Question: ''Human rights are better protected during public emergencies, such as the COVID pandemic, under the normal framework of permissible restrictions rather than under the official article 4 ICCPR derogation regime''. Critically discuss.​​

Expert answer

There are a number of reasons why human rights are better protected during public emergencies under the normal framework of permissible restrictions, rather than under the official article 4 ICCPR derogation regime. First and foremost, the derogation regime is intended to be used in exceptional circumstances only, and as such it is subject to a number of safeguards and checks that may not be present in the normal framework. For example, under the derogation regime a state must notify the UN Secretary General of its intention to invoke the clause, and must also provide information on the specific measures that it plans to take. This notification process provides an important check on potential abuses of power, as it allows for international scrutiny of a state's actions. Additionally, the derogation clause itself is only to be invoked in cases of "a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation", meaning that it can only be used in very extreme circumstances. This is in contrast to the normal framework of permissible restrictions, which may be used more broadly. Finally, it should be noted that even under the derogation regime, a state must still ensure that its actions are "in conformity with its other obligations under international law". This includes its obligations under human rights treaties like the ICCPR. In conclusion, while the derogation regime provides some important safeguards, it is ultimately designed for exceptional circumstances only. In most cases, human rights are better protected under the normal framework of permissible restrictions.