The cases of “Vivricka and others vs. Czech Republic” and “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)”
The Thesis and Background
A state’s role in IR (International Relations) cannot be understated. International law is based on states’ right to self-determination. Realists believe that the international system is inherently anarchic. That does not mean there are no structures or regulations; rather, it means there is no central government that can enforce them. It is common for researchers to draw on the methods and ideas from a variety of fields, as well as cutting-edge technological resources, to solve challenges in international relations. International relations may be studied from a variety of angles, as we have described. A gap can be filled by a multidisciplinary, multidimensional, and cross-disciplinary approach.
International relations have been experiencing reforms and have evolved immensely over the centuries. In recent times, there has been a great need for international cooperation amid the ever evolving needs of humanity (Schuchat, 2011). International justice has been one of the major wings tasked with the responsibility of overseeing acceptable codes of conduct among countries. International law nevertheless does not have control over the domestic laws of sovereign nations (Melander et al., 2014). Each country has its own approaches and attitudes towards the international community, both with huge differences and similarities in many aspects. Some have established cooperation based on mutual interests. However, this does not imply that nations have had growing relations.
The variances have given room to frequent violations, including of human rights. Laws governing human rights as laid down by international criminal justice encompass many aspects (Schuchat, 2011). For instance, in the case of “Vivricka and others vs. Czech Republic,” a complaint against a violation of rights has been forwarded. Respect for private life has been ignored in a variety of ways. For instance, refusal of vaccination of children has resulted in denial of attendance of preschool studies, which is a cause of concern for not only children but also the parents who fear missing out on acceptable child development.
While there is a pressing social requirement to protect personal and public health against the epidemic in question, Vaccination is, however, voluntary and the denial of access to necessities such as the education of school-age children presents a challenge in which the international community has had to intervene (WHO, 2018). The domestic law exempts individuals on the grounds of their unwillingness to get vaccinated, despite some other sectors’ mandatory vaccination requirement policies. The Court’s examination of the relevant features of the national system has established that there are ten diseases in question requiring vaccination (Schuchat, 2011). The effectiveness and safety advised by the scientific community provides grounds for establishing the procedures.
This case concerning the applicant and the fines imposed on him is not necessarily excessive based on the circumstances. However, the interference of child education by the exclusion of attendance at preschool is a defilement of the freedom to private life as well as a deprivation of the right to education by the Czech legislature, which made this choice (WHO, 2018). This paper will examine the cases of “Vivricka and others vs. Czech Republic” and “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)”. Arguments on the grounds of domestic laws that align with the legislative approaches in dealing with human freedoms and responsibilities to combat issues on the international stage are explored.
Thesis statement: “The cases of Vavricka and Others v. the Czech Republic” and Ahmadou Sadio Diallo vs. DRC show the importance of a country engaging in proper perfection of international law to avoid legal consequences. ”
Case one and its analysis
The case of Vavricka and Others v. the Czech Republic was a litigation which developed from six applications and included the legislative need to vaccinate minors against illnesses well-known to medical knowledge as well as the implications of disobedience for the applicants (ECHR, 2021). The first case was presented on behalf of a responsible adult who was displeased with the information that he had been fined for neglecting to immunize his school students (Vallbona, 1993). The other petitions were made on behalf of their kids by relatives who had been refused authorization to admit their children to preschools or kindergartens.
The Court decided that the Czech Republic did not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights by commanding a vaccination requirement on its schoolchildren. It was claimed that, as per the Court’s recognized case-law, obligatory immunization, as an unconscious medical interference, contravened the right to privacy (ECHR, 2021). In the framework of the domestic system, the measures complained of by the petitioners had a possible relation of reasonableness to the lawful purposes sought (ECHR, 2021). The vaccine mandate was imposed by the respondent country that had not gone beyond its boundary of discretion. Consequently, they might be seen as “vital in a democratic society.”
Beth (2009), in Mobilizing for Human Rights Even in the advent of evolving international relations, states retain the right to establish their own social, legal, and political arrangements independent from foreign interference (Melander et al., 2014). The development of international legal communities has proved vital in its stance on a sovereign government’s defense of rights abuse ought to be held responsible. Similarly, there is a broad range of rights an individual is entitled to.
Beth (2009) notes that a nation’s obligation is to safeguard its citizens. The country is responsible for ensuring the essential circumstances for public health as well as social and cultural life. Second, governments are responsible for organizing and providing equitable access to basic health care, which may include specific vaccines (WHO, 2018). The Court decided that protecting the group as a whole from serious diseases was more important than individual freedom, and that Czech law had better requirements for people who did not want to get immunized for health or spiritual reasons, which the opposing close relative did not show.
Beth (2009), through his works on diplomacy and international relations, provides an explanation of how international relations may be studied using a multi-disciplinary approach that enables information from a broad range of sources, including international elements of politics and history as well as international features of geography and economics (Melander et al., 2014). With these methods, the study of international relations has already had a substantial influence. Bridge the gap between theory and practice by providing better tools to analyze the increasingly complicated data in international relations research. This big and complicated topic can only be understood if you do not know everything, there is to know about world politics.
The ECtHR underlining that the nation of the Czech Republic did not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights by commanding a vaccination mandate on youngsters in that country means that the verdict ensures that there is harmony in international relations to make sure that countries do not infringe on the freedoms of other countries because of its negligence (WHO, 2018). Vaccination is a process that takes effect only by the applicant’s willingness to do so; otherwise, no vaccination is administered when the applicant disapproves of it. Domestic laws can only oversee the situation necessitating vaccination requirements by their people (ECHR, 2021). Considering that the intervention of vaccination has been one of the most fruitful and cost-effective approaches to combating deadly diseases (WHO, 2018), Child vaccination, however, requires a spectrum of policies, both legal and health related, to be vital.
The globalization of legal human rights stance has developed into a great aspect of human conditions. Governments have embarked on a commitment towards the setting of explicit obligations countering the old sovereign claims when it comes to the protection of human rights (Simmons 2009, 11). It represents the global acknowledgment that all human beings have inherent, unchallengeable, and correspondingly related fundamental privileges and freedoms, and that we are all born free and equal in dignity and rights (Melander et al., 2014). On December 10, 1948, the people of the world made a promise to protect the dignity and justice of everyone, no matter where they lived, what country they were from, what gender they were, what color they were, what religion they followed, what language they spoke, or anything else.
Case Two and its Analysis:
The second case is “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). “Almadou Sadio Diallo’s case against the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is about how he was wrongfully arrested and held for fraud (Frouville, 2007).The African Charter of Human Rights from 1981 and the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966 (ICCPR) (Frouville, 2007) say that Mr. Diallo’s rights as a person are being ignored.
Briefly, Guinea brought a complaint to the International Court of Justice on behalf of Diallo, one of its citizens, against the DRC. According to Guinea, Diallo, who had lived in D.R.C for 32 years, was detained and imprisoned without charge or trial by the defendant’s authorities, and his assets, property, and companies were wrongfully expropriated. Although Diallo had sought to reclaim money due to him by D.R.C. enterprises through local processes, the D.R.C. refused to allow Diallo access into the nation and thereby evicted him. Legally, the “refusal of admission” cannot be appealed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Guinea decided that Diallo’s treatment violated international law and that the Democratic Republic of Congo was accountable (Frouville, 2007). The DRC objected to two things in advance in Diallo. For one thing, non-Guinean firms had held Diallo’s property; therefore, Guinea had no diplomatic standing to defend it. The second was that neither Diallo’s firms nor Diallo had used all of the DRC’s local interventions. DRC argued that the charges were not acceptable since their side (Frouville, 2007) had not explored local remedies, such as the Prime Minister’s reconsideration. Consequently, Diallo did not meet the diplomatic protection criteria of exhausting local remedies.
The judge decided that the possibility of an administrative authority rethinking a decision made by an administrative authority is not a local option that must be used up before an international case can be brought against it (Frouville, 2007).Rule of customary international law says that any claim against a state must be pursued through its own legal system before international action can be taken. This gives the state a chance to fix any wrongdoing through its own legal system. Administrative remedies can only be used to meet the goals of a local rule if they are used to protect a right and not to get a favor, and only if they are important to the admissibility of following contentious procedures. Legal and administrative solutions must be exhausted. In this situation, the Prime Minister, who is in charge of running the government, can change his mind at any time. This does not count as an exhausted local remedy (Frouville, 2007).So, the DRC’s (D) challenge to the deportation claim must be turned down because it did not show that all possible solutions had been tried.
Many reasons explain why these preliminary concerns offered the Court with the chance to reconsider some of its previously established principles in Barcelona Traction and to examine the draft publications on diplomatic protection established by the International Law Commission in 2006 for the first time. It is important to quickly review the circumstances that brought Guinea and the (DRC) to the DRC objected to two things in advance in Diallo (Knight & O’Brien, 2008). For one thing, non-Guinean firms had held Diallo’s property; therefore, Guinea had no diplomatic standing to defend it.
The second was that neither Diallo’s firms nor Diallo had used all of the DRC’s local remedies. For a number of reasons, these preliminary concerns offered the Court with the chance to reconsider some of its previously established principles in Barcelona Traction and to examine the draft Publications on Diplomatic Protection established by the International Law Commission in 2006 for the first time (Knight & O’Brien, 2008). The outstanding opinion in the midst of the fragmented association between the court and human rights committee is explored. Through the guidance of international law, Guinea placed a value of $250,000 on the emotional and psychological harm that Mr. Diallo has endured in its memorial.
Many things were taken into account when determining how much harm Mr. Diallo had suffered, including the fact that his arrests and detentions had been arbitrary, that he had been detained for an excessive amount of time, that he had been accused of things he had not done, that he had been wrongfully expelled from the nation where he lived for 32 years and where he had been actively involved in trade, and the connection between his dismissal and the realization that he had tried suicide. Mr. Diallo had not been harmed in any way, and this was taken into consideration. The Court determined that Mr. Diallo was entitled to $85,000 in damages for the non-material harm he had incurred, based on equitable factors. Guinea’s loss of wages during Mr. Diallo’s unjust confinement and after his unlawful departure was evaluated by Guinea at around US $6.5 million in their memorial. The Court rejected Guernsey’s claim of a loss because it could not be shown. Because of this, it did not issue any compensation.
International human rights law (IHRL) guides countries’ responsibilities to people and those under their authority. The highest of human standards, that every human being has a set of rights and freedoms, is enshrined in international human rights legislation (Beth, 2009). Consequently, states cannot deprive people of their human rights, which must be respected at all times. As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a number of basic treaties, IHRL plays a critical function in the protection of all people. Human freedom laws also set out the rights of vulnerable groups like children and people who have been moved within their own country.
Section 1, of the European Convention of Human Rights under rights and freedoms, asserts that parties involved shall protect to everyone within their authority the rights and freedoms. They have rights to life, liberty, safety, fair trial, private life, and family life. Freedoms of thought, integrity, religion, expression, marriage, association and against discrimination. Beth (2009) highlights the paradoxical association between criminal law and human rights. The property of the bill of rights serves both as an offensive and defensive tool in the triggering and neutralization of applicable criminal law. An attempt to resolve this paradox contradicts as well as comes to terms with the complexity of the consequences ensuing from the balancing components. The role of protecting human rights gives criminal law the chance to be enforced.
Tying all the cases together
From the cases of “Vivricka and others vs. Czech Republic” and “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea vs. Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)”, it can be underlined that utilitarianism exists in the fulfillment of international relations..argued that domestic laws do not surpass international laws if they can jeopardize the interests of other nations. Utilitarianism’s philosophy implies that an act should achieve the greatest good. Specifically from the case of “Vivricka and others vs. Czech Republic,” the goal of Czech law is to guard against illnesses that may be dangerous to one’s health (Melander et al., 2014). This includes both individuals who get the vaccines at issue and those who cannot be vaccinated and are therefore vulnerable, depending on society as a whole to achieve a high level of immunization for protection against the communicable illnesses in question.
This goal relates to the goals of health defense and the protection of others’ rights, as stated in Article 8 of the Convention. The Court stated that topics of healthcare policy are within the national authorities’ range of assessment (WHO, 2018). That margin had to be broad in the current instance, which notably affected the mandatory character of kid immunization. It did, however, reaffirm Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to veneration for private life), which put an affirmative responsibility on contracting countries to take adequate steps to preserve the lives and health of people under their authority (Vallbona, 1993). Other international instruments impose similar requirements. The immunization responsibility, which is powerfully reinforced by the relevant medical authorities in the Czech Republic, represents the countrywide authorities’ reply to the challenging social requirement to defend individuals and public health against the illnesses in question as well as to safeguard against any downward tendency in the rate of vaccination among kids (Melander et al., 2014). Consequently, the greatest benefit was to be experienced not only by the parents but also by the children.
According to the Court, in all matters involving children, their best interests are of vital significance. Because of this, states are required to put the best benefits of each kid and the best interests of youngsters as a whole at the top of their lists when making decisions about their health and growth. When it comes to immunization, the goal should be to safeguard every kid from dangerous infections (WHO, 2018). In the vast mainstream instances, this is accomplished by ensuring that children get the entire schedule of immunizations throughout their childhood (Vallbona, 1993). Those who are unable to get such therapy are protected indirectly against infectious illnesses as long as the required level of vaccination coverage is preserved in their community; that is, their security derives from herd immunity (Melander et al., 2014). This public health strategy is founded on valid reasoning and, as such, is in the best interests of the children who are its primary focus (WHO, 2018). So, the Court agreed that the Czech government’s decision to make vaccinations mandatory is based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
There have been vital transitions in international law over the past century. Accountability is a key area of international human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is often considered as the foundation of international human rights statute. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was embraced in 1948, has reproduced a plethora of lawfully enforceable international human rights agreements (WHO, 2018). It is still a source of inspiration for all of us, whether we are facing injustices, fighting wars, living in oppressed countries, or trying to make sure everyone has the same rights.
The International Court of Justice (ILC) has its first chance to examine diplomatic defense problems since the introduction of the Draft Articles of the ILC. Regarding the Draft Articles’ ability to codify customary international law, the Court had numerous relevant observations to share with the parties involved. Also taken into account was who must carry the burden of evidence in respect to local interventions. Despite this, the Court made a number of significant conclusions about the source and nature of shareholders’ direct rights, which were particularly relevant in this case (Melander et al., 2014). For the first time since Barcelona Traction, a shareholder’s state of nationality has been given considerable regard to whether customary international law authorizes the state to diplomatically preserve the interests of a firm in which that shareholder has a stake.
Vaccines are among the few medical procedures that have the ability to advance the health of whole communities. 16 vaccine-preventable illnesses are now regularly immunized against in the Czech Republic, and vaccinations are now provided throughout the life span. Vaccination campaigns were successful in eradicating smallpox from the planet, as well as polio, measles, and rubella from the continent (Melander et al., 2014). It is anticipated that each fully vaccinated Czech Republic birth cohort would prevent 14 million illnesses and save $9.9 billion in direct medical expenditures as well as $33 billion in unintended costs with the use of the childhood vaccination series. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, rotavirus vaccines, and hepatitis A vaccines, to name a few, have all reduced the number of illnesses and hospitalizations in their target populations, but they’ve also had a multiplier effect by reducing the spread of disease from those who have been immunized to others (Vallbona, 1993). Newer global public–private collaborations and campaigning are helping to speed up the adoption of new and underused vaccinations by reducing the time between their introduction in wealthy countries and their widespread usage in impoverished countries.
Additionally, more than 700 million children have been immunized against measles since the Measles Initiative began in 2001, preventing an estimated 4.3 million deaths from the disease. Over 2 million extra deaths in children per year may be avoided if regular vaccination was expanded and new vaccines against pneumonia and diarrhea were implemented in the world’s poorest nations (World Health Organization, 2018). Epidemiology, public health, and infectious illnesses are all terms associated with the field of vaccination. Vaccines and vaccination programs have had a profound influence on human health and well-being because of their scientific development and large-scale distribution (Melander et al., 2014). Scientists and pharmaceutical companies to protect people from a wide range of illnesses have produced vaccines. Many of these treatments were started and are still being given because countries like the Czech Republic have national vaccination programs.
Because of vaccination efforts, almost all youngsters are vaccinated throughout the country. Longer lifespans, familial independence from the fear of severe scourges in childhood, the absence of disruptive public outbreaks, and cost savings from disease and disability prevention are just a few of the benefits of this collaborative scientific and public health effort (Vallbona, 1993).Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), hepatitis B, and HPV-related malignancies may all be prevented with vaccines, which protect against various acute infectious illnesses and their long-term consequences. Much of this development was achieved in the industrialized world during the previous 50 years, but in resource-poor settings, advancement was sometimes decades behind. However, unprecedented levels of public-private cooperation and investment have increased the effect in developing nations during the last decade (Melander et al., 2014). People criticize these accomplishments, but the scorecard shows that science and vaccination programs are winning the war against diseases that can be prevented by getting vaccinated.
Utilitarianism is also depicted in “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo vs. DRC.” The greatest good of international law in “Vavricka and Others v. the Czech Republic” was exemplified by the sanctioning of the vaccination project by the Czech Republic. However, Sadio in “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo vs. DRC” represents the “greatest good” because protection of the freedoms of an individual in internal relations is the highest agenda (Frouville, 2007). Therefore, by authorizing the compensation of Sadion, the Court wanted to show that all nations should obey the freedoms of people regardless of their origin, because humans live in one global society.
Therefore, Vallbona (1993) argues that court cases such as “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo vs. DRC” show that domestic laws and regulations must be aligned to international laws. The conduct of relations with foreign states on behalf of the nation as a whole is an essential role of the government (Frouville, 2007). These responsibilities include entering into and, on occasion, withdrawing from international accords. Some treaties also obligate a nation to participate in regional organizations such as ASEAN. Most contemporary constitutions have processes for establishing treaties on behalf of the whole nation. Some of them also restrict what may be accomplished by treaty without amending the constitution (Melander et al., 2014). Some constitutions require legislative review of foreign relations or consultation with constituent entities, states, and regions before entering into treaties that impact the obligations of these units. In foreign relations, the executive branch of government always takes the lead.
Parliaments are also often engaged in treaty negotiations and other related problems. Some constitutions discriminate between various sorts of treaties for this reason, requiring parliament’s participation for more significant treaties or when treaties need changes to domestic law (Vallbona, 1993). When deciding on the content of constitutions, the duties of a state under international law are often taken into account. Important international legal requirements may be immediately incorporated into a constitution, giving them precedence in local law (Melander et al., 2014). It may also be necessary to assess if a constitution’s provisions impede a state from fulfilling its international legal commitments. It is not required to include provisions in a constitution to assure conformity with international law if the country can comply in other ways. This problem is handled differently in states that are either monist or mostly dualist.
Many international legal obligations are already deemed domestic law in most nations and may be enforced by local courts. The primary legal impact of integrating international law concepts into a constitution in these nations is to explain their standing in the local law hierarchy (Vallbona, 1993). Because international law does not immediately become part of domestic law in predominantly dualist nations, including it in a constitution embodies foreign obligations into domestic law, makes them relevant to domestic courts, and explains their legal standing in domestic law. In any instance, incorporation in the constitution may have additional, less obvious impacts, such as increasing transparency of international legal commitments and signifying a country’s adherence to them. The majority of nations have hundreds of international legal requirements. Obviously, not all of these can be included in the constitution (Melander et al., 2014). Each government must select which commitments to incorporate and how to include them. In comparative practice, the question arises primarily with respect to two sets of obligations: those relating to characteristics of the government system and those dealing with human rights. People often say that under international law, a government system needs to have democracy and a separate court system.
Both are implied by more specific human rights. In the case of democracy, they include the right to “participate” in governance, as outlined in article 21 of the UDHR, and the right to vote in fair elections, as outlined in article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Vallbona, 1993). The right to a “hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” in article 10 of the UDHR and equivalent provisions in other international agreements are the root of the independent judiciary requirement, which is supported by different international declarations of principle (Chandler, 2000). Most nations, at least in principle, pursue democracy and an independent judiciary via a variety of institutional systems. What is okay for each country will depend on the situation there and the lessons learned from other countries.
International law is not prescriptive in terms of the forms that are used. Consider the consequences of international law for democracy and an independent judiciary in terms of the principles that both are intended to preserve. In the context of democracy, they include accountability, equality, and the avoidance of arbitrary power usage. They include fair and unbiased adjudication; equality; and the restriction of arbitrary use of authority for an independent judiciary. International human rights commitments have a strong influence on the elements of constitutions that safeguard rights (Vallbona, 1993). The International Bill of Human Rights is a useful reference for the applicable rights.
Integrating international human rights obligations within a constitution increases the chance of compliance throughout normal interpretation and application of the constitution. Certain features of international human rights, as outlined above, are also applicable to government institutions (Melander et al., 2014). Human rights provisions may also be expressed in elements of a constitution, such as the preamble, that are not necessarily obligatory but lay out a vision for the state and add to the constitution’s symbolic character (Chandler, 2000). However, even under international law, it is not mandatory to incorporate international human rights obligations into a constitution. If a country signs a document about human rights, it has to protect those rights, even if they are not written in the country’s constitution.
Conclusion
The cases of “Vavricka and Others v. the Czech Republic” and “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo vs. the DRC” show the importance of a country engaging in proper perfection of international law to avoid legal consequences. The International Law Commission’s (ILC) mission is to work toward the codification and improvement of standards of international law. It does this, at least in part, by offering a venue for determining what the guidelines are or ought to be, and then establishing contract on them. The ILC’s ultimate goal is to have its rules recognized as a valid representation of international customary law. The Draft Articles include elements that are customary in international law. Article 1 of the Draft Articles defines diplomatic protection as the invocation by a state, through diplomatic action or other means of peaceful settlement, of the responsibility of another state for any wrongful act committed by a natural or legal person that is a national of the former state. According to the draft articles’ criticism, article 1 makes no effort to establish a thorough and comprehensive description of diplomatic protection. ILC views diplomatic protection as a mechanism for assuring that states are held accountable when their nationals suffer harm due to internationally wrongful conduct that may be pursued via diplomatic action or other peaceful resolution, as stated in article 1.
References
Beth A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: international law in domestic politics. Cambridge University Press, 2009
Chandler, D. (2000). International Justice. New Left Review, 6, 55.
European Court of Human Right. (ECHR). (2021). CASE OF VAVRICKA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (European Court of Human Rights) Applications nos. 47621/13 and 5 others. https://laweuro.com/?p=14353
Frouville, O. D. (2007). Affaire Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (République de Guinée c. République démocratique du Congo). Exceptions préliminaires: le roman inachevé de la protection diplomatique. Annuaire Français de Droit International, 53(1), 291-327.
Knight, S. J., & O’Brien, A. J. (2008). Ahmadou Sadio Diallo-Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of The Congo-Clarifying the Scope of Diplomatic Protection of Corporate and Shareholder Rights. Melb. J. Int’l L., 9, 151..
Melander, G., Alfredsson, G., & Holmström, L. (2004). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966. In The Raoul Wallenberg Institute Compilation of Human Rights Instruments (pp. 21-42). Brill Nijhoff.
Schuchat, A. (2011). Human vaccines and their importance to public health. Procedia in Vaccinology, 5, 120-126.
Vallbona, C. (1993). Importance of immunization in child care and prevention. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 10(5), 365-377
World Health Organization. (WHO). (2018). Explorations of inequality: childhood immunization. World Health Organization.
write