“The main rule within international human rights law is that vaccination, like any other medical intervention, must be based on the recipient’s free and informed consent. This rule is, however, not absolute. In Solomakhin v Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) held that mandatory vaccination interferes with a person’s right to integrity protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Nevertheless, the Court concluded such interference may be justified if considered a ‘necessity to control the spreading of infectious diseases’ (para 36).”— Nilsson, Anna. “Is Mandatory Vaccination Against COVID-19 Justifiable Under the European Convention on Human Rights?” GC Human Rights Preparedness, 15 April 2021.

ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS SIDE

Okay, so let’s get this part out of the way from early: Yes, the opening quote above is directly relevant for the European Union & its ECHR. So yes! It does not set any binding precedent for the Caribbean; and specifically, it does not set the pace here in Belize. At best, these extra-regional judgments could only carry “persuasive” weight, as I’ve been informed by legal minds.

Nonetheless, let’s face it: many binding Human Rights treaties cite the same source—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the other conventions that collectively give us the so-called “international bill of rights.”

Therefore, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) shares a similar “foundation” with other conventions such as the AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. And, it must be said, whether countries have signed onto these conventions or not, there is no secret that they have been known to carry some influence in domestic and regional legal deliberations.

So, on the human rights side of things, more and more courts are going to be asked to rule on this matter, and one ought not be surprised when the judgments come back tilting in favor and support of context-specific state-sponsored mandatory COVID vaccination policy.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES

But, we have to ask: “What is meant by mandatory?” Are we talking about the State basically physically holding the vaccine-hesitant party down against his will to administer the jab? Of course not! However, as outlined by Nilsson (2021), a fairly recent ruling suggests that governments are—to quote Nilsson—”free to use economic sanctions and incentives to encourage vaccination against COVID-19.”

Now! Under the heading of “economic sanctions”, let me be clear here that I, personally, would NOT support “fines” on persons who refused the COVID vaccine. That, in my view, would be crossing the line for our Belizean society. However, please understand that there are examples of countries that have gone exactly that route. For instance, France has instituted a “health pass” (passé sanitiare) that needs to be shown before being permitted entry to public spaces. The new French law stipulates that persons who enter such public spaces (including restaurants) could be fined.

It is also important to note that as of the time of writing this article, a France24 article entitled “France’s top court to rule on legality of requiring Covid-19 ‘health pass’” reports that the country’s “constitutional court will rule on Thursday whether a new law requiring the public to hold a health pass to eat in a restaurants …complies with the republic’s found charter.”

Indonesia has gone even further since February 2021: Their vaccine mandate comes with a fine. One Reuters piece informed that “Indonesia made COVID-19 inoculations mandatory…with the capital Jakarta threatening fines of up to 5 million rupiah (US$357) for refusing”.

So, on the one hand, France is prohibiting you from entering certain public spaces. There the fine is based on your “doing something without the vaccine” while in Indonesia the fine is for you not accepting the vaccine. Clearly, we could agree that the Indonesian “formula” is an extreme, and I would opine that it is a bad example.

Last year, Amnesty International—foreseeing this situation—wrote: “States must not impose blanket mandatory vaccine policies and should seek to ensure that vaccination is voluntary wherever and whenever possible. If a state seeks to introduce a vaccine requirement for specific circumstances, it must be consistent with international human rights law and standards. Amnesty International strongly opposes the use of the criminal law and, in particular, the imprisonment of people who refuse vaccination”—Amnesty International (2020). A Fair Shot: Ensuring Universal Access to COVID-19 Diagnostics, Treatments, and Vaccines.

Indonesia’s approach could be viewed as a “blanket mandatory vaccine” policy. France, in my view, is still a little surgical.

PAROCHIAL OR BLANKET POLICY

Taking the cue from Amnesty International, one would have to ask whether Belize’s version of a vaccine mandate—that is, the requiring of unvaccinated frontline workers to present a ‘negative test’ every two weeks—is to be considered parochial or too broad. Clearly, we’re no Indonesia! Additionally, it is also not “blanket” in the sense that it only targets a specific group of individuals: Frontline workers.

Apart from the broadness or narrowness of the scope, Nilsson would go on to state:

“However, caution is required. Whether mandatory means are necessary to achieve sufficient vaccination coverage is essentially an empirical question which can only be answered in relation to a SPECIFIC CONTEXT, taking the expected effectiveness of various approaches and level of vaccination hesitancy in the country in question into account. … Repressive tools may prove counterproductive, increasing mistrust and opposition to vaccination.”

Translation: There isn’t likely to be a uniformed international position on the matter of mandatory vaccination against COVID-19; it will boil down to the consideration of legal principles such as “proportionality” in each disparate jurisdiction. In one way, Governments may be asked by their Courts: “Is this mandatory approach the best option you have on the table. Have you explored, for example, ‘economic’ strategies (like, maybe, having folks pay for their own COVID tests)?”