22 April 2020
Taiwan’s Proactive Prevention of COVID-19 under Constitutionalism
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 >>
0 
22 April 2020
Rescuing Human Rights in Mauritius During the COVID 19 Tsunami
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 >>21 April 2020
The Philippines’ Dalliance with Authoritarianism in Times of National Emergency
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 >>21 April 2020
Belgium and COVID-19: When a Health Crisis Replaces a Political Crisis
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 >>
0
20 April 2020
Iceland’s Rule of Common Sense … and Law?
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 >>
0
18 April 2020
Testing the Limits of EU Health Emergency Power
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 >>
0
18 April 2020
Singapore’s Legislative Approach to the COVID-19 Public Health ‘Emergency’
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 >>
0
17 April 2020
Right Restriction or Restricting Rights? The UK Acts to Address COVID-19
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 >>17 April 2020
Pandemic and Executive Powers in Colombia: A Problem and a Modest Proposal
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 >>16 April 2020