If millions died and trillions in economic damage were caused, why has no government pursued compensation from China through the International Court of Justice?

The COVID-19 pandemic caused unparalleled human and economic devastation. Millions of lives were lost, healthcare systems were overwhelmed, and the global economy suffered trillions of dollars in damage.

While evidence suggests that early suppression of information in China may have contributed to the pandemic’s rapid spread, no government has pursued legal action against China through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or any similar international tribunal.

This raises questions about the limitations of international law, geopolitical realities, and the challenges of holding powerful nations accountable for global harm.

I. The Scale of the COVID-19 Catastrophe

1. Human Toll

• COVID-19 has claimed over 6.9 million confirmed deaths, with estimates including excess mortality suggesting 15–20 million lives lost globally.

• Early delays in reporting, censorship of medical information, and limited transparency may have exacerbated the spread, making the pandemic more deadly than it might have been.

2. Economic Impact

• Global GDP contracted dramatically in 2020; trillions were lost in trade, tourism, and industrial production.

• Developing countries, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, faced devastating economic consequences due to supply chain disruptions and reliance on imports from China and other major exporters.

• Even advanced economies like the U.S. and EU members experienced record job losses, business closures, and government debt spikes.

The unprecedented scale of the disaster has led many observers to ask why no government has sought compensation from China for what some argue was preventable harm.

II. Legal Barriers to Pursuing China in the ICJ

1. Sovereign Immunity

• Under international law, sovereign states generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits brought by other countries.

• This means that even if a state’s actions caused transboundary harm, bringing a legal case requires consent from the defendant state, which China is highly unlikely to provide voluntarily.

2. Jurisdiction Limitations

• The ICJ only has jurisdiction if both parties consent to adjudication.

• China is unlikely to recognize the ICJ’s jurisdiction in a dispute alleging negligence or misconduct related to COVID-19. Without consent, legal proceedings cannot move forward.

3. Proving Causation

• To succeed in an international lawsuit, claimants must demonstrate a direct causal link between China’s early suppression and global deaths or economic losses.

• While early mismanagement likely contributed to the pandemic’s acceleration, multiple factors—such as global travel patterns, national response strategies, and healthcare capacity—also played a role.

• This makes it extremely difficult to isolate responsibility in a court of law.

4. Precedent Challenges

• There is no precedent for suing a country at the ICJ for failing to report a health emergency.

• Past ICJ cases have focused primarily on territorial disputes, violations of treaties, and acts of aggression, not public health mismanagement.

These legal and procedural barriers make pursuing compensation at the ICJ a daunting task, even for powerful nations.

III. Political and Diplomatic Considerations

1. China’s Global Influence

• China is the world’s second-largest economy, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a major player in trade, finance, and development initiatives.

• Governments may avoid legal confrontation to protect economic ties, investment flows, and diplomatic relations.

• Pursuing compensation could risk retaliation in trade, access to Chinese markets, or political support in multilateral organizations.

2. Risk of Geopolitical Escalation

• A lawsuit at the ICJ could escalate into a broader geopolitical confrontation, potentially destabilizing international relations.

• Countries may prefer diplomatic engagement, joint investigations, and pandemic preparedness agreements over litigation.

3. Shared Responsibility

• Governments may acknowledge that global failures were not solely China’s fault.

• Delays in pandemic response, inadequate health infrastructure, and lack of preparedness in many countries contributed to the scale of deaths and economic damage.

• This shared responsibility complicates arguments for unilateral compensation.

IV. Economic and Logistical Hurdles

1. Quantifying Damage

• Assigning precise financial value to global economic losses is extraordinarily complex.

• Losses include direct costs (healthcare spending, testing, hospitalizations) and indirect costs (business closures, trade disruption, supply chain shocks).

• Differentiating losses caused by China’s early actions versus other global factors would be legally and technically challenging.

2. Enforcement of Judgments

• Even if the ICJ ruled in favor of a claimant country, enforcing compensation against China would be difficult.

• China could refuse payment, freeze foreign assets, or leverage political influence to block enforcement.

• Without a credible enforcement mechanism, legal action may be symbolic rather than effective.

V. Alternative Mechanisms for Accountability

Given these challenges, governments and international organizations have explored alternative ways to ensure accountability and strengthen global health governance.

1. Independent International Inquiry

• A UN or WHO-backed investigation can document mismanagement, issue recommendations, and set standards for transparency.

• Findings can inform reforms in the International Health Regulations (IHR) and future pandemic treaties.

2. Pandemic Treaty and Binding Obligations

• A proposed global pandemic treaty could include legally binding reporting obligations and mechanisms for accountability.

• Such a treaty could reduce reliance on voluntary cooperation and create enforceable standards without targeting a single nation retroactively.

3. Compensation through Multilateral Funds

• While direct lawsuits are difficult, governments could negotiate multilateral compensation funds for pandemic-related losses.

• Contributions could come from a diversified pool of countries and donors, including insurance mechanisms for global economic shocks.

4. National and Regional Preparedness

• The pandemic highlights the need for countries to reduce dependence on single suppliers, diversify medical supply chains, and maintain strategic reserves.

• Strengthening local and regional resilience reduces vulnerability to future mismanagement abroad.

VI. Ethical Imperatives vs. Legal Realities

While legal mechanisms may be limited, the ethical case for accountability is compelling:

• Millions of lives were lost, and trillions in economic damage occurred, partly due to early suppression of information.

• Global norms should reward transparency and penalize concealment, even if formal litigation is not feasible.

• Strengthening international health governance, data-sharing protocols, and whistleblower protections addresses the moral imperative to prevent repetition of such harm.

VII. 

The absence of lawsuits against China at the International Court of Justice is not evidence of a lack of responsibility, but rather a reflection of legal, political, and practical barriers:

1. Sovereign immunity and jurisdictional limits constrain ICJ proceedings.

2. Establishing causation and quantifying damages is extraordinarily complex.

3. Geopolitical, economic, and diplomatic considerations deter governments from pursuing litigation.

While direct compensation through the ICJ may be unrealistic, the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the urgent need for structural reforms:

• A global pandemic treaty to enforce transparency and reporting obligations

• Independent verification mechanisms to ensure compliance with International Health Regulations

• Multilateral funds and insurance mechanisms for pandemic economic shocks

• Protections for whistleblowers and frontline health professionals

The question is not whether China bears responsibility—it likely does—but how the global system can prevent similar failures in the future. Legal action at the ICJ may be infeasible, but strengthened governance, enforceable treaties, and independent oversight can ensure that no country, regardless of power, can jeopardize global public health with impunity.