POSSIBLE POST COVID-19 RESPONSE FROM THE IHL
At this time, it is no more news that the conspiracy and fallacies about the new corona virus origin has flooded the media and news.
The involvement of China to this effect; negative or positive is yet still a recess attempt from the whole world. Although the United States have made unintentional bold claims that China has designed the coronavirus with an intention to take power of the world economy, power and vigor by using it as a bioweapon. Sadly, other countries have followed this claims with optimism.
Definitely an international humanitarian law summit or seminar will be held post covid-19.The verdict and response of the IHL [International humanitarian law] will be hoarded across the theory of covid-19 being a biological weapon or not.
Basically, there are two versions of claims known to the story of the origination of the coronavirus, that;
1] Coronavirus, SARs-Cov-2 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, which is said to be one of the few level 4 labs [highest biosafety level] present.
2] Covid-19 was properly engineered in the laboratory by virologists and biotechnologists from china as an active bioweapon for destruction.
Although, a third version is rather eminent, which is that the virus was being studied by virologists for research purpose and carelessly got leaked into the environment.
All of the versions of the fallacies and acclamations are no match for the test of time through the myths of virology. As obviously, there have been much greater claims of bio weaponry against the united states in the past, during the ‘ab initio’ of HIV [Human immune virus].They were said claims that the united states designed HIV as a probable bioweapon to attack Africa.
The international humanitarian law is a part of the [IPL] international public law with set of customary law and norms. It initially was hoarded by several states but has evolved overtime to a wider range. A particular set of framework is enriched by the [UN] United Nations to the IHL and it is also known as ‘jus ad bellau’.
The IHL when passing its verdict and response post covid-19 will involve its affiliates such as the [ICRC] international committee of red cross for the purpose of giving some account and statistical report of the havoc caused by covid. In its reforms the IHL classifies armed conflicts in two ways which is;
A] International armed conflict [IAC]: which has definite and subjective rules such as the rules enacting [POW] prisoners of war. This conflict occurs when one or more states have recourse to armed force against each other.
B] Non international armed conflict [NIAC]: these are armed conflicts wherein one or more non-state armed groups are duly involved. Therefore it is found in many warfare conditions.
There are also two general principles the IHL would use in its response to covid -19;
1] Persons who are not, or are no longer, participating in hostilities must be protected.
2] The right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimited.
This simply implies that regardless of the armed conflict in existence, humanitarian law must be upheld henceforth.
Whereof, when the seminar of the IHL eventually occurs, the response of the board will be dependent on their faith, on the versions of theories and acclamations. Either being an omen of research or bio weaponry.
The intent judgment and rule of the IHL on covid-19 could also be weighed on the effects of the chemical warfare experienced during the World War II i.e. if the claims are right that covid-19 is a subject of weaponry.
Furthermore, the response of the IHL and its affiliates can be weighed on the amount of humanitarian law upheld and the reports of the ICRC.
There in, their response will hence reenact a possible rift as to my preposition, by the countries fatally affected by the devastation of SARs-Cov-2….COVID-19.