What Explains Human Rights Treaty Derogation During Covid-19?

• In Event: International Law: Precision, Delegation and Compliance

Abstract

Thus far in the Covid-19 pandemic international and domestic travel has been restricted and minority and ethnic groups targeted and blamed for the virus. Given the likely prospect of future global pandemics, understanding the capacity of international human rights law to adapt and respond to pandemic-related violations is of great importance.
One relevant face of international law is treaty derogations. Derogations allow for temporary suspension of rights obligations during times of emergencies and the ICCPR requires their communication. For the first time in the history of the ICCPR, states used a public health crisis as justification for human rights law suspension.
This paper takes a closer look at ICCPR derogations, paying close attention to those submitted during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with those in proceeding years. I explore the central question: What explains when and why states submitted international human rights derogations during the COVID-19 crisis? Past work suggests that democracies are more likely to submit (Hafner-Burton, Helfer, and Fariss 2010). However, states with a range of regime types have submitted thus far. Through descriptive and quantitative analysis of derogations and human rights measures at the country-week level, this paper provides preliminary results and answers to these questions.

Author

• Audrey Lynn Comstock, Arizona State University