As the world struggles with the new COVID-19 pandemic, contact tracing apps of various types have been adopted in many jurisdictions for combating the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, even if they are successful in containing the virus within national borders, these apps are becoming ineffective as international travel is gradually resumed. The problem rests in the plurality of apps and their inability to operate in a synchronized manner, as well as the absence of an international entity with the power to coordinate and analyze the information collected by the disparate apps. The risk of creating a useless Tower of Babel of COVID-19 contact tracing apps is very real, endangering global health. This paper analyzes legal barriers for realizing the interoperability of contact tracing apps and emphasizes the need for developing coordinated solutions to promote safe international travel and global pandemic control.

Although Chinese law imposes informed consent for medical treatments, the Chinese understanding of this requirement is very different from the European one, mostly due to the influence of Confucianism. Chinese doctors and relatives are primarily interested in protecting the patient, even from the truth; thus, patients are commonly uninformed of their medical conditions, often at the family's request. The family plays an important role in health care decisions, even substituting their decisions for the patient's. Accordingly, instead of personal informed consent, what actually exists is 'family informed consent'. From a Western perspective, these features of Chinese law and Chinese culture might seem strange, contradicting our understanding of doctor-patient relationship and even the very essence of self-determination and fundamental rights. However, we cannot forget the huge influence of cultural factors in these domains, and that 'Western' informed consent is grounded on the individualistic nature of Western culture. This article will underline the differences between the Western and the Chinese perspectives, clarifying how each of them must be understood in its own cultural environment. But, while still respecting Chinese particularities, this paper advocates that China adopt patient individual informed consent because this is the only solution compatible with human dignity and human rights.

The Director-General of the WHO has suggested that China’s approach to the COVID-19 crisis could be the standard of care for global epidemics. However, as remarkable as the Chinese strategy might be, it cannot be replicated in other countries and certainly not in Europe. In Europe, there is a distribution of power between the European Union and its member states. In contrast, China’s political power is concentrated in the central government. This enables it to take immediate measures that affect the entire country, such as massive quarantines or closing borders. Moreover, the Chinese legal framework includes restrictions on privacy and other human rights that are unknown in Europe. In addition, China has the technological power to easily impose such restrictions. In most European countries, that would be science fiction. These conditions have enabled China to combat epidemics like no other country can. However, the WHO might have been overoptimistic. The Chinese standard of care for treating COVID-19 also raises problematic issues for human rights, and the real consequences of these actions remain to be seen.

No abstract

Since 2006, surrogacy arrangements have been expressly forbidden within the Portuguese legal order, in any one of its forms, and in some situations, it has even been criminalised. However, since August 2016, surrogacy has been allowed under certain restrictive scenarios, providing it follows several prerequisites. In spite of this progress, the 2016 amendment to the law has not been immune to criticism. One of its most debatable aspects is the lack of the surrogate's right to regret, although it is doubtful that surrogacy contracts will be enforced against a surrogate's wishes. But the weakest point of the new law is its failure to address some of the nuclear issues of surrogacy contracts, leaving solutions either to general contract law or to the clauses stipulated by the parties. Furthermore, it is unclear which clauses are allowed and which are forbidden under the law. This study describes the content of the new Portuguese surrogacy law, exposes its main fragilities and suggests solutions for matters not covered by the law. The conclusion is that a law full of promise fails regarding the issues it is supposed to regulate.