Editor's note: Kong Qingjiang is the dean of the School of International Law at the China University of Political Science and Law. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Needless to say, the tracing of COVID-19 is scientifically meaningful. It helps scientists better understand how the novel coronavirus has evolved, which is instrumental to developing effective vaccines and other scientific approaches to deal with it. That's why the WHO, the watchdog of global public health, has been organizing the COVID-19 origin-tracing missions, and why WHO members are generally obligated to cooperate with the WHO mission.

The WHO concluded its first stage of origin-tracing in China. According to an agreement between the Chinese government and the WHO in July 2020, a WHO team comprising international experts arrived in Wuhan in January 2021 undertaking a thorough investigation in conjunction with Chinese experts. China cooperated with the investigation in full accordance with the WHO's requests. The investigation was one that was conducted in a comprehensive, objective and proactive manner. The WHO expert team in due course concluded unanimously that a leak in the Wuhan laboratory is extremely unlikely. 

A few months after the conclusion of the first stage of origins investigation, the WHO announced its plan of a second stage of tracing work. To the bewilderment of many observers, the second stage was intended to be conducted again in China. Quite a number of people tend to understand that the new attempt has its origins from certain countries which conspired to politicize the COVID-19 origins tracing. However, apart from conspiracy theory, there is a legal perspective which we need to focus on.    

From a purely legal point of view, any investigative procedure must have a certain degree of finality and cannot be re-opened time and again. Only when new, plausible evidence is found that may have a serious effect on the finding of a previous round of investigation, can a new round be re-initiated. That requirement is the essence of due process, which is indispensable to the rule of law. 

When it comes to the WHO investigation, a natural inference is: only if the WHO had new evidence sufficient to prove that China did not act to cooperate with the WHO team in the first stage of investigations, or engaged in concealment, coercion and other improper actions, could it request a re-opening of a new round of investigation against China. 

Ironically, the WHO, without producing any such new evidence, is planning a second stage of origin-tracing in China and demanding China's cooperation. That seems not the right manner that an international inter-governmental organization should behave vis-à-vis its members, particularly where the members contributed substantially to the fighting of the global pandemic.

For a country being targeted for a new round of unsubstantiated investigation, China has reason to be unhappy, which can be sensed from the angry tone of China's Foreign Ministry spokespeople. Nevertheless, it is not enough and thus not even advisable to refuse the request by merely questioning the hidden agenda of the certain WHO members behind the orchestrated scheme.

It is more desirable to convey such a message that there is no reason to set aside an objective, fair, scientifically based investigation conclusion, and no new round of investigation could be legitimately re-opened or re-initiated unless new substantiated evidence is to be produced. If more evidence is accumulated pointing to other countries as the possible origins, the WHO should consider a global study on the origins of the novel coronavirus.

Like most countries in the world, China has offered cooperation during the first stage of COVID-19 origins tracing. It has the legal ground to oppose the politicized second round. The international health community must uphold a scientific, objective, fair and rational attitude in this regard, following strict due process in launching the next step of origins investigation.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com)