據媒體報道，國外一些組織和個人已經對中國提出了“賠償要求”，理由是中國沒有做出足夠的努力遏制新型冠狀病毒的傳播，導致其大流行。
Their claims,although different,can be roughly classified into three categories.
他們的主張雖然有所不同，但可以大致分為三類。
First,the lawsuits have been filed against the Chinese government in foreign courts.For example,a Florida-based law firm,on behalf of Florida residents,has filed a case in a southern Florida court against the Chinese government,accusing it of failing to curb the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan,and letting it become a pandemic that has killed tens of thousands of people and caused huge economic damage.On Tuesday,another US state,Missouri,sued the Chinese government over its handling of the virus,seeking damages for what it described as deliberate deception and insufficient action to check the outbreak.
首先，這些針對中國政府的訴訟已在外國法院被提起。例如，一家佛羅里達州的律師事務所代表佛羅里達州的居民向佛羅里達州南區法院發起了針對中國政府的訴訟，指控其未能遏制武漢爆發的冠狀病毒，導致其成為大流行的流行病。造成數萬人喪生以及巨大的經濟損失。周二，美國另一州密蘇里州起訴中國政府對病毒處理不當，密蘇里州聲稱中國政府謊報病毒的危險性和傳染性并且對病毒的傳播沒有采取足夠行動以遏制該疾病的爆發。
Ludicrous claims seeking irrational compensation
要求不合理賠償是荒謬的
Second,some people have asked their home government to pressure China to pay compensation.For example,in an interview with Fox Television,a Republican congressmen from Indiana said China should pay the cost for the damage the pandemic has caused to the United States,and listed ways in which China can be made to pay the damages,including forcing it to write off most of the US'debts.Also,an Australian parliament member has proposed taking back land owned by Chinese companies in Australia as compensation for China"transmitting"the virus.
其次，有人要求其本國政府向中國施加壓力，要求其支付賠償金。例如，印第安納州的一位共和黨議員在接受?？怂闺娨暸_的采訪時說，中國應為大流行給美國造成的損害支付費用，并列出了使中國承擔損害賠償的方式，包括強迫它沖銷美國大部分債務。此外，澳大利亞國會議員提議收回中國公司在澳大利亞的土地，作為對中國“傳播”該病毒的補償。
And third,a few organizations and individuals have appealed to international agencies to hold China"accountable"for the pandemic and force it to pay"compensation".For example,some NGOs in India have filed a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council,demanding that China be made to pay"compensation"to the international community for the losses the pandemic has caused.
第三，一些組織和個人已呼吁國際機構對中國進行大流行“追究”，并強迫中國支付“賠償”。例如，印度的一些非政府組織已向聯合國人權理事會提出申訴，要求中國賠償該流行病造成的損失，并向國際社會支付“賠償”。
Besides,an American lawyer has filed a"case"in the International Criminal Court accusing China of"intentionally developing"the novel coronavirus as a"deadly biological weapon",claiming the failure of the Chinese government and military"to prevent the Wuhan Institute of Virology's personnel from becoming infected with the bioweapon and then carrying the virus out into the surrounding community and proliferation into the United States".Since this is tantamount to a"crime against humanity",the lawyer claims,the ICC should probe the issue. 紐約時報中英文網 http://www.738231.buzz
此外，一名美國律師在國際刑事法院提起“訴訟”，指控中國“故意開發”新型冠狀病毒作為“致命生物武器”，聲稱中國政府和軍方未能“阻止武漢武漢研究所”的入侵。病毒學的工作人員感染了生物武器，然后將病毒攜帶到周圍社區并擴散到美國。”律師聲稱，由于這等同于“危害人類罪”，因此國際刑事法院應對此問題進行調查。
Nation has complete sovereign immunity
國家擁有完全的主｜權豁免權
According to the"no jurisdiction"principle between sovereign states derived from the principle of"sovereign equality",the court of one state does not exercise jurisdiction over another state,which is called"sovereign immunity".China adheres to absolute sovereign immunity which rejects any jurisdiction from foreign courts.Even according to the US'relative sovereign immunity,which allows for a commercial activity exception to sovereign immunity,China's outbreak prevention and control work is governmental behavior rather than a commercial activity,and therefore also enjoys sovereign immunity.
根據源自“主-權平等”原則的主-權國家之間的“無管轄權”原則，一個國家的法院不對另一國家行使管轄權，這稱為“主-權豁免”。中國堅持絕對主-權豁免，拒絕外國法院的任何管轄權。即使按照美國的相對主-權豁免，允許將商業活動作為主-權豁免的例外，中國的疫情防控工作是政府行為而不是商業活動，因此也享有主-權豁免。
The ICC is an international organization established under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to investigate and try four categories of international crimes－genocide,crime against humanity,war crimes,and crimes of aggression.
ICC是根據《國際刑事法院羅馬規約》設立的國際組織，負責調查和審判四類國際罪行：種族滅絕，危害人類罪，戰爭罪和侵略罪。
According to the Rome Statute,the ICC's investigation procedure can be initiated in three ways:by the prosecutors themselves,by the United Nations Security Council,and by a signatory state－other methods,including the submission of materials by individuals or organizations,do not directly trigger an investigation.There can be an exception,though,but only if an ICC prosecutor believes the materials submitted are solid enough to initiate an investigation.The absurdity of the US lawyer's claim suggests this possibility is very slim.
根據《羅馬規約》，國際刑事法院的調查程序可以通過三種方式啟動：檢察官本人，聯合國安理會和簽署國—其他方法，包括個人或組織提交材料，不直接觸發調查。但是，可能會有例外，但前提是ICC檢察官認為所提交的材料足以啟動調查。美國律師的要求荒謬，表明這種可能性很小。
UN Human Rights Council not an international court
聯合國人權理事會不是國際法院
Moreover,the UN Human Rights Council is not an"international court"but an intergovernmental body affiliated to the UN and made up of 47 member states elected by the UN General Assembly,assigned to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights across the globe,and make recommendations to address human rights violations.The UNHRC mainly deals with inter-state interactions,and although,according to a 2007 resolution,individuals,groups and NGOs can appeal in case of consistent and serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms,the plea must meet certain strict conditions to initiate an investigation,which the Indian NGOs'complaint doesn't.
此外，聯合國人權理事會不是“國際法院”，而是隸屬于聯合國的政府間機構，由聯合國大會選舉產生的47個成員國組成，旨在加強全球人權的促進??和保護，并提出解決侵犯人權行為的建議。聯合國難民事務高級專員辦事處主要處理國家間的互動，盡管根據2007年的一項決議，個人，團體和非政府組織可以在持續嚴重侵犯人權和基本自由的情況下提起上訴，但認罪必須符合某些嚴格條件才能發起印度NGO的投訴沒有對此進行調查。
As for writing off US debts and seizing the land legally owned by Chinese companies in Australia,they would be illegal acts,not least because the claim illogically and forcibly attempts to link the novel coronavirus with a completely unrelated issue in an attempt to violate the contractual and property rights of the Chinese government and companies.
至于注銷美國債務和沒收中國公司在澳大利亞合法擁有的土地，這將是非法行為，這不僅是因為索賠不合邏輯地強行試圖將新型冠狀病毒與一個完全無關的問題聯系起來，以試圖違反合同規定。以及中國政府和公司的產權。
Also,there are three conditions for a state to be held legally liable for an act:the act should be attributable to the state,the state should be at fault,and the state should have violated its international obligations.
同樣，對一個行為負有法律責任的國家有三個條件：該行為應歸于該國家，該國家應有過錯，該國家應違反其國際義務。
There is no proof virus originated in Wuhan
沒有證明病毒起源于武漢
But the origin of the novel coronavirus is yet to be scientifically verified,and the fact that the epidemic was first reported in Wuhan,Hubei province,alone does not necessarily mean it originated in China.
但是，這種新型冠狀病毒的起源尚未得到科學證實，僅在湖北省武漢市就首次報道了這一流行病，這一事實并不一定意味著它起源于中國。
Besides,in international law,the actions attributable to a state only include the actions of state organs and those of institutions or individuals authorized to exercise government power.The actions of other persons or entities cannot be attributed to the state.The unintentional transmission of a disease by an infected person to others is not an act committed on behalf of his or her country,so his/her behavior cannot be attributed to a government.
此外，在國際法中，屬于國家的行為僅包括國家機關的行為以及授權行使政府權力的機構或個人的行為。其他人或實體的行為不能歸因于國家。感染者無意間將疾病傳播給他人，并不是代表他或她的國家的行為，因此他/她的行為不能歸因于政府。
Since SARS-CoV-2 is a new coronavirus,how can people know everything about it when it's still mutating?And by taking rapid and strict measures,China has largely contained the pandemic at home.By contrast,the US and some European governments did not take effective measures for almost two months to prevent the spread of the virus in their respective countries.And they can't blame China for their own failure.
由于SARS-CoV-2是一種新的冠狀病毒，人們如何仍能知道它的突變情況呢？通過采取迅速和嚴格的措施，中國在很大程度上遏制了這一大流行。相比之下，美國和一些歐洲國家的政府將近兩個月沒有采取有效措施來防止病毒在各自國家傳播。他們不能因自己的失敗而指責中國。
Therefore,their lawsuits are good neither in law nor facts.
因此，他們的訴訟無論從法律上還是事實上都是沒有好處的。
最新評論