With the end of the first wave of COVID-19, the state of crisis was ended in June 2020 in Luxembourg. But its problematic features seem to have remained in the legislative action tackling the second wave. Two main differences appear between the legal approach adopted in March and the current one.
A conversation with Alexandra Phelan, Maike Voss, Mark Eccleston-Turner, Pedro Villarreal, and Leticia Casado, moderated by Alexandra Kemmerer.
The COVID-19 pandemic occasioned a de facto worldwide state of exception. In Malaysia, the beginning of the pandemic would coincide with political turmoil. In 2018, a democratic reformist government surprisingly rose to power after unexpectedly winning the general election. The victory ended six decades of ethnocratic and authoritarian rule under the United Malay National Organization (“UMNO”), a Malay nationalist party committed to a political doctrine of ethnic “Malay Dominance.” However, in March 2020, just as the WHO declared a global pandemic, a series of political machinations brought down the reformist government.
The outbreak of COVID-19 caught the Cypriot legal order unprepared as regards the effective response in containing the spread of the virus. Contrary to the approach of other European states that declared a state of emergency, Cyprus opted for the adoption of executive measures based on pre-existing, primary legislation. In the absence of any contemporary legislation and with the conscious decision not to table legislation, the executive employed the provisions of colonial legislation, namely the Quarantine Law (Cap. 260) which was enacted in 1932 by the British. The said law intended to regulate the imposition of quarantine and provided for the prevention in the then colony of dangerous infectious diseases. Following the independence of Cyprus in 1960, colonial legislation – including Cap. 260 – remained in effect, as per article 188 of the Cypriot Constitution, subject to compliance with constitutional provisions.
As the end of the year 2020 approached, the Vice-President of the French Conseil d’État Bruno Lasserre commented on one line of the case-law that appeared in the pandemic year: urgent application judges had to decide on the legality of rules found in press-releases and interviews by first deciphering legal rules and their hierarchy from those texts. This reflected exactly my experience as a practitioner in 2020 Russia: advising a client having weighed whether a blog of the Speaker of the Moscow City Duma carried more authority than a televised interview of the Moscow Mayor.
In our earlier blog contributions, we analysed whether the Swiss federal government (the Federal Council) acted within the bounds of the Swiss Constitution (hereinafter: Cst.) when enacting emergency ordinances in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. We criticised the self-suspension of Parliament in March 2020, and we had a first glance at the interaction between the Confederation and the cantons. We are now, hopefully, halfway through the pandemic, which justifies a look back and a look into the future, especially into the ongoing vaccination efforts.
In the recent global history of constitutional democracies, it is difficult to name a single crisis that has plagued them simultaneously, until the COVID-19 pandemic. The calamity brought in by the virus was universal. For governments, it presented an opportunity for crisis management without compromising rights guarantees. Some countries have marginally succeeded in this test while in others, concerns of democratic decline were amplified. Three features defined the Indian response to COVID-19: lack of transparency, executive monopoly and suppression of dissent.
The Spanish response to the waves of the COVID-19 pandemic that have affected the territory has so far largely relied on emergency powers. The measures were adopted on the basis of the pre-existing legal framework provided in article 116 of the Constitution and its legislative development, Ley Orgánica 4/1981 on state of alarm, exception and siege, adopted on 1 June 1981 (henceforth LO 4/1981). As explained below, two different approaches have characterised the response to the first and second wave. However, both have their legal basis on the same norms and are based on the same legal category, i.e., the state of alarm ('estado de alarma').
A book launch conversation to mark the publication of ""Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States. Taking Stock of Europe's Actions", with Adam Bodnar, András Jakab, Justyna Łacny, Christoph Möllers, Joseph Weiler et al.
Close to a year since its first confirmed case of COVID-19, several indicators place Mexico among the countries that have suffered the worst effects of the pandemic. This post offers a critical overview of the governmental responses to the outbreak. It begins by describing the actions taken by officials of the different branches and levels of government. This is followed by an assessment of the many omissions and deficiencies that have characterized the response of the Federal Executive. Lastly, it closes by offering an outlook for 2021.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters