ignoring people’s behavior. The willfulness or misjudgment in the actions of the public, especially their cognitive errors in the probability of consequences caused by their actions, is likely to place themselves and society in danger. This is particularly the case if there is an outbreak and spread of an unknown pathogen. Zhang Han, a doctoral student at the Southwest University of Political Science and Law, holds that the negative sense of the right to life defined by the modern Natural School of Law since the 17th and 18th centuries has caught us in an inevitable moral dilemma. There is a fundamental conflict between “I choose to work to save my own life” and “I choose to stay at home to save everyone’s life”. Under such circumstances, individuals often become “irrational” and find it difficult to sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of others. Therefore, the state must fulfill its active obligations in order for people to escape this moral dilemma.¹³

 

 

Professor Han Dayuan argued that the right to life is one which has a legal effect. On the one hand, it creates the obligation of the state to protect the right to life of the citizens; on the other hand, it also provides positive conditions for guaranteeing the right to life. Having gone through the challenges of this unprecedented health crisis, we have many feelings. Despite the shortcomings and areas worthy of reflection, the primary consensus is that we should stick to the spirit of life being paramount. Building a social consensus on life being paramount embodies the human rights view of the Communist Party of China as the ruling party in defending the dignity of life, promoting the value of human life, and responding to the needs of individuals with practical actions. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, “We should always put people’s lives and health first” and save every life at all costs. In addition, we should take prevention as the main means of safeguarding the right to life, change the traditional thinking of responsibility-claiming and remediation afterwards, and bestow reasonable expectations upon the guarantee of life. General Secretary Xi also pointed out that the rule of law should strengthen the foundation, stabilize expectations, and benefit longterm development. In particular, in the current risk society where science and technology is developing rapidly, various kinds of life risks still exist. Therefore, we need effective preventive measures and systems. Mr. Jayanath Colombage, director for the Indo-Sri Lanka Initiatives and Law of the Sea Centers at the Pathfinder Foundation, discussed the relationship between the government and the right to life. He noted that the Sri Lankan government and the Chinese government have much in common in terms of their understanding of the right to life. The Sri Lankan government has also formulated epidemic prevention policies based on the idea of prioritizing the right to life and has taken strong measures to curb the spread of the virus.¹⁴

 

For Professor Cheng Zhimin, life is not just about living or abstract being, but the well-being of life is also the foundation and the objective of existence. As a matter of fact, the ultimate objective of all activities including politics and laws lies in people’s well-being or a good life. This more advanced good life cannot be separated from society. Rather, it can only be achieved through exchanges, giving, friendship, solidarity, devotion, listening, and learning. A good life can be achieved through the richness of life itself.¹⁵ Government inaction is an obvious violation of the social principle of the right to life and leaving the responsibilities to individuals will only result in a “zero-sum game.” Professor Liu Huawen suggests that laws and decrees must be aligned with reality. China’s epidemic prevention and control efforts have had two prominent features: being “people-centered” and focusing on “science-based prevention and control according to the law.” The epidemic was essentially a natural phenomenon which could not be changed by the will of people or governments, regardless of social systems, cultures, religions, races, and fortune. Therefore, we need to understand and respond to the epidemic in a scientific manner. Fundamentally speaking, the attitude and method of response should be based on scientific understanding, not the other way around, i.e. an attitude and method of response based on ideology or culture.

 

 

An easy consensus to reach is that the first priority of epidemic prevention and control measures should save lives. However, when two or more lives are faced with the danger of death at the same time, can we prioritize and choose among them? As reflected in this epidemic, some people put forward the opinion that “people over 65 should leave hope for the young people”. Giving up the lives of the vulnerable is an evil deed. Initiatives which “lift the isolation” or claim that “there is no need for isolation” merely out of political reasons reflect the selfishness of political parties and individuals.

 

 

Professor Zhuo Zeyuan noted that conflicts of the right to life between a specific individual and others are common in the context of an epidemic. The right to life of an individual should be coordinated with that of others. There is a complex structural relationship between the two which is often manifested as the relationships among an individual with their family, neighbors, colleagues, and strangers. For the lives of these people, the right to life of any individual cannot be exercised or enjoyed at will. Professor Christian Mestre of the University of Strasbourg in France thinks that, from a legal approach, the weakness of vulnerable groups has to be analyzed as a shortening of the capacity to withstand an offense. In many cases, the right to life depends on the circumstances of these vulnerable groups. There is hierarchy and competition for survival among these vulnerable groups, and some of them enjoy privilege due to geographical or resource factors. It is intriguing to see that the increase in the number of vulnerable groups has further reduced the chances for them to enter the public scene.¹⁶

 

Professor Qi Yanping holds that in the face of the sudden novel coronavirus outbreak, there was a serious inadequacy of medical treatment measures as well as a scarcity of medical resources around the world. As a result, we must discuss the right to life in this context. Without this background, it has nothing to do with the conflicts of the right to life and the response. In particular, when whether or not critically ill patients can get into the ICU or use ventilators or ECMO becomes their only chance to defeat death, the discussion over who should have priority is a matter of medical ethics and jurisprudence of the right to life. This is an either-or issue and choosing one person will inevitably mean giving up safeguarding the right to life of the other. The alternative principles here are often full of contradictions. Yet we can see that different theoretical approaches have different ways to safeguard the right to life. Professor Qian Jinyu, executive dean of the Human Rights Institute at the Northwest University of Political Science and Law, claims that against the background of massive urbanization, the primary task and crux of the prevention and control measures is to ensure its effectiveness in urban epidemic situations and protect the right to survival of vulnerable groups. In the current structure of global risk societies, we can re-examine the vulnerable groups from the perspective of risk enhancement and management. We must promote the management of risks based on the concept of “best protection of the rights of vulnerable people” and protect the right to life and health of vulnerable groups under the modern risk structure through balanced and preventive governance.¹⁷

 

Using the Aviation Safety Act by the German Federal Constitutional Court as an illustration, Professor Li Zhongxia said that the right to life cannot be measured. There is no way to make a trade-off between the elderly and the young, or between valuable lives and insignificant ones. The reason is that life is equally important regardless of quantity, race, or age. This echoes the theory of Kant that “human beings should be treated as ends and not means”. In this case, we can reflect on some of the measures which we have taken in terms of epidemic prevention and control, especially in emergency situations.

 

Professor Zhang Yonghe believes that there are no weak and strong when it comes to life. A civilized society refers to one in which the weak can get optimal protection. Only when the weak are protected can all be protected. Professor Han Dayuan states that the life value of everyone is equal, be it newborn babies or people over the age of 100. That the state treats life equally embodies the equality of life. For Professor Chang Jian, the conflicts in safeguarding the right to life cannot be completely solved through existing rules. Rather, we need to increase the required resources.

 

 

Professor Peter J. Peverelli observed that it may be difficult for different cultures to resolve the conflicts resulting from their different positions on basic rights. Taking Sweden and China as examples, he examined the differences between the two from a cross-cultural perspective. Sweden features individualism, China collectivism, each of which laid the foundation for the different measures they adopted. Of course, they have their own advantages and disadvantages, but the key is that we must learn to respect each other’s culture. Professor Han Dayuan notes that when the value of the right to life conflicts with other rights and freedoms, China chose to stick to the value of life being paramount and prioritizing the right to life through investment at no cost. In the face of various natural and man-made disasters, China would rather slow its economic development and bear the pressure of the subsequent economic downturn. The state resolutely chooses to save every life, and examines, respects, and reveres life. China has protected the lives threatened by the coronavirus in an equal way and at all costs with the strength of the whole country, thus safeguarding life has been real-ly put into practice and the sanctity and dignity of life are felt by the people.

 

Professor Qi Yanping holds that life and the right to life exist in a complex system supported and maintained by various external resources, energies, systems, and conditions. Life and the right to life cannot be separated from this social system and still be paramount. In particular, in the view of laws, the right to life, other rights, and public legal interests are all in a system with regular relations and harmonious logic. In a sense, the whole legal system is established to safeguard life and the right to life. Similarly, no component is paramount to a car as a car is made of a system. Liberals and communitarians may make different choices in the countermeasures against the epidemic, while the theory of justice based on utilitarianism or Rawls will give different answers. According to Professor He Zhipeng, the novel coronavirus outbreak reveals that conflicts among rights are particularly acute in the context of resource scarcity or in an emergency. Where there are conflicts of rights, in order to safeguard human rights, we should prioritize different rights according to their essentiality, significance, and impact in a science-based and prudent manner, and form a rank that is tested by science, compelling to the public, and effective in administrative upholding. Professor Chang Jian thinks that under the special circumstances of the sudden-onset of a major epidemic, we may face a series of conflicts when protecting the right to life, including between the measures to safeguard the right to life and other ways of realizing human rights, public interests, and different subjects at different stages.

 

 

Mr. Mohammed Rahim, director of the Center for Sustainable Development Research and Practices at the University of Lahore in Pakistan, said that the epidemic prevention and control work in Pakistan faces a complicated situation. This complexity is not only based on the understanding of the value of the right to life, but also depends on the specific context of each country, including government policies, geographical environment, population, economic pressure, business conditions, and religious groups. As a result, it will be an extremely tough task to protect the rights and interests of the vulnerable groups in society.¹⁸ Professor Chang Jian notes that in the process of China’s fight against the virus, resources can be allocated rationally and used efficiently to reduce costs by establishing a hierarchical management mechanism. The development of internet technology provides many feasible alternative solutions for on-site interpersonal communication. With the view to resume production and life against the background of long-term epidemic prevention and control, China established a normalized epidemic prevention and control mechanism.

 

Professor Han Dayuan suggested viewing the development of modern science and technology in a rational manner. Like a double-edged sword, science and technology can, on the one hand, bring convenience to humankind, and on the other hand inflict “disasters” on human life and challenge their lifestyle and dignity. Professor Liu Huawen noted that the approaches to responding to the pandemic must be aligned with the specific features of the countries, regions, and societies. But scientific cognition takes time, and different societies respond in different ways. The judgment and choice made between individual freedoms and safeguarding the right to life and health of the collective and the whole society will inevitably affect the results of guaranteeing the right to life and health.

 

 

It is the responsibility of scientists to trace the origin of the outbreak and develop vaccines, while exploring the protection of human rights during the implementation of prevention and control measures and responding to and blocking the spread of “political viruses” is the mission of human rights researchers. In the speeches at this conference, experts and scholars contributed their insights from different angles to promote human rights protection amid the global efforts to defeat the virus.

 

First, the concept of “life is paramount” can be expounded from different dimensions. Professor Cheng Zhimin discussed the ontological significance and sociality of life from a philosophical perspective. Professor Han Dayuan and Professor Li Zhongxia highlighted the right to life as a basic constitutional right. Professor He Zhipeng explored the priority status of “respecting life and health” from the perspective of conflicts among rights. Professor Zhuo Zeyuan discussed the significance of the right to life from the objective of epidemic prevention and control. Professor Zhang Yonghe discussed how we should treat human nature and life based on the general agreement of ration between life and cognition. From a legal perspective, Professor Qi Yanping pointed out that the legitimacy of the claim of the right to life should be based on the harmonious normative logic.

 

Second, the right to life has compound meanings. From the perspective of different cultures, Professor Peter Pei-Virelli explored the different orientations of life value between Sweden and China. Professor He Zhipeng noted that the right to life was under the theory of natural rights and there were some misunderstandings. Professor Han Dayuan discussed the dichotomy of “the right of freedom” and “social rights”. Professor Qi Yanping believed that the theoretical discussions of epidemic prevention and control should first focus on the treatment of people’s lives in a narrow sense. Professor Chang Jian held that the right to life was the “right to subsistence” in a positive sense. Dr. Zhang Han noted that there was a certain “gap” between the right to life and the right to subsistence.

 

Third, vulnerable groups need diversified protection. Based on vulnerable groups reduced ability to withstand the virus, Professor Christian Mestre revealed the dilemma of legal protection for vulnerable groups in the face of such a threat. In line with the idea of equal life for all, Professor Zhang Yonghe opposed prioritizing according to the classification of the weak and the strong. Professor Chang Jian discussed the protection of vulnerable groups from the perspective of limited supply of resources. Based on the social connection of life, Professor Zhuo Zeyuan pointed out that no one’s right to life can be exercised or enjoyed at will. Professor Qi Yanping claimed that the protection of vulnerable groups can be isolated from the mutual support of specific social contexts.

 

Fourth, we should maintain a prudent attitude towards epidemic prevention measures. A diversified society provides us with perspectives to examine problems. Mr.Mohammed Rahim believed that epidemic prevention and control policies depend not only on the value status and our understanding of the epidemic, but also on the specific context of each country. Mr. Jayanath Colombage discussed the preventive measures adopted by the Sri Lankan government from the angle of the relationship between the government and the right to life. Professor Li Zhongxia and Professor Qian Jinyu studied guaranteeing the right to life in epidemic preventive measures from the perspective of a risk society and urban governance respectively. Professor Liu Huawen expounded in a systematic way how to protect people’s right to life and health through the integration of science and law. Professor Chang Jian noted that conflicts of the right to life in the context of a major epidemic could be solved through three paths: a rule-based path would prioritize various rights and interests, a resource-based path would provide the required resources to resolve these conflicts, and the mechanism-based path would offer an integrated ststem for striking a balance between different rights and interests. Professor Qi Yanping stated that the legitimacy of the right to life in reality does not lie in its abstract apriority, absoluteness, or priority, but in its reasonable acceptability arising from the mutual support in specific social contexts, as well as the logical self-consistency within the legal framework.

 

The protection of the right to life alone triggered considerable discussion at this conference. These reflections are of significant value to both theories and practices. The epidemic is not over yet. Neither is the thinking about life. At a time when all mankind is tiding over the difficulties, we still need to join hands to fight the epidemic. Many problems concerning epidemic prevention and control deserve our attention. The discussions at this conference series are only a start and the following conferences will offer more profound and wonderful food for thought.

 

(Translated by LU Mimi)