Hesitantly towards mutual recognition of “vaccination passports”. A survey on potential ubiquity in administrative law

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW
J. Handrlica
{"title":"Hesitantly towards mutual recognition of “vaccination passports”. A survey on potential ubiquity in administrative law","authors":"J. Handrlica","doi":"10.24818/tbj/2021/11/sp/01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The problem of potential ubiquity emerged in administrative law because of transboundary circulation of various certificates, licences and permits. These documents, approving certain facts, may appear before an administrative authority of another State. Thus, the applicable regime of public law must qualify the legal consequences of such documents in the realm of the applicable administrative law. This article aims to discuss this problem with regard to the challenges arising in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemics. Prospective introduction of “immunity certificates” and “vaccination passports” in various jurisdictions and the need to establish mutual recognition of such “passports” and “certificates” is the subject of attention. The article points out existence of several dogmatic approaches to the fact that foreign administrations have either approved a fact, or granted a right. Some of these dogmatic approaches have been reflected in the written law. However, at the same time, in theory, other solutions than those provided by the current legal framework would also be theoretically possible. The importance of these theoretical considerations is demonstrated regarding the very current discussions on the introduction of “immunity certificates” and “vaccination passports”.","PeriodicalId":41903,"journal":{"name":"Juridical Tribune-Tribuna Juridica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Juridical Tribune-Tribuna Juridica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24818/tbj/2021/11/sp/01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The problem of potential ubiquity emerged in administrative law because of transboundary circulation of various certificates, licences and permits. These documents, approving certain facts, may appear before an administrative authority of another State. Thus, the applicable regime of public law must qualify the legal consequences of such documents in the realm of the applicable administrative law. This article aims to discuss this problem with regard to the challenges arising in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemics. Prospective introduction of “immunity certificates” and “vaccination passports” in various jurisdictions and the need to establish mutual recognition of such “passports” and “certificates” is the subject of attention. The article points out existence of several dogmatic approaches to the fact that foreign administrations have either approved a fact, or granted a right. Some of these dogmatic approaches have been reflected in the written law. However, at the same time, in theory, other solutions than those provided by the current legal framework would also be theoretically possible. The importance of these theoretical considerations is demonstrated regarding the very current discussions on the introduction of “immunity certificates” and “vaccination passports”.
对相互承认“疫苗接种护照”犹豫不决。行政法潜在普遍性调查
由于各种证书、执照和许可证的跨界流通,行政法中出现了潜在的普遍性问题。这些批准某些事实的文件可以提交给另一国的行政当局。因此,适用的公法制度必须在适用的行政法范围内限定此类文件的法律后果。本文旨在就新冠肺炎大流行第二年出现的挑战讨论这一问题。预期在各个司法管辖区引入“免疫证书”和“疫苗接种护照”,以及是否需要建立这种“护照”和“证书”的相互承认,是值得关注的问题。文章指出,对于外国行政当局要么批准了一个事实,要么授予了一项权利这一事实,存在着几种教条主义的做法。其中一些教条主义的做法已经反映在成文法中。然而,与此同时,在理论上,除了现行法律框架提供的解决方案之外,其他解决方案在理论上也是可能的。目前关于引入“免疫证书”和“疫苗接种护照”的讨论表明了这些理论考虑的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信