The Dual Manifestation of the Right to Health in Colombia and Its Challenges Arising from Post-Pandemic Crises

Disasters caused by large-scale disasters and infectious diseases have fatal consequences for human social life and health, leading to enormous social and economic losses and the creation of an unstable social environment. Despite human's constant desire for safety and the establishment of a legal and institutional safety management system, the frequency of large-scale disasters and disasters is increasing and turning human society into a dangerous society that will be processed. Without explicit grounds for security rights as a fundamental right under the Constitution, the legal system and legal contents of the state's safety protection and security are formed with safety-related sub-laws, adding to legal confusion in practice related to safety protection and security. In the process of developing into advanced countries, social safety insensitivity is still prevalent, and the industrial environment based on performanceism remains the same, and safety-related social expenses account for a significant portion of the national finance. As for safety issues, post-disaster safety management is also important, but it is essential to reduce disaster and disaster- related social costs through proactive safety management. Pre- and post-safety management related to disasters and disasters should be accompanied by introducing it as a constitutional fundamental right as an independent regulation of the right to safety and the realization of the right to safety through individual laws. It is necessary to be faithful to the pursuit of happiness and security guarantees of the people by introducing constitutional safety right, creating a safety environment through the realization of safety rightsthrough individual laws, and establishing a systematic safety management system. The protection and guarantee of constitutional safety right guarantees the people's enjoyment of fundamental constitutional right, while also practicing the obligation to guarantee safety as a fundamental right of the state. This paper presents an alternative to systematizing constitutional theory to protect and guarantee the right to safety as a fundamental right to facilitate the performance of the state's security guarantee obligations under the Constitution through research and analysis on the basis of the right to safety in our Constitution. In addition, when the constitution is revised in the future, we would like to propose a plan to embody it as a constitutional regulation when introducing the right to safety.

Introduction to the Special Issue: The Right to the Protection of One's Own Image in Ibero-America and Its Relevance for the Right of Publicity in Common Law Countries

Purpose The purpose of publishing this viewpoint is to critically analyze the relationship between public health interventions and individual liberties, during recent and potential future pandemics. By exploring the interplay of the right to health, privacy, and autonomy, this viewpoint seeks to highlight the complexities and challenges faced by decision-makers in balancing collective well-being with the protection of individual rights. Through detailed discussions on lockdowns, contact tracing, and international border closures, this paper aims to foster a deeper understanding of how these measures impact fundamental human rights and proposes ways to achieve harmony in future pandemics and crises. Design/methodology/approach The viewpoint has a qualitative approach, using critical analysis and examination of legal frameworks, scholarly literature, and real-world examples to explore the interplay between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. It draws upon diverse sources, including international declarations, legal instruments, and empirical studies to elucidate the complexities of balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights. Through in-depth discussions on lockdowns, contact tracing, and international border closures, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in harmonizing public health with individual liberties. Findings The findings of the viewpoint highlight the relationship between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. It underscores the importance of balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights, particularly the right to health, privacy, and autonomy. The analysis reveals the shortcomings of certain measures, such as restrictive lockdowns, border closure, and unchecked contact tracing in respecting individual rights. However, it also identifies opportunities for adopting an altruistic approach that upholds both public health imperatives and individual freedoms. Ultimately, the findings emphasize the need for a nuanced understanding and inclusive approach to crisis management. Research limitations/implications This analysis predominantly addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings to other public health crises. It is limited by its focus primarily on legal frameworks and theoretical analysis, which may not fully capture the practical complexities and nuances of implementing public health measures. Furthermore, while proposing ways to achieve harmony between public health and individual liberties, practical challenges and potential trade-offs in implementation are not extensively explored. Future research could benefit from empirical studies and case analyses to better understand the real-world implications of balancing public health imperatives with individual rights. Practical implications The viewpoint underscores the importance of adopting an altruistic approach that respects both public health imperatives and individual rights during pandemics. Practical implications include the need for policymakers to prioritize transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement in implementing public health measures. By fostering trust, ensuring data privacy, and promoting active participation, authorities can mitigate concerns about infringements on individual liberties while effectively managing public health threats. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the importance of considering diverse perspectives and potential trade-offs in decision-making processes to achieve a balanced and inclusive approach to crisis management. Social implications The viewpoint’s social implications lie in building a society where public health measures are implemented with respect for individual rights, fostering trust, and promoting community engagement. By prioritizing transparency, accountability and inclusivity, authorities can mitigate social tensions and promote collective resilience during pandemics. Moreover, upholding principles of equity and fairness in crisis management can help address disparities and ensure that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected. Overall, the viewpoint advocates for a societal framework that values both public health and individual liberties, thereby contributing to the development of a more cohesive and resilient society in the face of future health crises. Originality/value The originality and value of this viewpoint lie in its comprehensive exploration of the interplay between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. By synthesizing legal frameworks, scholarly literature, and real-world examples, it offers unique insights into the complexities and challenges faced by decision-makers in balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights. Additionally, the viewpoint’s proposal of an altruistic approach that respects both public health imperatives and individual freedoms contributes to the discourse on ethical crisis management. Overall, it provides valuable perspectives and recommendations for achieving harmony between public health and individual liberties in future pandemics.

The current Pandemic has exposed the crisis in the health system and the urgency that, once the trance is over, structural problems be addressed to increase the quality and opportunity of access to the health system. This article seeks to analyze whether, during the pandemic, the principles of universality, solidarity and integrality, established in the General System of Social Security in Health and that respond to the content of the Political Constitution of 1991, were ignored. For the above, the proposed objectives correspond to the review of the current state of health care and the elements available to the State in the face of the health crisis, to understand the dangers that a global crisis such as Covid-19 can represent for compliance with the principles of the Social Security System in Health in Colombia, as well as the implications in the paradigm shift from a health model as a public policy to a fundamental right, to finally analyze the right to health of the elderly in the face of the pandemic. The social security health system in Colombia was not designed to deal with crises like the current one, and fortunately there have not been the mortality rates that were expected. However, it is necessary to rethink the rights around the health care of the vulnerable population in catastrophic situations, since the government risk of violating the enjoyment of life in decent conditions is latent, given the potential prioritization of intermediate care. and intensive in health centers in the face of the crisis generated by the Coronavirus pandemic.

Introduction. The article analyzes the legal certainty of the individual as the stability of the content of fundamental rights and freedoms in the context of democratic processes of reforming the current legislation and the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Theoretical analysis. The article notes that the need for stability of fundamental human rights and freedoms is in some contradiction with their dynamic, evolutionary nature. The author questions the possible and necessary limits of majority democratic will with regard to the transformation of the legal system, in general, and constitutional rights and freedoms, in particular. The article addresses some “points of tension” between democracy and the rule of law. Results. On the basis of the article, it is concluded that participation in the processes of democratic transformation of the legal system can be considered as a right to democracy and, in this understanding, it needs the search for a balance with other fundamental rights and freedoms. It is on the basis of this balance that the legal certainty of the individual must be ensured, combining, on the one hand, the stability of the substantive characteristics of fundamental rights and freedoms, and, on the other hand, the expansion of legal claims and the evolution of human rights.

In today's world, privacy has gained unparalleled significance as one of the most fundamental human rights. Accordingly, this study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the criminal sanctions for privacy violations in Iran and Iraq by examining the foundations, instances, and challenges associated with this fundamental right in both legal systems. Using an analytical-comparative method, the study reviews legal, statutory, and jurisprudential sources in both Iran and Iraq to identify similarities and differences in laws, the severity of penalties, and judicial procedures concerning crimes involving privacy violations. The findings indicate that both legal systems recognize privacy as a fundamental right and have made efforts to criminalize its violation. However, serious challenges and limitations persist in the enforcement of these laws. In Iran, there is a greater emphasis on criminalizing privacy violations in cyberspace and protecting workplace privacy, whereas Iraqi law has yet to make sufficient progress in this regard. In both countries, existing laws are sometimes ambiguous and incomplete, and the prescribed criminal sanctions lack the necessary deterrent effect. Additionally, shared challenges such as resource shortages, lack of public awareness, and administrative corruption exist in both legal systems. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that comprehensive laws be enacted in line with international human rights standards to enhance criminal protection of privacy, independent and efficient oversight institutions be strengthened, necessary training be provided to judges and law enforcement officials, and public awareness regarding privacy rights be increased. Ultimately, this research underscores that privacy is a fundamental right requiring serious attention and comprehensive efforts for its preservation and protection.

BRIDGING THE CANYON BETWEEN RIGHTS AND CONTRACT LAW The title of this volume unites two disparate and possibly incompatible legal concepts. In the sphere of the legal system, the concepts of contract law and fundamental rights are usually regarded as lying poles apart. The law of contract is normally classified as a part of private law, which primarily concerns the legal relations between private individuals, whereas fundamental rights are traditionally believed to apply primarily or even solely to relations between citizen and the state in public law. Although a constitution that contains fundamental rights may provide a structure for the whole legal system including private law, it may not be generally expected that a bill of fundamental rights will have any direct bearing on the details of disputes between parties to a contract. No doubt we can anticipate that the values that inform fundamental rights, such as respect for liberty and property rights, will also inform the rules of private law. For instance, those values are likely to underpin support for the principle of freedom of contract and the protection of interests in property. Yet this expected congruence or homology in values between private law and fundamental rights is not the same as the construction of a bridge or mechanism by which the fundamental rights protected in public law determine or influence the content of the law governing contracts. The chapters collected in this work all address the character and implications of this recently constructed bridge that enables legal arguments in favour of fundamental rights to be used to steer courts in the resolution of contractual disputes. This issue of the connection between fundamental rights and private law has been extensively analysed with respect to national legal systems. In the context of the modern nation state, a typical analysis suggests that a legal system's architectural design is that the national constitution, including any bill of rights, establishes a framework or basic structure for both the political system and the economic system. This constitution or framework of public law can set boundaries to the market and require the owners of private property and people entering transactions to comply with basic standards of justice outlined in the constitutional framework, including the basic rights.

The tensions between uniformity and diversity regarding the meaning of fundamental rights are endemic to any system in which political power is allocated among multiple spheres. In the U.S., there is a vast literature converging on federalism and rights, which may well provide valuable insights for EU dilemmas. The core of this chapter is devoted to discussing the arguments underpinning state diversity and supranational uniformity regarding fundamental rights' interpretation. In many cases, the arguments for state diversity do not go beyond state sovereignty, which is no longer adequate given the EU political structure. At the same time, the virtues of supranational uniformity tend to be assumed without questioning the reasons underpinning this claim. Reaching to the conclusion, it is sustained that the ECJ should not impose uniformity for its own sake. The values underlying state autonomy justify accommodating certain degree of diversity through deference to state courts.

This research analyses the Bangladesh’ Court Decision on the case of Ataur Rahman vs. Mahibur Rahman with regrad to fundamental rights in times of emergency. It is argued that the decision of the court in Ataur Rahman vs. Muhibur Rahman is erroneous decision. This is because while Article 141C of Bangladesh Constitution gives the Presidnet the power to suspend certain fundamental rights, yet Articles 27 to 35 and 41 of the Constitution cannot be suspended. In Bangladesh’s legal system, fundamental human rights are commonly viewed as a set of legal protections. Part III of the Constitution of Bangladesh has confirmed these rights for the citizens of Bangladesh. Some fundamental rights are even universally recognized rights which are contained in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), or the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 4 of the ICCPR deals with the state of emergency and Article 4(2) provides a list of non-derogable rights. Such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery etc. These rights are completely non-derogable in nature and cannot be derogated at all including during a state of emergency. Furthermore the Apex court of Bangladesh tried to justify that the President can derogate any fundamental right during an emergency. Such a proposition is contradicting core parts of our Constitution as well as several international instruments. This research uses normative legal research with statute approach and case approach, especialy analysing Ataur Rahman vs. Muhibur Rahman case.

This research analyses the Bangladesh’ Court Decision on the case of Ataur Rahman vs. Mahibur Rahman with regrad to fundamental rights in times of emergency. It is argued that the decision of the court in Ataur Rahman vs. Muhibur Rahman is erroneous decision. This is because while Article 141C of Bangladesh Constitution gives the Presidnet the power to suspend certain fundamental rights, yet Articles 27 to 35 and 41 of the Constitution cannot be suspended. In Bangladesh’s legal system, fundamental human rights are commonly viewed as a set of legal protections. Part III of the Constitution of Bangladesh has confirmed these rights for the citizens of Bangladesh. Some fundamental rights are even universally recognized rights which are contained in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), or the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 4 of the ICCPR deals with the state of emergency and Article 4(2) provides a list of non-derogable rights. Such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery etc. These rights are completely non-derogable in nature and cannot be derogated at all including during a state of emergency. Furthermore the Apex court of Bangladesh tried to justify that the President can derogate any fundamental right during an emergency. Such a proposition is contradicting core parts of our Constitution as well as several international instruments. This research uses normative legal research with statute approach and case approach, especialy analysing Ataur Rahman vs. Muhibur Rahman case.

The jurisdictional protection of fundamental rights began to intensify from the second half of the 20th century, through the creation of new procedural ways for their direct protection and the reorientation of existing ordinary and constitutional processes towards a new protective function. This meant seeking a new balance between the powers of different government branches and, especially, between ordinary and constitutional jurisdictional bodies, making the administration of justice more complex. In this scenario, some legal systems have been more efficient than others in establishing a coordinated system for the jurisdictional guarantee of fundamental rights. In this regard, the Spanish system of jurisdictional guarantee of fundamental rights was original and highly exceptional until 1990, when a series of nations began to adopt a similar configuration, turning it into a model reference. On the other hand, the Chilean model shows several flaws, mainly linked to the overuse of the procedural institutes of the constitutional jurisdiction in matters not closely linked to fundamental rights and to the low constitutional density of the jurisprudence generated in said procedural channels. The framework of the legal systems under study is a part of a broader problem, originated in the strong transformation experienced by fundamental rights. Originally enshrined in norms that became operative only with the mediation of the legislator, fundamental rights are today directly applicable by all jurisdictional bodies, developing a ubiquity that allows them to have an impact on virtually any legal business (vis expansiva). This substantive phenomenon has strong procedural implications, since it tends to blur the boundaries between constitutional and ordinary jurisdiction, producing a widening of the former (vis atractiva), a phenomenon that is especially delicate in those systems in which both functions are handled by different bodies. On the other hand, the design of the jurisdictional guarantee systems of fundamental rights is normally carried out with the idea that their holders have access to a judge or court to request the restoration or preservation of those rights in the face of a specific injury (subjective dimension). However, it is also essential that these systems incorporate elements that promote the jurisprudential construction of the meaning and scope of fundamental rights, given their institutional significance (objective dimension). This is because it should not be overlooked that, along with the individual importance that such rights possess, they also fulfill a supra-individual function, as defining elements of the legal and social order. The subjective jurisdictional guarantee of fundamental rights is built of a multiplicity of procedural devices, all different from each other in legal nature and whose knowledge is entrusted to various jurisdictional bodies, whose coordinated aggregation allows them to form a multilayer or multilevel system, with its essential purpose being to provide direct protection to the affected holders. On the other hand, the objective jurisdictional guarantee of such rights should be constructed with the designation of a body as its supreme interpreter and through the establishment of procedural instruments that allow said magistracy to develop hermeneutic work, while fulfilling a function of iusfundamental nomophylaxis, allowing the emergence of interpretative guidelines that enrich the work of the remaining state bodies and civil society. Considering the above, this thesis dogmatically and comparatively analyzes the way in which the subjective and objective jurisdictional guarantee of fundamental rights is structured and organized in the Spanish and Chilean legal systems, in search of some lessons in the former that may contribute to the optimization of the latter.

Rapid Increase of Health Litigation As A Means of Market Access For Innovative Medicines In Colombia And The Potential Role Of Health Technology Assessment

This paper aims to analyze the need to reform the current constitutional and legislative design of the protection resource for better protection of fundamental rights, especially social rights. Identifies that the scope of incidence of the protection resource is restricted. By ter a restrictive role, does not reach other rights, especially those of a social nature. This reality reveals a plurality of fundamental rights of the human person that must be protected by the legal system. It considers that fundamental rights, in order to be protected and effective, call for action by state agents. It suggests that a constitutional reform or even a new Constitution for Chile may establish a better protection of fundamental social rights.

One of the most vulnerable people in every society is children who, due to their physical, emotional, psychological and social immaturity, can not protect their fundamental rights and freedoms themselves and need increased support from the international community and national authorities. In view of these objective circumstances, in the system of the United Nations has adopted a number of legal acts which lay down minimum international standards for the protection of children's righThe most important and comprehensive international treaty for the protection of children 's rights is the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Act proclaims a number of civil, economic, social and cultural rights for children who should be protected in all legal systems, such as: the right to education, the right to social security, the right to a standard of living appropriate to the physical, mental, social development of the child and other rights.Article 24 of the UN Convention also sets out the right of every child to enjoy "the highest attainable standard of health and health services to treat illness and restore his health." The right of children to health includes in its content, separate, autonomous rights and freedoms, such as the right to access quality medical care and remedies for illness and health rehabilitation, the right to control one's own health and body and others.In fulfillment of their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, States have an obligation to take comprehensive measures to ensure the fundamental human rights enshrined in the international treaty, including children's health, such as legislative, administrative, economic and other measures.However, the adoption of an appropriate legal framework is not sufficient to ensure effective protection of children's health. That right falls under the category of social rights, the full exercise of which requires active cooperation from the States. Today in a number of reports by international organizations is stated that many countries do not have sufficient financial resources to ensure the practical implementation of their obligations under international treaties, which creates a real risk to the children's right to health and for all their fundamental rights. In view of these disturbing data, further steps need to be taken to strengthen and guarantee all children's fundamental rights, especially their right to health, both at international and national level.

Privacy, as one of the fundamental rights of individuals, is protected both in legal systems and in Islamic jurisprudence. Violation of this right may lead to civil liability, the foundations of which can be examined within jurisprudence and law. In the jurisprudential system, principles such as the rule of no harm (qāʿidat lā ḍarar), the principle of respect for the believer’s privacy, the principle of respect for human dignity, the principle of correctness (aṣālat al-ṣiḥḥa), the principle of generality of permission (ʿumūm al-idhn), and the rule of causation (qāʿidat al-tasabbub) emphasize the necessity of observing privacy and compensating for damages resulting from its violation. These rules demonstrate that any unauthorized intrusion into individuals’ private space is prohibited in jurisprudential terms and entails liability. In the legal system, three main theories have been proposed to explain civil liability arising from the violation of privacy. The fault-based liability theory considers the establishment of liability contingent upon proving the fault of the offending party. The risk-based liability theory deems the mere occurrence of damage sufficient to establish liability without the need to prove fault. Finally, the theory of right-guarantee treats privacy as a fundamental right and regards its violation, without the need to prove fault or risk, as sufficient grounds for civil liability. The examination of these foundations, based on a descriptive and analytical research method, shows that in both Islamic jurisprudence and positive law, the violation of privacy is deemed unacceptable, and necessary safeguards for compensating damages have been foreseen. This reflects the significance of protecting this fundamental right and the necessity of adopting effective legal and religious measures to prevent its violation and to compensate for the resulting harm.