The object of this study was constitutional consideration for the national disaster, above all COVID-19. Recently, COVID-19 is spreading around the world wide.
In response, countries are trying to do anti-infection measures and prevent the spread of COVID-19. It is important where the obli...
The object of this study was constitutional consideration for the national disaster, above all COVID-19. Recently, COVID-19 is spreading around the world wide.
In response, countries are trying to do anti-infection measures and prevent the spread of COVID-19. It is important where the obligation of the state to prevent the spread of COVID-19 come from. If the obligation for these efforts is simply a moral obligation, the state will not have to do its best. But it should be obligation is legal. Then, there is a need to consider such a legal review based on the Constitution, which is the highest position in law system.
To do above efforts, countries may have to limit the fundamental rights of its people. For example, religious freedom could be limited when infectee occurs in that religious organization, and privacy protection by tracking the location of mobile phones of those who have been confirmed to be COVID-19. In the end, religious freedom or privacy protection may be invade. On the contrary, however, many people who are concerned about the COVID-19 infection will demand that the countries take the above measures to prevent the spread of the COVID-19.
People can claim the basic rights they have as above, in result, conflicts between fundamental rights are caused. Country has an obligation to protect the basic rights of the people, and in the event of conflicts between fundamental rights as above, the state must solve these issues.
This paper focused on the discussion of these situations and studied the relevant discussions. In terms of religious freedom, the ban on religious gatherings does not dissolution religion itself, so it will be said that the restriction is only minimal, so such a restriction on basic rights is inevitable. It is also could say in restrictions on privacy and freedom. It is inevitable as long as they are enforced for the public interests which is preventing the spread of infectious diseases. And if property rights are infringed in a national crisis, compensation for losses will have to be made in accordance with relevant laws. However, it points out that a deeper discussion is needed on the occurrence of a gray area where property rights cannot be preserved inevitably.
In this paper, we recognized that conflicts between fundamental rights among the people occur, and in that case, the state limits some basic rights for governmental obligations to guarantee the basic rights. And general legal principles are mentioned. in this connection, it is necessary to emphasize "pre-prevention" as a factor that justifies the restriction of basic rights in the national Crisis. If the basic right of life rights is violated by the spread of infectious diseases, the violated basic rights cannot be restored. Pre-prevention is not limited to infectious diseases like COVID-19. In addition, regarding the restriction of basic rights in future national emergency, it is necessary to think the duty of protecting the basic rights of the people by further considering the factors of pre-prevention in addition to the existing general legal principles limiting basic rights.
The object of this study was constitutional consideration for the national disaster, above all COVID-19. Recently, COVID-19 is spreading around the world wide.
In response, countries are trying to do anti-infection measures and prevent the spread of COVID-19. It is important where the obligation of the state to prevent the spread of COVID-19 come from. If the obligation for these efforts is simply a moral obligation, the state will not have to do its best. But it should be obligation is legal. Then, there is a need to consider such a legal review based on the Constitution, which is the highest position in law system.
To do above efforts, countries may have to limit the fundamental rights of its people. For example, religious freedom could be limited when infectee occurs in that religious organization, and privacy protection by tracking the location of mobile phones of those who have been confirmed to be COVID-19. In the end, religious freedom or privacy protection may be invade. On the contrary, however, many people who are concerned about the COVID-19 infection will demand that the countries take the above measures to prevent the spread of the COVID-19.
People can claim the basic rights they have as above, in result, conflicts between fundamental rights are caused. Country has an obligation to protect the basic rights of the people, and in the event of conflicts between fundamental rights as above, the state must solve these issues.
This paper focused on the discussion of these situations and studied the relevant discussions. In terms of religious freedom, the ban on religious gatherings does not dissolution religion itself, so it will be said that the restriction is only minimal, so such a restriction on basic rights is inevitable. It is also could say in restrictions on privacy and freedom. It is inevitable as long as they are enforced for the public interests which is preventing the spread of infectious diseases. And if property rights are infringed in a national crisis, compensation for losses will have to be made in accordance with relevant laws. However, it points out that a deeper discussion is needed on the occurrence of a gray area where property rights cannot be preserved inevitably.
In this paper, we recognized that conflicts between fundamental rights among the people occur, and in that case, the state limits some basic rights for governmental obligations to guarantee the basic rights. And general legal principles are mentioned. in this connection, it is necessary to emphasize "pre-prevention" as a factor that justifies the restriction of basic rights in the national Crisis. If the basic right of life rights is violated by the spread of infectious diseases, the violated basic rights cannot be restored. Pre-prevention is not limited to infectious diseases like COVID-19. In addition, regarding the restriction of basic rights in future national emergency, it is necessary to think the duty of protecting the basic rights of the people by further considering the factors of pre-prevention in addition to the existing general legal principles limiting basic rights.
Keyword
#국가재난관리 감염병 코로나바이러스 19 기본권 제한 기본권 보장
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.