Impfpflichten

Beschreibung

Martin Nettesheim examines to what extent compulsory vaccination would be compatible with the country's constitutional law, differentiating between the various opponents of compulsory vaccination and different epidemiological scenarios to arrive at a differentiated conclusion.
One of the principles of liberal constitutionalism is that people exercise self-ownership over themselves and their bodies. Autonomous self-determination and human corporeality are socio-culturally, morally and legally coupled and shielded against interference and encroachment by third parties. Against this background, it was thus surprising that many political actors and academic voices in Germany assumed that compulsory vaccination was politically necessary and legally permissible during the COVID-19 pandemic. Martin Nettesheim examines to what extent compulsory vaccination would be compatible with the country's constitutional law, differentiating between the various opponents of compulsory vaccination and different epidemiological scenarios to arrive at a differentiated conclusion.

Autor*in

Martin Nettesheim
ist Professor für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht, Europarecht und Völkerrecht in Tübingen.

Themen in »Impfpflichten«

Körperliche Selbstbestimmung Grundrechte Gewissensfreiheit Epidemiologie COVID-19

Stimmen zu »Impfpflichten«

Details

Link teilen