Answer

Abstract

The paper highlights the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international law and economics across the globe. Subsequently, finding anchorage on the proposition that perceives nationalism as an international and pervasive concept in the modern world, it investigates the extent to which protectionist inclinations have been crystallized by the contagion. Findings suggest that the pandemic and concomitant containments are incapable of escalating exclusionary nationalism. However, 5 features are scrutinized in this paper which could be molded by the pandemic: quarantine law and impact on economy, border controls and recent patterns of protectionism, the rise of racism, discrimination, and illegal repatriations, medical nationalism and limitation of international cooperation, and weakening of global governance structures and cooperation. Thus, whereas the emergence of exclusionary nationalism cannot be considered to be the anticipated result of the Covid-19 pandemic, it could strengthen preexistent nationalist dynamics for which China and other developing countries should not be blamed.

Contents

Introduction   4

Quarantine Law and Impacts on the Economy  5

Border Controls and Repatriation of Nationals  6

Racism, Discrimination and Illegal Repatriations  10

Medical Nationalism and Cessation of International Corporation   12

Weakening of global governance and cooperation   16

Conclusion   17

References  18

China shouldn’t be sued or blamed for the COVID-19 outbreak which caused massive human and economic loss because it’s impossible under the international law, and countries should promote cooperation through the hard times.

Impacts of COVID-19 Measures

Introduction

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2, or Covid-19 pandemic has precipitated a global economic and political crisis hitherto unprecedented in history, impacting over 100 countries in a few weeks (Remuzzi & Remuzzi, 2020). Accordingly, comparative and cross-national studies by Harari (2020) associate the global contagion with two important choices as far as world politics is concerned. The first regards totalitarian surveillance or citizen empowerment while the second is the choice between nationalist isolation and global solidarity (Harari, 2020). From review of extant literature, the interaction of the COVID-19 virus and the latter is far more prominent and is the subject of ongoing discourse. Incidentally, the contemporary understanding of COVID-19 phenomenon is taking place in the wider context of “strong mainstreamed exclusionary nationalism” among major geopolitical players across Europe and North America (Bieber, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has different levels of impact on people’s lives. Yet, this global pandemic was originated from China. Therefore, it is worth to investigate more about whether China has violated its international legal obligations. This paper focuses on quarantine law and its impact on international law and economics. Consequently, drawing from conceptual and empirical research, this paper proves the existence of autonomist policies long before Covid-19 pandemic broke out, and as a consequence, China should not be blamed. An attempt to apportion blame on China is just a continuation of anti-immigrant sentiments in general and anti-Chinese sentiments, in particular.

Quarantine Law and Impacts on the Economy

Exploratory policy studies by Zhang, Hu and Ji (2020) project the potential impact of the pandemic at 7 billion infections and about 40 million fatalities overall. However, the grim statistics somewhat represent an oddity as rapid activation of containment measures across the globe are likely to contain the spread: cessation of movement into and out of affected cities, closure of international boundaries, and policy declarations across 136 countries could counter the spread of the virus. Accordingly, Parmet and Sinha (2020) perceive control measures as embedded in quarantine laws aimed at controlling the diffusion of infectious diseases. In such instances, the United States law mandates quarantine though section 361 of the Public Health Service Act which empowers the Surgeon General and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “apprehend, detain, or issue a conditional release for the purpose of preventing the introduction into the country, or the spread across state lines, of a quarantinable disease, as designated by executive order” (Parmet & Sinha, 2020). Despite anchorage in law, tradeoff between benefits of quarantine and economic ramifications are difficult to realize. The containment measures have also instigated economic depressions across the world, and a yet to be determined impact on financial markets (Zhang, Hu & Ji, 2020). Similarly, drastic fiscal policies have been instigated across the world to ameliorate prospective shocks on concerned financial markets. For instance, unconventional Quantitative Easing (QE) strategy by the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States has successfully stabilized the domestic market temporarily by deferment of investor panic. However, the inability of such policies to inspire short –term and long-term investor confidence are well documented. As a result, distress in US financial could potentially reverberate across emerging economies as well. Similar effect was reported during the global economic and financial crisis of 2008, when the US QE contemporaneously escalated systemic risks across markets in other parts of the world (Zhang, Hu & Ji, 2020).

Border Controls and Repatriation of Nationals

The Covid-19 pandemic emerged at a time when globalization was under sustained onslaught from major world powers. It should be reminisced that greater influx of migrant workers in foreign lands has been declining lately. Indeed, anticipated “ease” of contemporary emigrations has been moderated by profoundly “schizophrenic and paranoid” restrictions to the “unwanted” migrant through inhumane treatment at the borders (Wallace &Young 2018; Chin 2017). Surprisingly, or perhaps by design, this incongruity in the midst of “globalization” was conveniently ignored. This backdrop has been used to explain the conspicuous speed with which expatriates trooped to their home countries in the wake of the epidemic.  Sander and Rudall (2020) note a trend among individual States, in which an unprecedented expression of nationalism, evidenced by systematic closure of common borders and coordinated repatriation of nationals was witnessed. In some instances, far-reaching extraditions of nationals have been escalated through hired planes, improved medical personnel and intricate diplomatic support. In this regard, and ironically so, curtailment of the spread of the virus into domestic fronts have been sought through heightened “scramble to return home” by multitudes oblivious of the risk of spreading the virus at home (Sander & Rudall, 2020). Granted, closures of borders have been presumably anchored on medically convincing arguments. However, such justifications should be perceived in light of the nationalist, if not xenophobic motives by various countries (Wallace & Young, 2018). Logically, deterrence of foreign nationals at border points and subsequent appropriation of funds for extradition of citizens seems to be an antecedent of political and legal contemplations rather than the urge to combat a disease.  In fact, repatriation appears to belie an overriding fidelity to national interests above international obligations. Several scholars, notably, Wallace and Young (2018) and Chin (2017) associates a number of occurrences with repatriation. Principally, it exposes an invigorated flirtation with nationality. In that respect, citizens are extended the privilege to repatriate prior to the closure of the window. Whereas the foregoing discussion seems to confirm the denigration of nationality in years past, this paper actually suggests otherwise. In fact, in antiquity, nationality has been perceived as a crucial “vector of privilege” even in the era of globalization (Wallace & Young 2018; Chin 2017). However, emphasis on nationality has been fashioned into a tool for protecting the interests of the elite, and parochially remodeling the bounds of repatriation in disparately dissimilar ways to the rest. Thus, the Nation State is empowered and remodeled into a protective entity for defense of National interests over and above international interests.  In certain instances, permanent residents and foreign nationals whose children were born in their countries of residence have benefited from State-sanctioned rights to return. However, for the most part, this has been the exception rather than the norm, additionally buttressing the detachment of families as an integral part of immigration policing rather than an incidental feature of such measures (Sander & Rudall, 2018). That being the case, the diaspora has emerged as an important interlocutor in international relations and law. In recent times, these groups have expressed their prospects with regard to Countries of origin in a range of domains regarding the capacity to return and extradition. The preceding argument demonstrates the desire of Nations to rescue citizens from the throes of pandemics in foreign lands. This is in part, due to their increasingly vital role through remittances or political support. Be that as it may, diaspora groups are also twice as vulnerable, first, to extreme measures in countries of residence, and secondly, to their immediate neighbors in residential areas, some of whom have blamed them for “importing” the virus (Sander & Rudall, 2020; Bieber, 2020).  Cases abound of returnees whose return have been shrouded in mistrust. Similarly, receiving countries have to contend with the paradox associated with obligations to extend gratitude or preclude the same to their diaspora citizens with an added risk of straining enduring bonds.  For instance, Wallace Lebanon, Ethiopia and Armenia have reportedly courted their diasporic citizens to make financial contributions for compatriots with coronavirus, while Romania has unequivocally dissuaded its diaspora citizens from returning for fear they may import the dreaded disease. Questions abound as to the significance of the diaspora after remittances cease as may be occasioned by their repatriate to countries of origin. Some have dismissed diaspora as a “fragile” concept applicable to both passport holders and nonholders alike.  For instance, since the onset of the pandemic, India has deferred visa free entry for its diaspora citizens. Correspondingly, responses to the outbreak of Covid-19 have found anchorage on an old-fashioned idea of “protection” (Sander & Rudall, 2020). This was a deliberate step to deliver a deceptive form of support, often achieved through extradition. In that sense, physical boundaries have been associated with some degree of “immunity”, leading to the refining of “geographies of movement and quarantine” that bestride national and the international boundaries. Traditionally, this kind of protection was perceptively extended at the pleasure of the State, though publicly discoursed as a constitutional duty to citizens abroad, a kind of offshore government agency. Sadly, the limited protection, often enjoyed by an elitist mass within the Nation positively correlates with erosion of protections for immigrant nationals, especially the undocumented ones. In light of the ongoing pandemic, the focus of policy makers has shifted to possible impacts of renewed fixation with nationalism, particularly if such policies are perpetuated in subsequent months.

These concerns have led a number of authors to demarcate pre-Covid-19 concept of globalization as a half-truth or a half-lie, a position heralded by access to freedom of movement for some and preclusion of the same privileges for others.  Thus, the great divide, manifested as the Western-Chinese axis, has been made more visible by the Covid-19 pandemic within the context of globalization especially when considered in light of characteristically “abusive and exploitative” tendencies (Sander & Rudall, 2020). In addition, sufficient discourse on globalization has shifted to the demise of globalization and manifested by apparent separations between erstwhile friends, namely, US and UK, US-Canada, and Hong Kong-China and Schengen (Sander & Rudall, 2020).  In practice, these dynamics propagate the view of the border as a significant tool for exclusion, detention, and expression of privilege. Undeniably, gravitation towards protectionist and nationalist ideas are expected to spur individual States to entrench elitist practices under the pretext of safeguarding national interests. In that respect, an uncanny connection between the pandemic and national construction can be established: that National policies are crafted to forestall contagious infections from abroad. This school of thought perceives migrants as the source of asymptomatic hosts of myriad infections. This view concurs with poplar view that governments tend to take most advantage of frightened citizens during emergencies. In many countries, the pandemic has succeeded in curtailing movements of people, aided to a large extent by portentous interplay between intrinsic values of dictatorial or liberal systems in approaches to combating the disease. Deductively, Sander and Rudall (2020) juxtaposes this kind of pretentious interest by countries towards citizens trapped in foreign lands with incredible apathy in regards to extradition of their nationals suspected of joining openly anti-western groups such as” al-Dawla al-Islamiya fil Iraq wa al-Sham” (DAESH). This further demonstrates State concern for nationals as a primary, yet highly controversial matter. The bounds of nationality, the kinds that elicit greatest protectionist responses from their governments could be tacitly demarcated to differentiate between nationals especially those holding dual nationalities or racialized nationals. Diverse literature associates international law with the creation of globalization in its current state, and as a tool for explaining its weaknesses. Thus, international law can be helpful for as a tool for crystallizing various methods of tracking and exerting surveillance long deployed in the fight against terrorism or specific total institutions such as prisons, military academies.  To forestall such excesses human rights being fronted as panacea for confronting the worst of buses. However, possible suspension during the “proclamation of states of emergency in technologies of statehood” as well as entrenched methodological nationalism renders them ineffective for confronting “exclusionist” directives at international crossings. Presently, discussions on “rights and exceptions, limitations ‘for reasons of public policy or internal security’, “extremely critical situations”, and proportionality” is being implemented with the typically imprecise, and conceivably familiar, and probably dangerous, imprecision during a dispensation in which the obligation the European Union’s commitment to both “internal mobility and external asylum”  are in crisis (Sander & Rudall, 2020).

Racism, Discrimination and Illegal Repatriations

A number of studies have linked the Covid-19 pandemic with an upsurge in cases of racism and discrimination aimed at Chinese nationals in the United States and beyond. For instance, phenomenological studies by Devakumar, Shannon, Bhopal and Abubakar (2020) show that between March 19 and April 1, 2020 a total of 1,135 incidences of COVID-19-related discrimination were reported in the US. Specifically, the studies identify verbal assault as the most prevalent form of discrimination.  However, other victims filed complaints for being precluded from public utility services such as public transport. Further, there were reported cases physical assault, and spitting directed at the victims on suspicion of being Covid-19 positive. This feeds into existing anti-Chinese and anti-Asian bias that has a long historical record. Available data associate increased aggression towards Chinese nationals in the United States to growing stature of China as a key player power in global politics. Simmering geopolitical wars between China on one hand, and the European Union, and the USA are perceived being reproduced in the management of the global pandemic. The blame for overt and covert spread of Covid-19 has since been extended to other groups, excluding the Chinese and Asians as well. For instance, Bieber (2020) has since established a link between immigration and Covid-19 related diplomatic issues. In 2020, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán attributed the diffusion of the virus to immigration. Incidentally, anti-immigrant sentiments had been a core part of his sentiments since 2014. Moreover, without justifiable cause, Mr. Orbán’s government proceeded to shut an extremely protected asylum system (Inotai, 2020). In the United States, the emergency rules to combat the pandemic have authorized the Department of Homeland Security to repatriate “illegal and undocumented migrants” to their native countries in disregard of due process (Bieber, 2020). In India, leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party equated Muslims to terrorists for voicing their opposition to new citizenship law. As Covid-19 cases in India spiked, the government, ruling party and the media designated Muslim Indians as “supercarriers” (Daragahi 2020; Kazmin, White & Palma 2020). Similarly radical right wing political formations in Europe such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), have either claimed a connection between the pandemic and the enduring challenge of migration or called for suppressive policies precisely intended to emasculate migrant populations (Bieber, 2020). Similarly, in Central Europe, Roma became synonymous with discrimination, and was subsequently censured for spreading the virus. The latest trend adds to the time-honored pattern of associating the presence of “minorities, racial groups, and specific communities” to diseases. Exclusionary nationalist and racist practices are also positively correlated with attributions of diseases to particular migrant communities. Case in point is the anti-Semitic campaign in Nazi Germany, which compared Jews to a chronic disease on the German body politic. Accordingly, Bieber (2020) argues that such deprecating attributions not only debased the people concerned but also propagated the perception of Nations as a collection of “living things”. Thus, association of nations with living bodies and subsequent consideration as parasites” has been blamed on “normalization of people as parasites or diseases which contributed to growing perception of immigrant workers nonhuman status and justifying their murder.

Medical Nationalism and Cessation of International Corporation

In the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, one instant impact has been the emergence of a new phenomenon referred to as “medical nationalism” (Youde, 2020). Essentially, medical tourism advocates for strong domestic medical priorities without regard to foreign policy implications. Consequently, owing to limited medical supplies in hospitals, and of drugs shortage of drugs and medical personnel, and domestic concerns, an immediate response was accomplished through cessation of international cooperation.  While initial accounts of the “scramble for medical supplies” are believed to have overelaborated hostile and combative aspects of the responses, they still mold public opinions. Deliberate restrictions on export of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators and other medical supplies by individual countries especially from within the European Union represented a problem. From the beginning of the pandemic, EU countries disregarded common market practices thereby weakening diplomatic ties with countries outside the European Union. One aspect of the protectionist practices activated by the EU in the initial stages of the pandemic was the setting up of Union-wide guidelines directing all countries to obtain permits for very limited export of medical supplies. The net effect of these measures was the “Europeanization” of the Covid-19 measures and reinvention of intra-EU cooperation (Bayer, Deutsch, Hanke & Tamma, 2020). However, in regions where such structures are nonexistent, inflexibility of State boundaries were exposed: the boundaries became more conspicuous. Despite the apparent superior coordination within the EU, protectionist tendencies elsewhere severely limited supply of medical supplies, as reemergence of boundaries felt the effects of national responses to the pandemic. Specifically, EU countries were generally lacking in competences on public health, rendering the EU had been institutionally ill “equipped to respond” (Bieber, 2020). In particular, in countries that bore the greatest impact of the pandemic such as Italy, the sluggish and uncertain other member states damaged their trust in European unity. The vulnerabilities within the EU were expertly exploited by a number of rightwing Eurosceptic parties, such as the Lega in Italy, and buttressed the north-south dichotomy in the EU traceable to the Eurozone crisis of 2010–2012. Taking some cue from their counterparts in Europe, radical right wing politicians across the globe effected short-term border shutdowns in response to the pandemic, claiming justification for their enduring calls for the closure of borders. In fact,  Laura Huhtasaari, a Member of the European Parliament from the Finn’s Party, a radical conservative,  far-right Finns Party, declared,  “the need for borders is being vindicated by the pandemic” (Bieber, 2020).

Though the overriding notion of nationhood by conservative parties and politicians have tended to revolve around enforcement of border restrictions and lockdowns,  and the campaign to see them made permanent in the hope that their views can be validated, the link is not as straightforward. First, current boarder restrictions are transitory. Granted, it may be necessary to keep the restrictions for longer durations than initially envisaged, the measures cannot be in force permanently. Second, the pandemic has given rise to an unprecedented phenomenon in which nationals Europe and North America are restricted in their homes. Consequently, Bieber (2020) observes that while a high number of European and American nationals are expected to consent to the containment measures, it is unlikely that extended lockdowns could inspire confidence among citizens in the foreseeable future.  Similarly, the Covid-19 crisis has fairly exposed undesirable concomitants of closed borders. Moreover, diffusion of COVID-19 across international boundaries has proven that even the most drastic policies such as border restrictions and total grounding of international air transport, have failed to contain the spread of the virus.  Thus, the highlighted failures of the measures so far could be a sign that a change in strategy is imminent. More specifically, the disruptive nature of border restrictions should accelerate their reduction, instead of their perpetuation. Long term solution to the debacle at border points should be sought in the wider context of historically similar approaches to the age-old refugee crisis. It should be reminisced that escalated border checks and dehumanizing conditions at crossings crucially anteceded the slow demise of the Schengen Area system. Since such controls have mainly targeted migrant communities, they have conveniently exempted individuals from “privileged” countries (Bieber, 2020). On the other hand, in the case of Covid-19 related restrictions did not discriminate citizens in accordance to socioeconomic status or nationality.

As previously highlighted, the shutting of international borders and repatriation of citizens has reiterated the significance of citizenship. For instance, in his regular briefings to the media, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, constantly made reference to his audience as “Austrians”, and conveniently overlooked a considerable population of permanent residents (Bieber, 2020). Taking the Austrian context as a microcosmic representation of Covid-19-mediated dynamics in other parts of the world, it has been observed that the price of citizenship has significantly increased. Crucially, though, the idealization of citizenship is not uniformly applicable across all countries: the significance of nationality seems to vary depending on the scope of infection, in general, and number of active caseloads in particularly (Bieber, 2020). For instance, during the early stages of the infection, Chinese and Iranian citizens endured the most restrictions. However, as the epicenter of infections shifted to Europe, it was the Italians and Spaniards who faced greater travel limitations. The reemergence of border controls across Europe and the globe as tools of exercising sovereign power, citizenship facilitated repatriations but repeatedly subjugated foreign nationals. The constraints that kicked in February and March 2020, for the most part, did not consider differences in city of residence or origin “for travel and citizenship purposes”. As a result, the Chinese and other nationalities became the new objects of discrimination, despite not having returned from designated Covid-19 hot spots (Bieber, 2020; Dzankic & Piccoli, 2020). It is projected that the global diffusion of the virus will expose citizens from the “Global South” to increased border restrictions.

The result could herald an entrenchment of international variations in citizenship, particularly as nationality and migrant policies are likely to remain inelastic in the foreseeable future.  Without doubt, the pandemic initially buttressed the superiority of the nation over international obligations. Thus the provision of security, facilitation of health-care system, and economic interventions are basically executed within the context of the State. Thus, it is fair to state that centrality of the State in post-Covid era has been enhanced and seems to exceed their responses their participation in “neoliberal global system” (Bieber, 2020). Additionally, strengthening participation of the State has been sought by State actors irrespective of philosophical and sociopolitical leanings. New emphasis on State interventions seems to question time-honored views that venerate market forces as sufficient for moderating global economy. In fact, governments have manipulated “free markets” to acquire vital goods for their nationals.

Weakening of Global Governance and Cooperation

The preeminence of The State also minimizes international cooperation and governance. In recent times, the EU, drawing from a vastly superior structure and protocol has effectively exerted its influence during crises. An exploratory study by Bulmer (2014) focuses on Germany’s role in the EU to outline the impact of national interests on international pursuits. For instance, during the Eurozone crisis, Germany was expected to offer leadership in resolving the crisis. The crisis was instigated by the collapse of Iceland's banking system, followed by the spread of the contagion to Portugal, then Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain in quick succession. It has been suggested that Germany’s “ordo-liberal” principles came to the fore, and eventually overtook its pursuit of European integration. Nevertheless, German supremacy has generated sufficient interest among member States to warrant an expectation of leadership. However, theoretical and empirical explorations have proved that transnational legitimacy and growing internal limitations have precluded a leadership role. Specifically, it is evident that domestic political environment mediated by “ordo-liberalism” has effectively hamstrung pro-European ambitions. The Ordo-liberal pursuits of domestic stability seem to midwife Germany’s dual attempt to meet international intents within the EU but satiating the demands of national politics (Bulmer, 2014). As highlighted by Bieber (2020) and Sander and Rudall (2020), the pandemic has exposed susceptibilities of member of States to vacillations in global chains.  Covid-19-induced disruptions in international markets have rendered many countries incapable of accessing vital medical deliveries. The departure from globalization has been propagated by ultraconservative groups within the United States who question the rationale of “pursuing internationalism even as an ideal, when interconnectedness itself exposes us to such serious risks” (Bieber, 2020).  In any case, it is argued, the pandemic would have abated if restrictions to international trade and travel were restricted, and people had stayed at home (Bieber, 2020). The domino effect of protectionist tendencies is that smaller countries will struggle to cope with disruptions in global markets while larger economies will strengthen isolationist policies. The resulting situation seems to augment extant rivalries and power competition, and is panacea for weakened globalization. The transitory “deglobalization” as accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic is unparalleled, and the removal of border restrictions and complete return to global air traffic could be attained in several months. If that is realized, then the world is likely to witness anti-elitist and pro-autonomy political operatives perpetuate policies that combine disease control with “nationalist and isolationist” purposes. Further, Stephen M. Walt, an important figure of the Realist School of International Studies surmises the post-Covid world as “Less Open, Prosperous, and Free,” The State will buttress nationalism (Allen et al., 2020). Ironically, the preceding view argues in favor of Nationalism as a profoundly embedded phenomenon in international systems and in majority of societies around the world. Consequently, the novel coronavirus pandemic and State-sanctioned containment measures are unlikely to change this reality.

Conclusion

Conclusively, foregoing discussions have proven, in broad terms, a positive correlation between autonomist policies, a general weakening of international law, suspension of minority rights, and a prospectively depressed economy. In addition, it has surveyed literature has proved that protectionist trends, in existence long before Covid-19 pandemic broke out, have buttressed ant globalization tendencies. As a rest, China should not shoulder the blame. While enforcement of international law is difficult to execute in cross-border jurisdictions, international players should explore innovative mechanisms to discourse liability for human rights infringements during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. In this regard, extraterritorial solutions should not be preferred over homegrown interventions and vice versa. Through proper delineation of the main concerns of principle and policy, it is possible and necessary to instigate procedures for ameliorating the challenges that occur in relation to transboundary prosecution as a critical strategy for achieving greater international cooperation on this issue in future. However, it is essential not to ignore the pressing necessity to entrench jurisprudence and to build capacity ubiquitously.

downsides, hence facilitating an effective engagement process.