COVID-19 Border Closures: A Violation of Non-Refoulement Obligations in International Refugee and Human Rights Law?

COVID-19 has presented a number of challenges for the international refugee protection regime. An issue that has received little attention is the relationship between states tightening their borders in an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and their non-refoulement obligations. This raises the question of how international law responds when non-refoulement obligations may conflict with other international human rights such as the rights to life and health. Further, the legal analysis of whether a particular COVID-19 border policy is in violation of non-refoulement obligations must take into account how the travel restriction will be implemented. This article provides an overarching analysis of non-refoulement provisions in international refugee and human rights law and which COVID-19 international travel restrictions may be in breach of these obligations. We examine different types of COVID-19 travel restrictions and argue that many are undoubtedly violations of non-refoulement, but others raise unsettled questions of international law. Nevertheless, there is jurisprudence and scholarship to support the proposition that a state’s non-refoulement obligations can be triggered even in these more contested scenarios.

Seismic Shifts: The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Gendered Fault Lines and Implications for International Law

The Covid-19 pandemic and related shutdowns created seismic shifts in the boundaries between public and private life, with lasting implications for human rights and international law. Arriving just as the international legal order was wobbling in the wake of a populist backlash and other great challenges, the pandemic intensified fault lines of marginalisation and state action, amplifying the forces that had already left the liberal international order in crisis and retreat. This article examines the pandemic’s impacts on the international legal order through a gendered lens. It argues that in the short-term, the pandemic has reinforced public-private divides in international law, reinvigorating previous debates over the role of the state in protecting its people from harm. It argues that in the long-term, these developments threaten to unravel the most recent gains in international law and global governance that have supported and expanded the recognition of human rights to marginalised groups. Left unaddressed, this unraveling will further entrench such divides and contribute to the further retreat of the liberal international order. Examining these fault lines and their implications can help us re-imagine a post-pandemic international legal order that offers more protection for human rights, even as multilateral institutions and cooperation sputter or fail.

The UN Security Council’s Response to COVID-19: From the Centre to the Periphery?

This article examines the UN Security Council’s response to the escalating COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which has been criticised as hesitant and half-hearted. It argues that the Council’s inability to respond more assertively to the COVID threat was more predictable than surprising. Indeed, the Council’s approach to the COVID threat tended to follow, rather than diverge from, its past practice, exhibiting three increasingly entrenched features of Council decision-making in a crisis. First, the Council is hesitant and ill-equipped to respond to non-traditional or unorthodox threats to international peace and security, even where relevant precedents exist to support such a response. Second, the Council struggles to act when there is friction between permanent members. Third, when all else fails, the Council can still do reliably well on process.

International Law of State Responsibility and COVID-19: An Ideology Critique

Despite minimal prospects of success, international lawyers spent the first few months of the global pandemic discussing whether the rules of state responsibility could be invoked against states, especially China, for their acts and omissions regarding COVID-19. In this piece, we take these debates seriously, if not necessarily literally. We argue that the unrealistic nature of these debates does not make them irrelevant. Rather, we propose an ideology critique of state responsibility as a legal field. Our approach is two-fold. First, we argue these debates need to be situated within the rise of geopolitical competition between the US and its allies on the one hand and China on the other. In this context, state responsibility is always laid at the feet of one’s opponents. Secondly, we posit that my emphasising the role of states, recourse to state responsibility renders invisible the role of transnational processes of capitalist production and exchange that have profound effects on nature and set the stage for the emergence and spread of infectious diseases. Drawing from the work of the geographer Neil Smith, we argue against the ‘naturalisation’ of disasters performed much of the international legal discourse about COVID-19.