جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تعهد به پیشگیری » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Three months after the outbreak of the Coronavirus (Covid-19), more than 200 countries around the world have been infected with this virus. The wide and transboundary dimensions of this disease make it necessary to examine those obligations that States must bear to prevent and compensate transnational harm in general and those originated from the pandemic in particular. This article tries to define the scope of the States’ obligations. The most common cause of Corona is related to the sale and purchase of some wild animals in China's Wuhan Wet Market, but since the exact cause of the Corona virus has not yet been exactly determined, this article examines the States' commitment to prevent and compensate Corona’s transboundary damages in two hypothetical scenarios to cover all aspects of this issue. In the first hypothetical scenario, assuming the effect of the Wuhan Wildlife Wet Market in China, the obligation of the State of origin (China) to prevent and compensate for Covid-19 is being examined. In the second one, it is assumed that there is no specific cause for the disease, and then the general commitment of States to prevent transboundary harm is studied.

Due to the advancement of industry and increasing economic activities, environmental interferences have been raised, which has led to the emergence of transboundary harm. Given the widespread effects of transboundary harm, governments have departed from a traditional compensation-based approach to a preventive approach. Experiences and scientific findings show that in addition to its environmental benefits, the preventive approach is economical and therefore is known as the Golden Rule and the Environmental Watch Tower. This article seeks to identify the main elements of the states’ obligation to prevent transboundary harm, using international instruments and precedents. It is concluded that firstly, the obligation to prevent includes two elements: substantial (or due diligence) and procedural (or cooperation), each of which has their structures or components whose existence is essential in identification of the responsibility of the state of origin. Secondly, considering the extent and the negative effects of transboundary harm, the two elements are intrinsic and inseparable, both necessary to fulfill the state’s commitment to prevention.