The Right to Life, Voluntary Euthanasia, and Termination of Life on Request

In this article, the logical implications of a right to life are examined. It is first argued that the prohibition of Termination of life on request confers an inalienable right to life. A fight is inalienable if it cannot legitimately be waived or transferred. Since voluntary euthanasia entails waiver of the right to life, the inalienability yields that it cannot be justified. Therefore, any ethical position that is in favor of voluntary euthanasia has to argue that the right to life is an inalienable right and accept the conclusion that killing on request is justified.

An Academic Summary of the International Seminar Series on “Safeguarding the Right to Life in the Epidemic Prevention and Control”

Guided by the China Society for Human Rights Studies and organized by Southwest University of Political Science and Law,the First Session of the Series of International Seminars on"Global Epidemic Prevention and Control and Human Rights Protection"was held in Chongqing on May 9,2020.The seminar featured the theme of"Guarantee of the Right to Life in Epidemic Prevention and Control"and two sub-topics:"Value Status and Legal Protection of the Right to Life"and Safeguarding the Right to Life of Vulnerable Groups under the Pandemic".Over 40 experts and scholars from China,the Netherlands,France,Pakistan and Sri Lanka attended the conference,and conducted in-depth discussions on specific issues such as"life supremacy","attributes of the right to life","government responsibilities","protection of vulnerable groups","balance of the right to life and other human rights",and"science-based approaches to epidemic prevention".This conference reaffirmed the key idea of life supremacy,which is conducive to strengthening the safeguarding of and attention to the right to life in the global pandemic prevention and control.

On the Right to Life

The COVID-19 pandemic is not only the first public health emergency that human beings are jointly faced with, but also the first time that mankind is confronted with a tremendous disaster together To face lives rationally in a pandemic, "criteria" and "rules" need to be regulated by reason Amid such a catastrophe, we need to reply to questions such as whether the right to life should take precedence over other rights and whether each individual’s life should be treated equally, the answers to which, of course, are definitely positive With the advent of a risk society, public health emergencies are no longer occasional incidents Instead, they might become a more frequent problem in the development of modernity In the community with a shared future for human beings, to protect human rights, the humanitarian spirit, the principle of equality and the idea of justice by playing the role of the state will become a new normal in safeguarding the right to life.

Conflict and Balance Between the Right to Life and Other Rights

The global COVID-19 pandemic is changing the international order and transforming the lifestyle of the mankind pandemic prevention and control has posed new challenges to the traditional system of basic rights Conflicts between the right to life and other rights, arising from the pandemic prevention and control measures adopted by governments, have triggered academic debates Governments have taken stringent pandemic prevention and control measures to protect the life, health and safety of the public, including restricting their personal freedom, freedom of religious belief as well as freedom in other spheres, with a view to safeguard the right to life In order to prioritize the right to life among the basic rights, its legitimacy basis should be researched on and a reasonable balance should be struck among the right to life, the right to dignity and other freedoms In the post-epidemic era, we should carry forward the human rights culture, optimize the system and mechanism that defend the value of the right to life, and endow the right to life with new connotation and mission.

2005: Better Protection of Right to Life

The right to life is the essential and most important of all human rights. For an individual, it constitutes the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other rights to which he or she is entitled. In 2005, the Chinese authorities planned a series of legal measures to provide still more effective protection of the right to life.

Addressing Japan’s disposal of nuclear-contaminated water from the perspective of international human rights law

The discharge of nuclear-contaminated water containing radionuclides into the ocean by Japan will lead to its integration into the entire ecosystem through processes of circulation and biomagnification,eventually entering the human body via the food chain.This poses a substantial risk of irreversible damage to both the ecosystem and human health,a situation that will worsen with the ongoing discharge of such water.The respect and protection of human rights represent an international consensus,and safeguarding fundamental human rights is a substantial obligation that states must undertake in accordance with both international and domestic law.Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster,Japan has continuously violated its international legal obligations to protect human rights in several areas,including the resettlement of disaster victims,the reduction of nuclear radiation levels,and the handling of contaminated water.Such actions have compromised and will continue to compromise the basic human rights of not only its citizens but also those of people worldwide,including environmental rights,the right to life,development rights,and food rights.In the aftermath of the Fukushima meltdown,the public and workers involved in handling nuclear contaminants have been continually exposed to high radiation levels,endangering their rights to life,development,and health.Japan’s inadequate efforts in victim resettlement and environmental restoration have jeopardized the environmental and food rights of its citizens to live healthily and access food in an environment unaffected by nuclear radiation.The release of nuclear-contaminated water poses a risk of Japan’s nuclear pollution to the people of neighboring countries and the global population at large.The principle of human rights underpins the theory of a community with a shared future for humanity,and human rights are a crucial area of China’s active participation in United Nations affairs and global governance.By voicing concerns over Japan’s potential human rights violations globally,China demonstrates its role as a responsible major country.In response to Japan’s breach of legal obligations and human rights violations,China can adopt a reasoned and beneficial approach,including calling on the international community to hold Japan criminally accountable for crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute and advancing scholarly discussions on ecocide and crimes against the marine environment.Furthermore,China should persist in seeking advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice and strive for substantive accountability,utilizing the mechanisms of international human rights organizations to make its voice heard.

Human Rights Protection and Global Action under the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic——Overview of“2021·China-Europe Seminar on Human Rights”

The COVID-19 pandemic is the largest ever infectious disease facing mankind.It challenges national governance capabilities and international patterns.On June 8,2021,the“2021 China-Europe Seminar on Human Rights”was held in Chongqing,China.Its theme was“COVID-19 Pandemic and the Protection of the Right to Life and Health,”which focused on five topics:the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of the rights to life and health,the response of countries against the pandemic,the protection of the right to life and health of specific groups during the pandemic response,the national responsibility for the protection of the right to life and health in the public health crisis,and global cooperation in the prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic.The conference reached two consensuses:First,in the face of the pandemic,countries must take responsibility for the people and protect the people’s right to life and health;second,an effective international mechanism for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic must be established as soon as possible.

On Indiscriminate Bombardment during World War II: Opposition between Human Rights and Human Rights Abuse

Base on the strategic bombardment to destroy willpower of Chinese Anti-Japanese war, in the Second World War, Japanese aircrafts were nondiscriminatorily bombing China’s cities, which committed crimes against humanity. Actually, the US army nondiscriminatorily bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and damaged the human rights too. The US army, however, speeded up Japanese surrender and protected more people’s rights to life. It is never forgotten that the painful game of protecting and damaging human rights between Japanese militarism and anti-fascist alliance.

Human Rights Challenges Posed by Drone Operations and Countermeasures

Drone strikes are increasingly used in counter-terrorism operations and other military fields,and drones are heralded as the“future of war.”Meanwhile,the use of drones as weapons also brings a series of human rights challenges,mainly reflected in the infringement upon or serious threat to basic rights such as the right to life and the right to a fair trial,leading to a series of imputation problems.In fact,international human rights law is binding on States parties,whether in peacetime or in armed conflicts,and the protection of human rights it provides continues.This requires relevant entities to incorporate this new type of military use into regulation as soon as possible.Meanwhile,based on the principle of respecting national sovereignty,they should abide by the principle of distinction and proportionality,prevent the violation of human rights through abuse of armed drones,reinterpret relevant concepts and principles,gradually develop international standards for the use of drones as weapons,fairly and reasonably determine the responsibilities of various parties,and ensure that the use of new technologies does not negatively affect human rights protection.

Human Rights Jurisprudence in Hospice Care——Thoughts on the Concept and Boundary of “Death with Dignity”

Death with dignity is the embodiment of the dignity of human life in the context of end-of-life medical care.However,in the development of its concept,it has been alienated into a single way of death and is often confused with the concept of euthanasia.It is therefore a theoretical and practical necessity to re-expand the connotations of death with dignity Death with dignity is the subjective value of dignity reflected in the context of dying.It takes equality,freedom,and virtue as the core,and uses the right to life as its external support.It is projected onto the medical context and incorporates the patient’s right to informed consent.Subject to public interest,legal paternalism,and the principles of public order and good customs,the boundary of the right to death with dignity should be between active treatment and natural death,and active euthanasia in the form of giving up the right to life should not be included in the right to death with dignity.

Euthanasia:National and International Experience(Based on the European Court of Human Rights Practice Materials)

Purpose:The relevance of the study is that today,there is no unanimous position on the right to euthanasia implementation.The European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR),in making its decision,relies on the national legislation of the respective state,as there is no single decision on the right to euthanasia in the European space.Therefore,the aim of the article is to comprehensively study the phenomenon of euthanasia,elaborate the decisions of the ECtHR on euthanasia and related rights,and develop recommendations on the possibility of legalizing euthanasia in Ukraine and prospects for the right to die implementation.Methodology:The leading method of research of this issue is comparative and law,which allows to comprehensively consider the right to euthanasia and its positive and negative components and helps to establish trends in the implementation of the outlined phenomenon.Findings:The article analyzes the current state of international and domestic legislation of some states on the use of euthanasia,reveals the meaning of the term“euthanasia,”provides a classification of euthanasia,analyzes the decisions of the ECtHR,and presents examples of national legislation of states within which euthanasia is legalized,the peculiarities of euthanasia recognition in the world are analyzed,as well as the research on the possibility of euthanasia legalization in Ukraine is presented.Value:The materials of the article have practical value for all those interested in euthanasia and the realization of the right to die,as well as for practicing lawyers and judicial authorities.