This article presents a theoretical framework by which to understand how disasters are reconciled with a state’s existing obligations under international law. This ‘reactive’ model of disaster regulation hinges on two regulatory techniques, ‘disapplication’ and ‘exculpation’, both of which involve a deviation from the ordinary application of a norm owing to the occurrence of a disaster or to measures adopted by a state in relation to it. It proceeds to outline the various doctrines and mechanisms across different subfields of international law, including international human rights law, investment law and trade law, which may operationalize these techniques in disaster situations. Finally, it argues that the applicability of certain disapplication and exculpation mechanisms to disasters relies on an anachronistic view of such disasters as rare and episodic occurrences beyond human control. This puts these mechanisms at odds with the central objectives of international disaster law and their underlying sociological and scientific premises, which emphasize the need for an ‘adaptive’ model of comprehensive and prevention-oriented disaster regulation. Accordingly, this analysis exposes the conceptual limitations of the reactive model for disaster regulation and explains and validates the inclination toward an adaptive model within international disaster law. It also indicates how mechanisms within the reactive model could be recalibrated to better regulate disasters.

中文翻译：

---

国际法灾害规制的反应模式及其不足

本文提出了一个理论框架，通过该框架来理解灾害如何与一个国家在国际法下的现有义务相协调。这种“反应性”灾害监管模式依赖于两种监管技术，即“不适用”和“开脱罪责”，这两种技术都涉及由于灾害的发生或国家采取的措施而偏离正常适用的规范。与它的关系。它继续概述了国际法不同子领域的各种学说和机制，包括国际人权法、投资法和贸易法，它们可以在灾难情况下实施这些技术。最后，它认为，某些不适用和免责机制对灾害的适用性依赖于对此类灾害的不合时宜的看法，即人类无法控制的罕见和偶发事件。这使得这些机制与国际灾害法的核心目标及其潜在的社会学和科学前提相矛盾，后者强调需要一种全面和以预防为导向的灾害监管的“适应性”模式。因此，该分析揭示了灾害监管反应模型的概念局限性，并解释和验证了国际灾害法中对适应性模型的倾向。它还表明如何重新校准反应模型中的机制以更好地管理灾害。这使得这些机制与国际灾害法的核心目标及其潜在的社会学和科学前提相矛盾，后者强调需要一种全面和以预防为导向的灾害监管的“适应性”模式。因此，该分析揭示了灾害监管反应模型的概念局限性，并解释和验证了国际灾害法中对适应性模型的倾向。它还表明如何重新校准反应模型中的机制以更好地管理灾害。这使得这些机制与国际灾害法的核心目标及其潜在的社会学和科学前提相矛盾，后者强调需要一种全面和以预防为导向的灾害监管的“适应性”模式。因此，该分析揭示了灾害监管反应模型的概念局限性，并解释和验证了国际灾害法中对适应性模型的倾向。它还表明如何重新校准反应模型中的机制以更好地管理灾害。该分析揭示了灾害监管反应模型的概念局限性，并解释和验证了国际灾害法中对适应性模型的倾向。它还表明如何重新校准反应模型中的机制以更好地管理灾害。该分析揭示了灾害监管反应模型的概念局限性，并解释和验证了国际灾害法中对适应性模型的倾向。它还表明如何重新校准反应模型中的机制以更好地管理灾害。