Financial self-interest, fiscal considerations, geopolitics, sovereignty, governance, protectionism, and nationalism are currently dictating COVID-19 vaccine procurement at the macro level. Such structural factors indirectly vitiate autonomy at the grassroots level and run counter to the ideal that individuals should have access to the highest attainable standard of health.
With a real bang, the German Federal Constitutional Court has adjudicated what is probably the most far-reaching decision ever made by a supreme court worldwide on climate protection. This does not preclude the fact that the decision also has considerable weaknesses.
While the Austrian government´s reactions during the first wave of Covid-19 in spring 2020 are considered to have been successful, disillusionment followed in the fall 2020 with a second wave, for which the government did not seem to have prepared properly. The third period (January to April 2021), on which I will focus in this blog entry, shows a mixed performance of the government.
Der Klimaschutz-Beschluss des BVerfG hat auch über das Umweltrecht hinaus Bedeutung, etwa für den Rechtschutz der jungen Generation in den Bereichen der sozialen Sicherungssysteme oder der Staatsverschuldung. Sie gibt Anlass, sämtliche Säulen des gesellschaftlichen Lebens, bei denen Entscheidungen der Gegenwart zu Lasten für künftige Generationen führen, auf mögliche Beschränkungen intertemporaler Freiheiten abzuklopfen.
On 16 December 2020, despite rising rates of infection and the widely predicted ‘second wave’ already impacting neighbouring European countries, Prime Minister Boris Johnson mocked the opposition for wanting to ‘cancel Christmas’ by reintroducing nationwide lockdown restrictions. Three days later, a nationwide lockdown in England was introduced (inadvertently mimicking the March 2020 commitment that London had ‘zero prospect’ of lockdown, four days before it was enforced). The lockdown – closing schools, universities and a majority of businesses which were deemed non-essential and prohibiting gatherings of more than two people outdoors from separate households – continued until 12 April 2021 when restrictions began to be lessened through a phased ‘roadmap out of lockdown’. Such political hyperbole by the executive and lax response, followed by sudden U-turn policy making (‘essay crisis’ governance) and severely restrictive measures, have characterised much of the response to the pandemic in the UK.
More than a year after the pandemic was first reported in The Gambia, the state is returning to ordinary processes. Many COVID-related restrictions have been lifted, allowing businesses, markets, schools, restaurants, bars, gyms, cinemas, and nightclubs to resume normal operations, and borders to be open. However, from 8 March 2021, police permits will no longer be issued for music festivals, political events, and other forms of social gatherings. This comes against the backdrop of the country’s limited resources, weak healthcare systems, and ineffective mitigating measures including social distancing, self-isolation, and avoiding public gatherings to prevent further spread of the virus.
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht fordert in seinem historischen Klima-Beschluss, über 2031 hinaus zu definieren, wie Emissionen zu reduzieren sind. Die Pointe dieser Konstruktion liegt darin, dass der Gesetzgeber hier nicht nur punktuelle Änderungen für den Zeitraum ab 2031 vornehmen kann, ohne mit anderen Vorgaben Karlsruhes in Konflikt zu geraten.
Domestic emergency powers resorted to in the Covid-19 crisis are very different from each other. Is it possible to identify common trends in the comparative scenario? Limiting the scope of the analysis to democratic countries of the Western European area, at least four different tendencies can be identified.
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht stellt in seinem Beschluss vom 24.03.2021 die Verpflichtung für den Gesetzgeber auf, auch für nach 2030 Emissionsziele festzuschreiben. Insoweit das Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz (KSG) dieses nicht schon heute tut, ist es verfassungswidrig. Dass Karlsruhe hierfür nicht die dogmatische Figur der Schutzpflicht heranzieht, hängt auch mit selbstauferlegten Zwängen des Gerichts zusammen. Dabei äußert sich im Klimabeschluss zugleich ein tieferliegendes Problem der Maßstabsbildung durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht.
It is widely agreed that Wuhan, China is the origin of this pandemic. China has also been criticized for its initial mishandling of the outbreak, including local officials’ cover-up, the incompetence of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control (CDC), and the repression of whistle-blowers. In light of what had happened in other countries, however, China’s subsequent responses were nothing short of miraculous. From its lockdown in Wuhan, to the nationwide joint prevention and control system, from border sealing to mass testing and contact tracing, China’s measures were more intense than almost anywhere else in the world.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters