Restrictive human rights measures against the spread of COVID-19: an interdisciplinary approach between law and health-care management

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the close relationship between the disciplines of law and health-care studies. This interrelation has become particularly evident during the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, when restrictive human rights provisions have been initiated by many states for the sake of public health. Research focuses on the notional proximity of the principle of proportionality and its health-care correlative: effectiveness. It also goes through the influence of acceptance rates for the application of restrictive measures. Design/methodology/approach Research focuses on interdisciplinary literature review, taking into consideration judicial decisions and data on acceptance rates of restrictive human rights measures in particular. Analysis goes in depth when two categories of restrictive human rights measures against the spread of the pandemic are examined in depth: restrictive measures to achieve social distancing and mandatory vaccination of professional groups. Findings Restrictive human rights measures for reasons of public health are strongly affected by the need for effective health-care systems. This argument is verified by judicial decision-making which relies to the necessity of health-care effectiveness to a great extent. The COVID-19 pandemic offers a laminate example of the two disciplines’ interrelation and how they infiltrate each other. Research limitations/implications Further implications for research point at the need to institutionalize a cooperative scheme between legal and health-care decision-making, given that this interrelation is strong. Originality/value The originality of this paper lies on the interdisciplinary approach between law and health-care studies. It explains how state policies during the pandemic were shaped based on the concepts of effectiveness and proportionality.