IT is unfortunate that a few countries have interfered with the international cooperation in the Covid-19 origin investigation by politicising it.
This includes ordering intelligence agencies to conduct the investigation rather than leaving it to health organisations and even attempting to seek damages from China through suits.
These actions deviate from the requirements of specialisation and professionalism. It is groundless to relate the state's responsibility with the virus origin from the perspective of international law.
Firstly, there is no legal basis to impose an obligation on the state that reported infectious diseases under international legal principles of state responsibility.
There is no precedent for holding a state reporting the discovery of infectious diseases responsible under international law. The International Health Regulations (2005) is silent on this issue too
In the history of infectious diseases, such as the Spanish Flu, AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), Ebola, H1N1 and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), there are no cases of legal claims against the potential states of origin under principles of state responsibility.
If such claims are brought forward now, it appears to be a witch-hunt against a certain country. Furthermore, it will ultimately be detrimental to international cooperation in combating infectious diseases in the future. States will conceal the outbreak of infectious diseases to avoid claims being brought against them.
Secondly, there is no international mechanism to hold a state responsible because an infectious disease was first discovered in that state.
There is no international court with jurisdiction to hear such cases. There is no convention to establish such an international court. And there is no international organisation or state that has the power to legally take action against another state where an infectious disease originates.
If a treaty is signed to impose this obligation on the state where infectious diseases originate, it will create a Rashomon situation where the parties involved will each have their own interpretations and expressions that contradict each other.
It will be difficult to reach a consensus among the parties, especially for states in Sub-Saharan Africa that have seen a large number of severe infectious diseases in their history. Such a treaty will likely be rejected by most of the tropical states.
Thirdly, it is dangerous to make legal claims against China through domestic laws to say that China bears legal responsibility for the pandemic.
If the United States or other countries file suits against China under domestic laws in domestic courts, it will cause China to adopt retaliatory measures, such as bringing legal action against them through its domestic laws in domestic courts as well.
Recently, China enacted the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law over the tension between China and some Western countries.
Replacing international law with domestic law will lead to an "eye for an eye" situation between countries. The consequence is, it might cause China to develop a mechanism against the foreign long-arm jurisdiction eventually.
Fourth, it violates the presumption of innocence by holding China to international legal responsibility in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Since the early stages of the pandemic, China and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have been cooperating in the investigation into Covid-19's origin. Last year, Beijing twice invited WHO experts to China.
International experts from 10 countries — the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and six other states — formed a joint international team with Chinese experts early this year. The joint study was conducted over a 28-day period in Wuhan.
They analysed information, conducted site investigations, exchanged insights during site visits and reached scientific consensus. With the joint efforts of both sides, the study had positive outcomes and reached many important conclusions. The WHO officially released the joint WHO-China study report on March 30.
The team concluded that the hypothesis of laboratory leaks was extremely unlikely to be valid. Thus, states demanding accountability without concrete evidence violates the principle of presumption of innocence and the time-honoured principle of benefit of the doubt for the accused.
According to international law, the Covid-19 outbreak is considered an international health crisis. Therefore, it should be handled by international organisations and in accordance with the principle of multilateralism.
Each state should have a rational attitude of respecting science and facts to play a constructive role in the international cooperation to combat the pandemic.
When the World Health Assembly convenes in November, rather than leaving the matter to politicians, Malaysian eminent international law expert Professor Datuk Dr Rahmat has rightly stated that immediate action is needed to gather health and medical experts, NGOs, economists, legal experts and academicians with the objective of collecting their views on how the proposed treaty should be shaped.
On the issue of coronavirus traceability, the behaviour of certain countries in initiating international legal warfare has absolutely no legal basis and legitimate means to achieve their aims.
It can only produce negative consequences for the formation of future cooperation mechanisms under international health law.
C.W. Loh is president of the Malaysia-China Legal Cooperation Society (MCLCS) and Professor Feng Gui is a member. MCLCS, founded in 2016, is a non-governmental, non-profit association of professionals with legal training that serves as a
platform to exchange legal information between Malaysia and China with a view to foster and develop mutual legal understanding