Joelle Grogan
The fifty days of the ‘COVID-19 and States of emergency’ Symposium covered the height of the global legal reaction to the pandemic, offering a snapshot of countries in collective crisis. It began with a call for a global conversation on the kind of legal norms which should govern the situation of worldwide pandemic. This final contribution aims to trace the central themes, questions and issues raised by the Symposium.
Continue reading >>
Eva Pils
The reality of China’s coronavirus experience raises distinctive legal-political concerns. The Party has used its vast and concentrated power to fight not only the virus, but also domestic critics of its response, including medical professionals, journalists, human rights activists, a constitutional law professor, and citizens simply speaking up via the social media because they were engaged, or enraged, or both. The fight against one of these ‘enemies’, inevitably, has affected that against the other.
Continue reading >>
Diogo Esteves, Kim Economides
In addition to initiating a humanitarian crisis, the coronavirus outbreak is triggering multiple impacts (social, political, economic, environmental etc.) on the global stage, whose consequences – both negative and positive – were not only unforeseen, but remain unpredictable. We can be sure, however, that they will inevitably touch, one way or another, our justice and legal aid systems.
Continue reading >>
Michael Meyer-Resende
By mid-March, all EU member states were in a state of emergency, whether they officially declared one or not. Across the EU many human rights were severely restricted, particularly the right to free movement. Not every state of emergency is the same, however. Some exceed what is foreseen in international human rights law.
Continue reading >>
Kwaku Agyeman-Budu
Ghana has adopted several measures in tackling the COVID-19 global pandemic, chief among them being the enactment of new legislation to tackle the issue, and the exercise of powers under pre-existing legislation. A formal state of emergency has not been declared in the wake of the pandemic, leading to debates, for instance regarding the impact of the current situation on the 2020 elections.
Continue reading >>
Paul Kalinichenko, Elizaveta Moskovkina
Since the first cases of COVID-19 were registered in Zabaikalsky kray and Tumenskaya oblast on 31 January 2020, the Russian government has reacted to the challenge of the epidemic by enacting new legislation and introducing some emergency measures. The pandemic is bringing new and unpleasant surprises, creating specific social, economic and legal hardships which is making the unstable life of Russian citizens even worse.
Continue reading >>
, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi
Nicolás Maduro, who still holds the presidency, declared a state of alarm on March 13, 2020, invoking the need to counter the pandemic. However, the corresponding decree not only contradicts the constitutional provisions for states of exception but is also being employed to impose abusive limitations on human rights, to aggravate political repression and persecution, to blur the seriousness of certain socio-economic problems, and to contain social protests. The absence of judicial and parliamentary controls that could counteract these excesses of power has resulted in an autocratic shift within a context that was already authoritarian.
Continue reading >>
,
The Slovak experience with the COVID-19 pandemic has been affected by the fact that the outbreak took place at the time of a change in government. The new government, because of its relative inexperience and populist tendencies, has committed mistakes, often amounting to an infringement of citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms, especially the freedom of movement.
Continue reading >>
Cameroon has neither resorted to the exceptional measures that its constitution provides for, nor adopted a new law for the occasion, as many other countries have done. The state has instead relied on already existing provisions, applicable in ordinary times to combat the pandemic. This speaks volumes about the “ordinary” powers of the administrative authorities.
Continue reading >>
Bianca Selejan-Gutan
In Romania, the sanitary crisis caused by the SARS-COV-2 pandemic started during an existing political crisis and overlapped, at a few crucial moments, with a constitutional crisis. The fact that 2020 is an electoral year had an important impact on the crisis management: on the one hand, the political conflicts increased, but, on the other hand, the fact that the power did not belong to the same political majority hindered potential abuses of one of the actors, especially of the President.
Continue reading >>
In the Czech Republic, the COVID-19 crisis has brought not only a general state of chaos but also a considerable shift of powers to the executive branch. The first shift, impairing the legislative branch, was triggered by the declaration of a state of emergency on 12 March 2020. The second shift, diminishing also the role of the judiciary, was caused by a ruling in which the Constitutional showed its unwillingness to interfere with the government’s steps.
Continue reading >>
Uladzislau Belavusau, Maksim Karliuk
In contrast to the ‘illiberal democracies’ of Hungary and Poland, Belarus in its response to COVID-19 appears to be playing the role of a perfectly ‘liberal’ state with almost a laissez-faire solution, where people’s choice is prioritized and rights are respected as no severe measures are introduced to close businesses or restrict free movement. This image is inevitably misleading, as democratic institutions in Belarus have been brought to heel long ago, and alternative information about the state of affairs in Belarus regarding the virus remains suppressed.
Continue reading >>
Leonardo Cofre
Due to the pandemic, Chile's 2020 electoral calendar has been modified, delaying the most important political event of the year: the April referendum for a new constitution. While the postponement is reasonable considering the current sanitary situation, recent suggestions that there be a further postponement due to a possible post-pandemic economic crisis threaten the democratic legitimacy of the process. As argued in this post, these measures and opinions, when read together, put the government close to an authoritarian use of the constitution.
Continue reading >>
Ahmed Ellaboudy
One could learn a very important lesson from the Egyptian experience as it relates to the state of emergency: A good constitutional text alone is not enough. Although new amendments to the Emergency Law included several public health measures that allow the state to contain the impact of the spread of COVID-19, the absence of a parliamentary and judicial review will remain a huge threat to fundamental rights and the basics of the democratic rule-making.
Continue reading >>
Tanasije Marinkovi?
The Covid-19 epidemic outbreak in Serbia coincided with the beginning of the election campaign for both parliamentary and municipal elections. Soon, it became clear that what was at stake in the fight against Covid-19 was not so much saving the nation as securing the majority re-election of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party, headed by its populist leader and President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić.
Continue reading >>
Lukman Abdulrauf
Like many other countries across the world, Nigeria has called upon emergency powers to deal with COVID-19 without, however, having declared a state of emergency. The use of emergency powers in Nigeria in the fight against COVID-19 is not only peculiar but problematic for a number of reasons.
Continue reading >>
Rait Maruste
Due to the COVID-19 epidemic the Estonian Government (Vabariigi Valitsus), without consulting the parliament (Riigikogu), declared by Order Nr. 76 on 12 March 2020 a state of emergency (eriolukord), defining the epidemic as an “emergency situation”. This is the first time in our modern history where a state of emergency has been declared. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently informed the Council of Europe of the Estonian derogation under Article 15 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Continue reading >>
Ledi Bianku
Albania was hit the by Covid-19 pandemic, although it seems not as gravely as some of its neighbours. Starting from 10 March 2020 the Albanian Government adopted several measures aiming to limit the spread of the pandemic in the country. Most of those measures have been continuously reviewed, following the development of the pandemic.
Continue reading >>
Ratna Rueban Balasubramaniam
Two simultaneous narratives are unfolding as Malaysia responds to Covid-19. The first is the specific character of the ongoing legal response. The second is salient backdrop to any evaluation of this legal response that Malaysia is in political turmoil.
Continue reading >>
Tom Gerald Daly
Curating analysis of these developments since early April through the COVID-DEM project, and reading across the 62 published contributions to this outstanding symposium, there are clear commonalities across all democracies affected. Beyond these commonalities, the effect of the COVID-19 response on the democratic system has been – and will be – starkly uneven across democracies worldwide, due to the different democratic ‘starting point’ of each state as the pandemic hit.
Continue reading >>
, ,
The COVID-19 outbreak constitutes an unprecedented challenge in the history of independent Lithuania, which in its 1992 Constitution embedded a broad list of human rights and freedoms. It seems that so far the emergency powers have been used proportionately and in a time-limited manner, albeit some concerns regarding human rights and the rule of law remain. While it is understandable that the pandemic required a quick response, more attention from the Lithuanian decision-makers on fundamental rights and the required balancing would have been welcome.
Continue reading >>
Allan Maleche, Nerima Were, Tara Imalingat
Kenya's President is yet to declare a state of emergency and has opted to implement measures that ensure citizens can continue with their lives. Constitutionally, rights may only be limited by law and only to the extent that is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.
Continue reading >>
Akiko Ejima
People have been perplexed by the slow and soft approach of the Japanese government in their attempt to bring COVID-19 under control. The first case of COVID-19 in Japan was confirmed on 16 January 2020. On 30 January, the Japanese government set up the COVID-19 Countermeasures Headquarters. It published emergency countermeasures against COVID-19 on 13 February and presented Basic Policies for Coronavirus Disease Control on 25 February. However, none of these measures have introduced drastic measures such as border controls and/or curfews.
Continue reading >>
The confinements imposed by the Spanish Government in response to the pandemic are among the most intense in comparative terms since they contain a prohibition of going out into the street with only limited exceptions. Given their intensity, especially the strong limits imposed on the freedom of movement, the restrictions are rather suspensions than mere restrictions of fundamental rights and as such go beyond their legal basis of the state of alarm.
Continue reading >>
Alice Donald, Philip Leach
It is mistaken to conceive of COVID-19 principally as a threat whose eradication necessarily requires rights to be sacrificed. Rather, human rights standards and principles offer a means of transparently balancing competing interests and priorities in the cauldron of COVID-19 decision-making – and rights-respecting measures which secure public confidence are likely to be more effective and sustainable over time than arbitrary or repressive ones.
Continue reading >>
Giorgi Chitidze
On 21 March 2020, Georgia declared a nationwide State of Emergency for one month in an effort to halt the spread of COVID-19. The decree has recently been extended until May 22, 2020. To date, Georgia is among the countries with the least infected population and the mortality rate remains low (635 confirmed cases, 10 deaths, and 309 fully recovered as of May 10, 2020). Despite the relative success within the medical sphere, the rule of law, democracy and human rights are facing an epidemic of unseen scale.
Continue reading >>
Trung Nguyen
In Viet Nam, Wthe ‘state of emergency’ clauses are virtually a repetition of measures the government may take when there is no emergency. This means that were the government to declare a state of emergency there would be no reserving policy space for the government to fall back to. Viet Nam should thus seize the opportunity to revise its legislation and clearly distinguish between emergency and non-emergency measure, both in terms of degree and scope.
Continue reading >>
Nika Ba?i? Selanec
Analysing national responses to the coronavirus, the University of Oxford study found that Croatia was the most rigorous of all the examined countries considering the actual number of infections. Overall, the Croatian response to Covid-19 might not pose an autocratic threat to the rule of law as in certain European countries. This is far, however, from suggesting there have not been significant constitutional challenges, or that we should not require an enhanced constitutional oversight over apparently quite restrictive governmental action.
Continue reading >>
When referring to the rule of law and constitutionalism we must be extremely cautious: Ecuador was founded in 1830 after the dissolution of Great Colombia, and in just 190 years has adopted 20 constitutions. The current Ecuadorian Constitution dates from 2008. This means that the nation does not possess a strong constitutional tradition nor a culture of promotion of the rule of law. On the contrary, Ecuador has a long history of institutional breakdowns and coup d'états which were caused by political and economic crisis. However, these were nothing compared with the situation all Ecuadorians are currently facing.
Continue reading >>
Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang, Rawin Leelapatana
On 13 January, Thailand was the first country outside of China to confirm a COVID-19 case. Prayuth invoked the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation on 26 March 2020. At present, new cases are down to a single-digit figure per day. However, the 2005 Emergency Decree may not be the appropriate tool, as it has misled the public’s understanding of the pandemic and allows the government to employ unnecessarily harsh measures, leading to over-criminalization and arguable abuses of power.
Continue reading >>
Antoine Buyse, Roel de Lange
The Dutch authorities take a quasi-legal, quasi-rhetorical approach to shape their intelligent lockdown and try to tame the pandemic beast, with questionable constitutional practices as a result. While the reliance on medical and other expertise might be a welcome difference compared to some other countries, overreliance on experts in communication may hide real political and legal choices that have been made.
Continue reading >>
Iain Cameron, Anna Jonsson-Cornell
The Swedish government’s ways of handling the Corona crisis have drawn a lot of international attention. Sweden has tried to limit the spread of the disease by means of recommendations, rather than quarantines and curfews. There is no provision in the Swedish constitution for the declaration of a state of emergency in peacetime, only in war or where there is an imminent danger of war. Instead, the Swedish approach is to have delegations to the government, and sub-delegations to administrative agencies in a variety of statutes.
Continue reading >>
Ridwanul Hoque
It appears that Bangladesh’s legal responses to the COVID-19 crisis are inconsistent, ad hoc, and deficient in transparency and democratic practices. The unprecedented nature of the pandemic requiring exceptionally urgent actions, may be attributed to the sorry state of affairs. A thoughtful, more legitimate approach could nevertheless have been taken.
Continue reading >>
Niall Coghlan
Does the pandemic require derogation from human rights treaties? This […]
Continue reading >>
Vincent A. De Gaetano
Notwithstanding some initial hesitation, the way in which the Maltese health authorities have so far handled the emergency has been well received by the general public. Measures were introduced gradually, with daily press conferences explaining the reason for each new measure or variation thereof, whilst providing statistics on the number of daily swabs, patients infected, patients recovered, and fatalities.
Continue reading >>
Kristian Cedervall Lauta
While the Danish Government’s approach, up until this point, has been successful in limiting the spread of the pandemic and none of the government initiatives seem blatantly unconstitutional – something might be forgotten in the state of Denmark: that the resilience and cultural properties of the Danish society contributed to the success in handling COVID-19 rather than increasing executive power.
Continue reading >>
Aleksejs Dimitrovs
The Government of Latvia adopted the decision on emergency situation due to COVID-19 on 12 March to apply until 14 April. For the time being, this period has been extended once to 12 May. This post considers the applicable legal framework, concrete limitations adopted by the Saeima (Parliament) and the Government are described, followed by an assessment from the point of view of European Union values.
Continue reading >>
Roberto Gargarella
Argentina’s government has been adopting numerous and significant decisions in the face of the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. But: Almost all the relevant decisions adopted by the Executive Branch were decisions that belonged to the Legislative Branch: Congress is the only authority legally authorized to adopt them. In other words, the Executive Power is not authorized to do what it has been doing so far.
Continue reading >>
Felix Uhlmann
Were we ready for the crisis? I do not mean whether Switzerland had enough hospital beds and ventilators, but whether its Federal Constitution was ready. Arguably, the former are vital, and as regards the latter, Switzerland is under no suspicion of losing its quality as a democracy and a Rechtsstaat. Still, the constitutional questions raised by the Corona crisis are troubling. The federal government is applying emergency powers unheard of since WW2, and which were previously unimaginable for most. Legal scholars are only starting to grapple the full implications of the crisis.
Continue reading >>
, Andrea Manoli
Once the first case of COVID-19 was reported on 9 March 2020, the Republic of Cyprus introduced emergency measures to contain the spread of the virus, as per the powers granted under the Constitution in the event of emergency. Following scientific advice, the Cypriot Government responded quickly by limiting temporarily personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, disrupting once again the constitutional legal order.
Continue reading >>
Edoardo Stoppioni
In times of neoliberalism, it is healthy hearing the Prime Minister Xavier Bettel of Luxembourg say that “the protection of health and life takes precedence over economic interests”. But this declaration came in the context of the recourse to extraordinary emergency powers, on the day before the Government declared the “state of crisis” to face the Coronavirus situation. In Luxembourg, this tool to regulate emergencies has progressively found its path into the Constitution while elsewhere in Europe philosophers or public law professors argued that a constitutional state of emergency entails the paradox of “constitutionalising the absence of constitution”. It is therefore important to reflect on the effects of the conjugation of these two discourses into the sanitary crisis and their effect on democracy and human rights protection.
Continue reading >>
Due to its violent past of a 36 year-long internal armed conflict and the scourge of corruption, the COVID-19 pandemic presents to Guatemala great challenges that goes beyond ensuring healthcare to its population. The excessive use of imprisonment in the enforcement of sanitary measures, the protection of detained persons, ensuring the effective implementation of financial assistance programs, achieving accountability of public servants during the crisis, and the reactivation of the judiciary are some of the issues that demands a proper answer from the Guatemalan state. This post analyzes the “emergency state” implemented in Guatemala and presents some of the measures and effects related to the current crisis.
Continue reading >>
Konrad Lachmayer
As the number of infected persons is declining and the overall situation gradually improving, it becomes clear that the measures have proved to be effective from a public health perspective. However, in light of the general retreat of the virus the upholding of many measures also becomes contestable now regarding their proportionality. With the improvement of the public health issues, the challenge for the rule of law has begun. Will the government be able to restrain itself and find a way back to constitutional normality?
Continue reading >>
Bonolo Ramadi Dinokopila
Botswana, a country with a population slightly over two million, has recently joined countries that took stringent measures necessary to contain the spread of COVID-19. On the 31 March 2020 President Dr. Mokgweetsi E. K. Masisi declared a state of public emergency. This was the second time a state of public emergency was declared since Botswana attained independence in 1966.
Continue reading >>
Roman Petrov, Bohdan Bernatskyi
All legal measures limiting human rights in response to COVID-19 adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine are made pursuant with respective clauses of two specific legal acts: the Code of Civil Protection of Ukraine (art. 16) and Law “On the protection of the population from infectious diseases” (art. 3). The said legislation empowers the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as a key body in the protection of the population against infectious diseases with a broad margin of appreciation. However, more importantly, is that the Ukrainian Constitution envisages a restriction on certain rights and freedoms if these restrictions are prescribed by law in the interests of protecting the health of the population. Ukrainian think tanks and NGOs express deep concern on unconstitutionality of limitations of human rights caused by the Government’s measures to fight COVID-19.
Continue reading >>
, Samo Bardutzky
Since the Slovenian declaration of an epidemic on 12 March 2020, a number of measures have been proposed, adopted and rejected in order to stop the spreading of the disease. Importantly, a state of emergency has not been declared. Nevertheless, in the past 6 weeks, interpretations and amendments of the existing statutory framework have also caused concerns from the constitutional point of view.
Continue reading >>
The COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictive measures adopted across Latin America have increased insecurity, suffering and hunger for millions across the region. Although restrictions on free transit, freedom of work, and freedom of assembly, among others, are legitimate – given that social distancing is the only weapon against this virus – we must be aware that millions of people in Latin America survive due to their work in the informal sector. It is unacceptable that for many, the only options during this pandemic are to be killed by hunger or by COVID-19. For this reason, following this emergency, the region must resume a debate about the relevance of a new social or welfare state, without corruption, that can provide basic public services including healthcare.
Continue reading >>
Cassandra Emmons
As has been highlighted by other contributors to this Symposium, emergency decrees have already been used to achieve political ambitions beyond addressing COVID-19 in places like Hungary or Bulgaria. While states bear the responsibility of protecting their nations, modern day international human rights law is designed precisely to protect people from governments that abuse their powers. What limits does international human rights law impose on governments during emergencies? Can they be enforced? And how does COVID-19 fit in these conceptualizations?
Continue reading >>
Sanaz Alasti
In its early stages, the COVID-19 crisis in Iran looked nothing like a crisis. The initial reactions to the outbreak were met by skepticism by both the public and many of Iranian officials – despite the World Health Organization warning of the potential for a catastrophe for weeks. Indeed, in late February Iran’s deputy health minister – Iraj Harirchi who denied accusations that the government was downgrading the coronavirus outbreak in the country – has reportedly tested positive for the sickness.
Continue reading >>
Jakub Jaraczewski
The measures introduced to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in Poland are among some of the most extensive and far-reaching, affecting many spheres of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Few of these measures amount to recommendations and suggestions of specific behaviour, most of them are hard, legally enforceable orders and prohibitions and flouting them incurs the risk of severe financial punishment. Yet the legal framework for these measures causes a significant degree of controversy. This report aims to present a birds eye’s view on the measures in Poland and to highlight some issues legal scholars and experts have taken with both the substantive side of the measures and the means they were introduced.
Continue reading >>
In the past weeks, the European judges have been confronted in multiple ways by the Covid19 crisis. The challenges for judiciary were exceptional: the willingness to serve our fellow citizens, providing solidarity and support, in times of plague; the duty to supervise, as broadly as permitted by political authorities, the lawfulness of emergency measures; the emergent call to deal with the negative consequences of judicial lockdowns for the efficiency of courts and, moreover, the anxiety arising from the need to look after one’s own health and that of others, in particular witnesses, litigants or other citizens present in court.
Continue reading >>
Chien-Liang Lee
On December 31, 2019, the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sent the above message via email to the International Health Regulations (IHR) focal point under the World Health Organization (WHO). In the meantime, Taiwan also initiated COVID-19 epidemic prevention measures. This article endeavors to explain Taiwan’s emergency command and response system, to summarize Taiwan’s current regulatory actions against the epidemic outbreak, and to provide a few remarks on the emergency measures undertaken from the perspective of constitutionalism.
Continue reading >>
Ashwanee Budoo
In the evening of 18 March 2020, Mauritians learnt the harsh news that their tropical heaven island of about 1.2 million people was also being swept by the coronavirus (COVID 19) tsunami, with three confirmed cases. As of 21 April 2020, the country has recorded a total of 328 cases, with 73 of them still being active and 9 deaths. Initially recording high increases in the confirmed number of COVID 19 cases, the country has been able to flatten its curve, without even a single case being recorded on some days. Depending on the trend of the spread, the government is working on a COVID 19 Bill that will gradually re-open the economy as from 4 May 2020.
Continue reading >>
Michael Henry Yusingco
The Philippines is remarkably familiar with national emergencies, having faced just in the past three decades alone two global financial catastrophes, a number of coup attempts, a couple of destructive volcanic eruptions, a slew of ravaging typhoons, deadly terrorist attacks, and a devastating earthquake. Notably, the national response at these moments of crisis is to give the President “emergency powers”. Of course, this also comes with the admonition that citizens must fall in line and obey the commands of the government, which usually means temporarily “adjusting” adherence to human rights and respect for civil liberties.
Continue reading >>
Sarah Ganty
The COVID-19 health crisis is happening in the context of a political crisis in Belgium. As the virus was spreading in the EU in early March, political parties were still negotiating the formation of a federal government. The need to provide a unified and strong answer to the situation added another layer to the political crisis and seems to have put the main political disagreements on the backburner. Even though, many institutional and constitutional challenges have been solved without considerably affecting basic democratic principles. This is not true when it comes to fundamental rights, especially fundamental rights of vulnerable groups such as migrants and prisoners, female victims of violence etc.
Continue reading >>
While Iceland is not under a lockdown, the borders have been closed and wide-ranging measures implemented concerning a ban on gathering, social distancing, closing down or restricting the operation of schools, hair salons, organized sports and so on. When this is written, the current version of the ban on gathering is destined to last until 4th of May but some measures will be in place throughout the summer and maybe even longer. Now, gatherings of more than 20 people are forbidden, including in workplaces, cafés, restaurants and shops but special rules apply to grocery shops and pharmacies. The so-called two metre rule applies in these places. Other places have been shut down completely, such as gyms, swimming pools and pubs. The economic situation is also dire. Businesses are struggling and unemployment is on the rise. The last big depression is still fresh in memory. In what follows, I will focus on measures concerning the health crisis.
Continue reading >>
, Frederik Orlowski
SARS-CoV-2 has hit Germany hard with (as of Easter 2020) more than 120,000 confirmed cases. The entire development of the pandemic has been accompanied by a critical debate about whether the Federal Government and the Länder (states) took the appropriate measures to fight the virus. The first objective of this post is to show which legal measures are available to the Federal Government and the Länder and to briefly report which of those have been applied to. It discusses whether extraordinary times are the right moment for constitutional amendments and why a critical reflection of the current legislative changes is not only necessary but essential for the understanding of our constitution.
Continue reading >>
Alberto Alemanno
Due to their inherent cross-border spillovers, many of the national responses to COVID-19 raise major concerns under EU law. Yet only a few of them have been timidly denounced by the EU Commission as the Guardian of the Treaty. How long will this last?
Continue reading >>
Jaclyn L. Neo, Darius Lee
Up till late March 2020, Singapore’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was the envy of many nations. Its strategy of early testing, rapid contact tracing, and isolating cases and close contacts was praised for its effectiveness. Indeed, for some time, Singapore seemed to be successfully ‘flattening the curve’. And to top it off, the Singapore government managed to contain the spread of the disease while keeping workplaces, businesses, and schools open. This all, however, changed when a sudden spike in cases occurred in the latter half of March.
Continue reading >>
Joelle Grogan
The UK initially downplayed concerns arising from the spread of COVID-19: Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggesting Britain should ‘take it on the chin’, pursued a policy which introduced no significant measures beyond encouraging hand-washing for 20 seconds. This changed, abruptly, on 12 March. On the same day schools and businesses were shut in Ireland and France, and three days after Italy was locked down, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a move to the delay phase and advised, though did not direct, over-70s to stay home, and travellers to avoid cruises. People should ‘avoid pubs and restaurants’, but they would not be closed. Large gatherings, such as the Cheltenham Festival, would not be prevented from going ahead. On 19 March following the rapid spread of the virus, the government announced that there was ‘zero prospect’ of a lockdown in London which would place limits on peoples’ movement. Four days later, on 23 March, the capital entered lockdown along with the rest of the country. ‘Zero prospect’ had lasted less than four days.
Continue reading >>
, Esteban Hoyos-Ceballos
The way in which the events surrounding the pandemic in Colombia have unfolded, and the measures taken so far by the executive branch have led us, once again, to think about presidential powers: their scope, extent and limits. The first question we ask ourselves is: what kind of powers does the executive branch exercise when it orders measures such as national mandatory self-confinement? Perhaps in the midst of uncertainty and fear it seems natural to us that mayors, governors and ultimately the President have decided to confine us to our homes under threat of a fine if we don’t follow the precise guidelines of the various decrees and administrative acts. But such power and restriction of our freedom is a matter of concern that we must examine closely. We must also pay attention to the institutional mechanisms that are being deployed to deal with the crisis. In the current situation, not only does the what in the decision matter (i.e., mandatory self-confinement measures), but also the who and the how (i.e., whether the decisions are adopted by mayors, governors or the President – and, in the latter case, if the President does it through exceptional or ordinary powers).
Continue reading >>
Martin Scheinin
Finland has a modern Constitution with an ambitious catalogue of fundamental rights. Has this framework, including the constitutional regulation of emergency powers, been able to cope with the COVID-19 crisis? Are there lessons to learn from Finland?
Continue reading >>
Eugenio Velasco
As of April 5th, the Federal Health Ministry reported 2,143 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Mexico. International experience suggests that the country is at the cusp of confronting the full effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This post provides a description of the constitutional and statutory regulation of emergency powers and a brief commentary on the government’s actions thus far. It starts by offering an account of the constitutional provision of emergency powers, noting from the outset a disinclination to the prospect or desirability of their application. Then, it describes the emergency powers to confront a health crisis contained in statutory form. Finally, it evaluates the government’s response to the pandemic.
Continue reading >>
In order to ensure a quick and flexible response in fighting against COVID- 19, Turkish presidency and administration preferred to introduce the measures against the pandemic in the form of circulars instead of declaring a state of emergency. This choice is being criticised for opening the way for arbitrariness and undermining the principle of legality.
Continue reading >>
Iain Payne
Compared to many other countries, the known impact of COVID-19 on public health in Nepal has thus far been small. At the time of writing (4 April), only nine COVID-19 infections have been identified. However, as in many low-income developing countries, Nepal is particularly vulnerable to the spread of the virus. The country’s healthcare system is weak and, even at the best of times, hospitals suffer from chronic shortages of oxygen cylinders and ventilators—essential tools to fight the disease. Test kits are limited and the capacity to test samples in large quantities quickly is severely lacking. Moreover, while the existence of the virus within the community is known, the extent of its spread remains hidden The mass migration of workers back to their villages in pre-emption of the looming nation-wide lockdown potentially carried the virus throughout the entire country.
Continue reading >>
George Karavokyris
Each time a crisis emerges, the law is entitled to seize the exceptional moment and contain it, within the limits of democracy and the rule of law. Legal normality, as a vague standard, is usually redefined by the legislator and the courts and rapidly adjusted to reality. The constitutional value of public interest comes into conflict with civil liberties and scholars begin to question the law. The saga of the (Greek) coronavirus crisis-law is, like everywhere, utterly reduced to the proportionality of the exceptional measures of the (Greek) State, but its moral and political implications seem far broader and ambiguous.
Continue reading >>
Geoffrey Yeung
When news began to circulate about a novel virus in December 2019, Hong Kong was in the midst of protests that had been going on for months. There were (and continue to be) widespread demands for accountability and democracy, accompanied by a significant degree of public distrust and dissatisfaction towards the Government. Pertinently, the Government had just invoked hugely controversial emergency powers to quell the protests. Hong Kong was also one of the hardest-hit regions during the SARS epidemic 17 years ago, and there was a collective determination not to repeat the tragedy.
Continue reading >>
Hans Petter Graver
Governments across Europe are quick to limit personal freedoms in the name of fighting the pandemic. The case of Norway, however, reveals how the process of adopting these measures can compromise democratic discourse and procedure. The main rule of law challenges we have seen here are an overreach of the authorities of their legal powers, a lack of transparency and exclusion of the public from public decision-making and battle over jurisdiction to regulate between the central government and local authorities. In the end, it is not just our health, but the rule of law that is under threat.
Continue reading >>
Gautam Bhatia
India’s response to Covid-19 has been large in scale, and far-reaching. The country is, at present, under a twenty-one day national “lockdown”, with a near-complete restriction upon the movement of people, the closure of all establishments except those providing “essential services”, and the regular “sealing” of neighbourhoods and areas that are suspected to be Covid-19 hotspots. To understand the legal framework underpinning all of this, it is important to first note that India is a federal republic, with a parliamentary democracy that operates under the framework of a written Constitution, and whose Courts formally exercise powers of judicial review over legislative and executive action. The response to Covid-19, therefore, involves multiple levels of government, and multiple institutional actors.
Continue reading >>
Teresa Violante, Rui T. Lanceiro
As we write this report, it is unclear how the Covid-19 outbreak will unfold in Portugal. The country reacted quickly to adopt measures aimed at reducing social contact, including the closure of schools and a general ban on non-essential movement. Whether that will prove efficient to avoid the collapse of the national health system and prevent thousands of deaths, only time will tell. In this contribution, we describe and reflect on the action taken by public powers to address the Covid-19 pandemic, considering the situation as of April 9.
Continue reading >>
Abdurrachman Satrio
Indonesia is a perfect example of how poorly a country can handle the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19). In February, when Indonesia’s neighbouring countries such as Singapore were occupied with the restriction of the entry of foreigners into their territory after the announcement of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, Indonesia’s government under the Presidency of Joko Widodo (Jokowi) introduced the opposite policy which made it easier for foreign tourists (including those from the mainland China) to travel to Indonesia. The purpose of this particular policy according to Jokowi’s government was to exploit the economic gaps which would arise from foreigners’ fears of travelling to Indonesia’s neighbours including Singapore and Thailand.
Continue reading >>
Alan Greene
Like many countries around the world, Ireland has enacted emergency legislation to respond to the coronavirus pandemic. The scope of these powers are vast, impacting on almost every aspect of life in Ireland. Notably, no state of emergency has been declared in accordance with Ireland’s constitutional provisions or under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Continue reading >>
Melodie Labuschaigne, Ciara Staunton
As COVID-19 spread across the world, the first reported case in Africa was not until 27 February 2020 in Nigeria; six days later the South African National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) confirmed the first case in South Africa. Since then, cases have increased steadily and the first death in South Africa was recorded on 27 March 2020. COVID-19 has shown its potential devastating impact elsewhere, but it is a particular cause for concern in South Africa.
Continue reading >>
Tamara Tulich, Marco Rizzi, Fiona McGaughey
To date, in Australia, there have been over 5,350 confirmed COVID-19 cases, 26 deaths and over 275,000 tests conducted. The majority of the confirmed cases were acquired overseas. Australia is a Federation with a national government and state and territory governments. This adds complexity to responding to a national crisis. So far, Australia’s response has been characterised by cooperative federalism, at least nominally, primarily through a newly formed National Cabinet. There has been a staged ratcheting up of border controls and executive powers to prevent and control the spread of COVID-19, and a ‘hibernation’ approach to the conduct of business and exercise of fundamental rights. In this post, we discuss the governance model through the National Cabinet, the hard law response at Federal and State and Territory level and the extensive economic interventions.
Continue reading >>
Radosveta Vassileva
On 23 March 2020, Bulgaria’s Parliament enacted a Law on the Measures and Actions during the State of Emergency Announced by Parliament on 13 March 2020 (hereby referred to as Law on Emergency for brevity). This was the second attempt to enact this piece of legislation after Bulgaria’s President vetoed some of its provisions. This new Law entered into force retroactively on 13 March 2020 when Parliament declared a state of emergency (izvunredno polojenie) in light of COVID-19. The peculiar situation that Parliament can declare a state of emergency, define its scope and provide guidance on the measures which could be taken later, and apply the law retroactively to justify measures and actions taken by the executive in the period before defining these terms is troublesome from a rule of law perspective. Moreover, some of the measures go beyond healthcare concerns and create opportunities for arbitrariness and human rights violations. B
Continue reading >>
2 years and less than 5 months after the end of the two-year state of emergency triggered on the wake of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, a brand new “state of health emergency” was activated in France on the 23rd March to cope with a new attack led, this time, by a small and invisible enemy, Covid-19. The so-called “state of health emergency” currently constitutes the legal framework and basis of the measures in force to cope with the epidemic, including nationwide lockdown. What is this new regime? Is it a threat to individual freedoms? What are its limits and guarantees? Was it legally necessary?
Continue reading >>
Kim Lane Scheppele
Not surprisingly, those of us who write about emergencies have been far more concerned about overreaction than underreaction and we have been far more concerned about politically caused emergencies rather than natural disasters. History is littered with the cautionary tales of overreaction to politically caused emergencies. But the dangers of state failure evident in underreaction are underestimated.
Continue reading >>
Emilio Peluso Neder Meyer, Thomas Bustamante
One of the few heads of state that insist on denying scientific and epidemiologic facts concerning the spread of COVID-19 is the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. For Bolsonaro, politics comes before truth. Since the beginning of the pandemic of COVID-19, he is disseminating doubts on social media (although Twitter, Facebook and Instagram deleted some of his posts) to galvanize his radical supporters while creating a distraction for his government’s inability to implement social and economic aids to the low-income families affected by social distancing. For the moment, the president has failed to gather the public support that he needs for an extension of the emergency powers of the executive, like Orbán did in Hungary. But his authoritarian discourse has not disappeared from the horizon. On 31st March 2020, for instance, Bolsonaro celebrated the anniversary of the Coup of 1964 as a “great day for freedom”.
Continue reading >>
Julinda Beqiraj
With one of the highest death rate by population worldwide, Italy has undertaken a series of necessary but very intrusive measures resulting in strong limitations of fundamental rights and liberties. The Rule of Law (ROL) is considered to be “the basis of all genuine democracy” (Statute of the Council of Europe); and in times of emergency, respect for the ROL and adherence to its principles should still prevail. So, what safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the Italian legislative response to COVID-19 provides effective protection of public safety and complies with core Constitutional principles, international law obligations and the ROL?
Continue reading >>
Dean R Knight
New Zealand’s governmental response to Covid-19 has been, so far, dramatic and legally curious. As a South Pacific island nation, Covid-19 was late to infiltrate New Zealand, allowing the government time to shape its response in the light of experiences elsewhere. At the first sign of community transmission, the government moved to lockdown the country – shutting the border, keeping people in their household ‘bubbles’ and closing businesses other than those deemed essential. To effect the lockdown, the government relied on some ordinary legal powers and a handful of reserve emergency powers, supplemented by strong messaging from a charismatic prime minister. While providing a stopgap solution for the sudden move, the current legal framework is bit soft and fragile in places. It seems likely the government will move to sharpen and fortify the legal basis for the lockdown and put in place a more bespoke and enduring solution.
Continue reading >>
Tamar Hostovsky Brandes
A notable characteristic of the Israeli management of the crisis is the growing reliance on the military and on national security agencies, with respect to both types of measures. The sections below will examine the measures taken, the concerns these measures raise, and the steps taken to address such concerns.
Continue reading >>
David Dyzenhaus
Canada is in almost full emergency mode in its bid to flatten the pandemic curve. But so far the federal government has not declared a federal state of emergency in terms of the Emergencies Act (1985), although it has discussed publicly the pros and cons of taking this step and has been urged to do so on the basis that such a declaration would enable a nationwide testing program. There are four main reasons for this hesitation to declare a national state of emergency.
Continue reading >>
On 23 March 1933, an act was adopted in Nazi Germany in response to the “crisis” of the Reichstag fire to enable Hitler to issue decrees independently of the Reichstag and the presidency. Article 48 of the constitution of the Weimar Republic made this act possible. Eighty-seven years later, on 23 March 2020, the so-called 'Enabling Act' was put before the Hungarian Parliament. This was drafted under emergency constitutional provisions in Articles 48-54.
Continue reading >>
Joelle Grogan
As states of emergency are declared throughout the world in response to the spread of COVID-19, concerns arise as to the use - and potential abuse - of power in a time of crisis. In this Symposium, comparative country reports examine the use of emergency powers from the perspective of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Continue reading >>
