Hot answers tagged

53

Arguably, the United States of America has. Sort of. It's confusing. The federal government, or rather the president and some of his cabinet, has largely left the response up to individual states. It's less of a conclusion, and more a result of chaos and denial at the Federal level. It is difficult to write this up in a neutral tone, to find sources with ...


28

Arguably, Russia did. Traditional Russian response to any problem in the last 20 years is to do everything on federal level to be able to praise V. V. Putin. All decision making process is centralized. However, nCoV pandemic with its restrictions of public freedoms and economic activity seems to be too toxic for that, so it's one of very rare cases where ...


11

You use loaded language like the word "admit". Think fairly. It is not obvious that any new virus can transmit from human-to-human. How would you tell that the virus can transmit from human-to-human anyway? The obvious way is to infect someone then lock that someone in a room with an uninfected individual, but of course nobody would want to participate in ...


9

The right to leave a country: ... is inscribed in most major human rights instruments and is intended to ensure that people can move freely, including out of the country they are in, without unjustified obstacles. States are permitted to place restrictions on the right to leave but any such restrictions must be necessary and are subject to a ...


7

This is hardly "coming out of nowhere"! There have been ongoing disputes between China and India since 1948, (and probably since 1948 BC!) There are several claim lines between China and India, and a vaguely defined "Line of Actual Control" (which as the name suggests can move as each side controls different sections of land.) The region is mountainous and ...


7

The full text of your article explains what it means by the US "meddling": For weeks, President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been claiming without evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic is linked to a lab in Wuhan that researches bat coronaviruses. Their efforts are clearly calculated to distract from Trump’s bungled response ...


6

Yes. Scotland. And Wales. And Northern Ireland. The UK Government, in London, has decided that the virus reproduction number, R, averaged over the entire UK, has dropped enough to allow relaxation of lockdown. However, the value of R may vary across different parts of the UK. It could be dangerously high in some places, while the average value is pulled ...


5

Short answer is "China" It's therefore an internal matter for China to sort out. It just happens that there are two governments that have opposing claims to be the "Government of China", and neither one looks likely to cede the Chinese territory that it holds to the other any time soon. A matter in international law is "determined" if all relevant parties ...


4

As far as I'm aware, the Chinese government as a whole has no official position on the origin of the virus. It is, however, possible to piece together a position based on local government actions, state media reporting, and actions of individuals within the government. At the beginning of the outbreak, in January, a paper was published in the medical ...


3

I believe this question shows some misunderstanding about what international law is and what it is not. By and large, international law is the customary law about how sovereign nations deal with each other. Historically it did not care much how nations deal with individuals or how nations arrange their internal affairs. This concept is known as Westphalian ...


3

Probably not. Apollo cost $25B ($150B) in today's money. There is a list of spin off technology and do keep in mind that this is the positive spin version of things. Does it look like it generated $150B of wealth? And, how many of these would have eventually been invented organically, wo NASA forcing? The problem is that, once a big state company gets ...


2

Legally, yes. In international law, disease control allows nations to take quite drastic steps restricting the travel of citizens and foreigners. Politically, no. In most parts of the world there is a (more or less open) debate about the economic and humanitarian costs of the lockdown vs. the humanitarian and economic costs of the virus. Leaders who order ...


2

Why are the allegations not taken as a dispute for redressal before the International Court of Justice? As Ted Wrigley explained in another answer, this doesn't fall within the scope of the ICJ. Apart from that, your question seems valid. Were there no terms of trade contract incorporated a priori for settlement of trade related disputes whenever they ...


2

I would say Sweden has done this depending on how you define decentralization. The public health agency in Sweden is relatively autonomous, meaning they make decisions and recommendations and the government accepts those and implements those relatively unquestioning. The position by the national public health agency has been to not shut the country down and ...


2

I find some polls conducted by the University of Hong Kong. They are now available here. One poll asks "Do you trust the Beijing central government". In 1997, fourteen days after the return, the answer was neutral, with only 1% difference between both sides. The poll is surprising to me. Before 1997, the response is no. From 1997 to 2011, Hong Kong people ...


1

Apparently, there are at least some legislative issues/voids (without even talking about enforcement), at least from the Western perspective. The OCHR Committee (on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) co-rapporteur for China, Nicolás Marugán said in a 2018 conference that The domestic legislation did not define racial discrimination in line with the ...


1

This question is probably not answerable as asked for now. While some details of the Chinese decision process have been made public, those regarding where to ban travel from/to have not, as far as I know. On the other hand, we know how long it took the US to ban all travel from China [except repatriations]--until Jan 31... and that there was significant ...


1

Cases only appear before the International Court of Justice with the explicit consent of both parties involved; it's more like binding arbitration than a proper court system. Historically speaking, both the USA and China have been unwilling to submit themselves to UN judgement in any context, seeing such as a violation of their national sovereignty. And to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible