Human rights protection under the ICCPR: when can and should States derogate? A critical analysis in the context of New Zealand's COVID-19 response.

Public emergencies like global pandemics subject human rights to extraordinary vulnerability. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) permits States to restrict rights by enacting permissible limitations on them at any time and by derogating from their protection in emergencies. This article argues that States should rely on the ICCPR's permissible limitations provisions rather than lodge formal derogations in times of crisis, unlike what many States have done during the COVID-19 pandemic. It draws upon New Zealand's highly successful public health response to support this proposition. The article argues that the accountability machinery for compliance with States' rights obligations is stronger when permissible limitations are enacted. Where States do rely on the right to derogate, the article suggests some improvements to existing international accountability mechanisms. These include enhancing the analysis to be contained in notices of derogation and advance capacity-building to enable States to better decide if derogation is necessary in the first place. Ultimately, the article argues that keeping States within the international human rights system is ideal. This can be achieved through reliance on the flexibility built into the ICCPR via its permissible limitations provisions rather than its right of derogation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]