| Abstract
|
:
|
Legal responses to the covid-19 pandemic have varied widely. Korea represents an interesting case study, as it seemed particularly well prepared, having enacted legislation in the wake of the mers outbreak, in 2015, to tackle future pandemics. This obviated recourse to emergency powers legislation, and couched Korea’s response in normal legislation, which tends to raise fewer human rights concerns than may arise under emergency measures. Despite this, however, Korea’s response to covid-19 raises significant questions about its compliance with core human rights norms under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, including freedom of religion and non-discrimination. These arose with regard to the state’s treatmennt of members of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus (scj), a relatively small, occasionally controversial, religious group. The treatment of the scj by the Korean state raises questions about whether its legal approach to tackling covid-19 was fit for purpose. Legal responses to the covid-19 pandemic have varied widely. Korea represents an interesting case study, as it seemed particularly well prepared, having enacted legislation in the wake of the mers outbreak, in 2015, to tackle future pandemics. This obviated recourse to emergency powers legislation, and couched Korea’s response in normal legislation, which tends to raise fewer human rights concerns than may arise under emergency measures. Despite this, however, Korea’s response to covid-19 raises significant questions about its compliance with core human rights norms under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, including freedom of religion and non-discrimination. These arose with regard to the state’s treatmennt of members of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus (scj), a relatively small, occasionally controversial, religious group. The treatment of the scj by the Korean state raises questions about whether its legal approach to tackling covid-19 was fit for purpose.
|