LEGAL GROUNDS FOR DEVIATIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

Abstract

The priority of human rights and freedoms at the beginning of the 21st century is a doctrinal axiom and a system-forming principle that constructs the foundations of the legal systems of modern democratic legal states. The majority of states have joined efforts to develop criteria for determining the scope and content of human rights, means of ensuring and protecting them, creating a powerful supranational system of relevant mechanisms within the framework of the UN, Council of Europe, EU, etc. At the same time, the events (political, economic) of recent decades pose to legal science a number of acute questions regarding the limitation of these rights in certain situations and the legal force of these decisions, as well as the nature of the state’s internal jurisdiction over these rights, the relationship between the principle of priority of human rights and the principle of sovereignty, the compensatory function of supranational structures in cases of failure of national states to fulfill the functions of guarantor of human rights and freedoms on their territories. The article shows that despite the fact that human rights exist in the form of international standards, there are conditions under which states can legally interfere with certain human rights by way of restrictions or concessions. Such restrictions and concessions were applied during the pandemic of the 20th century, which sometimes made it impossible to express one’s own views and to protest together in public. In addition to medical hazards and concerns, government-regulated lockdowns were one of the main reasons for this. Therefore, restrictions on a wide range of human rights, including freedom of assembly, did not lead to complete silence, and caused widespread concern in society. And it is in such a situation that the question arises about human rights standards that are established at the international level and whether the state has the right to limit human rights in such cases. Restrictions affected such rights as: the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association. During the pandemic, it became clear that the pandemic exacerbated existing human rights problems. Many social problems have intensified, from socio-economic inequality to the lack of political freedom, these discontents and problems arose not because of biomedical reasons, but because of how states responded to the outbreak of the disease. From the point of view of both human rights and democracy, this poses a serious danger. Being international standards of human rights due to their inalienability, their nature may in some cases be subject to certain restrictions, and a number of international acts prescribe rules according to which states can introduce certain restrictions on human rights despite their universality and inalienability. Such exceptions are epidemics and pandemics, which in themselves threaten the exercise of human rights, especially the right to life and the right to health, which is a natural right. Although the restriction of certain freedoms may be temporarily necessary to control the outbreak of epidemics, such restriction must be carefully limited and constantly monitored to avoid abuse.