Recently Nihon Keizai Shimbun Electronic Edition reported
the following:
米、対中コロナ訴訟相次ぐ 国際法への違反問う
2020/4/1 2:00 (2020/4/1 4:53更新) 日本経済新聞 電子版
世界的な新型コロナウイルス感染拡大を受け、米国内で個人や企業が中国政府を相手取り訴訟を起こす動きが広がる。中国が世界保健機関（WHO）への速やかな通報や情報提供の義務を怠ったために感染が拡大し、国際的に賠償責任があるとの主張に基づく。覇権を争う米中両国の非難合戦が背景にある。国際法上、中国に賠償をさせることは可能なのだろうか。
米フロリダ州では3月、個人や企業が中国政府を相手取った訴えを起こした。テキサス州やネバダ州でも同様な動きがあるという。健康被害や経済的損失に対して巨額の賠償を求める構えだ。
茂木敏充外相は31日の記者会見で「中国も含め透明で迅速に情報提供していくことが極めて重要だ。情報が正しく流されないのは問題でWHOを含め検証結果を待ちたい」と述べた。
新型コロナの発生地は中国湖北省武漢市とされる。同市衛生健康委員会によると、最初の発症確認は2019年12月12日。WHOは中国事務所が原因不明の肺炎に関する情報を得たのはその19日後と説明する。
中国当局は当初「人から人への感染はない」と強調。多数の患者が出た海鮮市場の閉鎖は20年1月1日だった。米国では初動の遅れが世界的な大流行につながったとの見方がある。
20年2月3日には中国指導部も「対応で至らなかった部分を補っていかなければならない」と初動の不備を認めていた。同月13日には湖北省と武漢市の両トップを更迭したと発表した。
初動が遅れたとしたらWHO憲章に基づく「国際保健規則」の通報義務に反している。同規則は、公衆衛生上の国際的な緊急事態の恐れがある事柄をWHOに通報すると定めている。「アセスメント（評価）した後24時間以内に」と迅速な対応を定め、通報後も適宜、情報提供を求めている。
同規則はコレラやペスト、黄熱病に加え05年の改正で新たな感染症全般を含めた。03年ごろに世界的に流行した重症急性呼吸器症候群（SARS=サーズ）で中国の対応が遅かった経緯がある。
国家責任を巡っては、国連の国際法委員会（ILC）が法典化を進めている国際慣習法に反するかどうかが論点となる。
ILCは01年に採択した条文案で「責任ある国家は、国際違法行為により生じた損害の完全な賠償義務を負う」と明記した。地方政府の違法行為が原因であっても国として国家責任が生じる。賠償は「原状回復」「金銭賠償」「陳謝」という形式を挙げる。
実際に中国に賠償させることは可能か。早大の萬歳寛之教授（国際法）は「原因と被害の因果が証明できなければ金銭賠償は難しい」とする。(1)科学的知見がありながら「相当の注意」を怠った(2)それが米国などの患者への罹患（りかん）につながった――との立証が必要という。「国際保健規則上の手続き違反があったとしてもそれだけでは再発防止の確約を求めるのが限界」と話す。
条文案はILCという機関が採択したにとどまり各国が批准した拘束力がある条約ではない。国際司法裁判所（ICJ）への提訴も中国の同意が前提となる。今回、中国の国家責任を問う場として米国の裁判を選ぶ動きは国際司法に持ち込むことが難しい事情もある。
国家責任を巡る議論は司法ではなく、外交的な駆け引きで解決する事例が多い。例えば、日韓両政府は戦後処理で裁判などは選ばず、両国間で請求権問題の「完全かつ最終的な解決」をうたった協定を結ぶ一方、賠償ではなく日本からの巨額な経済協力を選択した。
新型コロナの責任を巡る米中の応酬には今後の外交的な思惑も透ける。萬歳教授は「責任追及よりも国連総会やWHOなど多国間フォーラムで討論する機会を通じて知見を引き出すほうが現実的だ」と強調する。「悪役を懲らしめるという構図は国際社会ではうまく機能しない」とも語る。
Translation
With the spread of the new coronavirus worldwide,
individuals and businesses in the United States were increasingly suing the
Chinese government. The claim was that China's failure to promptly notify the
World Health Organization (WHO) and provide information had widened the
infection, making it liable for compensation internationally. In the background
was that US and China were fighting for hegemony. Was it possible under
international law to force China to make compensation?
In Florida, individuals and businesses filed a lawsuit in
March against the Chinese government. Similar actions had been taken in Texas
and Nevada. They were in preparation for seeking huge compensation for health damage and economic losses.
At a press conference on Tuesday, Foreign Minister
Toshimitsu Mogi said, "It is extremely important to provide information
promptly and transparently, including in China. It is a problem that
information is not correctly distributed, and we want to wait for result verification
including WHO."
The new corona broke out in Wuhan of Hubei Province in
China. According to its City Sanitation and Health Committee, the first case
was confirmed on December 12, 2019. The WHO explained that it received
information on unexplained pneumonia from the Chinese office 19 days later.
Chinese authorities initially stressed that there was
"no human-to-human transmission." The seafood market that had many
patients was shut down on January 1, 2020. Some held the view that the delay in
the United States in taking initial response had led to a global pandemic.
On February 3, 2020, the Chinese leadership also admitted
that the initial response was inadequate, saying that "We must make up for
the parts we had failed to respond to." On the 13th of the same month, it
announced that tops officials of Hubei Province and Wuhan City had been
replaced.
Under the WHO Charter, a delay in taking initial action
would violate the International Health Regulations' obligation to report. The
regulation provided that WHO should be notified of potential public health
emergencies. A prompt response was stipulated in that "within 24 hours
after the assessment", and information submission would be required as
appropriate after the reporting.
The rule included cholera, plague, and yellow fever; as well
as all new infectious diseases as covered in the 2005 revision. For the severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) that had become prevalent around 2003, China had
a history of slow response.
Regarding state responsibility, the arguing point was
whether it was violating customary international law that the United Nations
International Law Commission (ILC) was advocating codification.
The ILC stipulated in a draft text adopted in 2001 that
"responsible nations are fully liable for damages caused by international
wrongdoing." State responsibility arose as a result of local government
misconduct. Compensation may be in the form of "restoration,"
"money compensation," or "gratitude."
Was it possible to actually make China compensate? According
to Waseda University's Professor Hiroyuki Banzai (International Law), "if
the reason, and the cause and damage relationship cannot be proved, financial
compensation is difficult." It was necessary to prove that (1) neglecting
"appropriate attention" despite scientific knowledge, and (2) leading
to illness in patients such as in the United States as a result. He said "Even
if there is a breach of the procedures under the International Health
Regulations, it is limited to seeking an assurance of preventing
recurrence."
The draft text remained limited to an organization called
the ILC, and was not a binding treaty ratified by individual country. The
lawsuit filed with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) also required the
consent of China. At this time, as a place to ask for China's state
responsibility, it was difficult to bring the case to international justice as it
was a movement of picking a US trial.
In many cases, discussions on state responsibility were
resolved not by legal justice but by diplomatic bargaining. For example, the
governments of Japan and Korea had not chosen a legal judgement in handling the
post-war matters; they chose the signing of an agreement between the two
countries for a "complete and final solution" for the claim problem, with
huge economic cooperation from Japan instead of compensation.
Regarding the exchanges between the United States and China
over the responsibility for the new Corona, future diplomatic thoughts would become
transparent. Banzai emphasized that “it is more realistic to get insights
through the opportunity in discussion at multilateral forums such as the United
Nations General Assembly and WHO than to pursue responsibility”; and said that
"The idea of disciplining villains would not work well in the
international community".
It is
interesting to note that individuals and businesses in the United States are
increasingly trying to sue the Chinese government for spreading the new virus
that has caused health damage and economic losses in the US and globally.
沒有留言:
張貼留言