Abstract:
This thesis studies how public health and human rights can be balanced during global health crises, focusing on restrictions on freedom of movement during the Covid-19 pandemic. It compares the legal measures taken in Bangladesh, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom to understand how each country controlled the spread of the virus while trying to respect individual rights. Freedom of movement is an important human right, but international law allows governments to limit it in emergencies if the measures are lawful, necessary, and proportionate. This research examines how these standards were applied in practice. The study reviews national laws, emergency rules, government policies, court judgments, and academic writings. In Bangladesh, strict lockdowns and wide executive powers raised concerns about unequal impacts on poorer communities. Malaysia used Movement Control Orders based on public health laws but faced criticism for heavy punishments and uneven enforcement. The United Kingdom relied on the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Coronavirus Act 2020, which led to debates about police authority, legal clarity, and limits on parliamentary oversight. Through comparing these three countries, the thesis identifies both shared challenges and important differences in legal responses. It assesses whether the restrictions followed key principles, including legality, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination. The findings show that although all three governments aimed to protect public health, the level of transparency, accountability, and respect for rights was not the same.
The study elaborated that future health crises require stronger legal safeguards, clearer decision-making, and more balanced strategies that protect public health while upholding fundamental human rights.
Description:
This thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Law in East West University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
