Dissecting Covid-19 Derogations

Does the pandemic require derogation from human rights treaties? This question has sparked significant debate, notably spurred by Alan Greene’s provocative argument that failing to derogate would denature ordinary human rights law and leave the start and end points of the crisis unclear. Others disagree: Scheinin argues the principle of normalcy, contained in General Comment 29, should continue to apply. Only where ordinary human rights provide inadequate flexibility should derogation be considered, and even then the principle should continue to limit the derogations. Several analyses have complemented this debate, analysing the ECtHR’s practice (Molloy), the detail of the European derogations ... continue reading

5. Mai 2020

, , ,

Covid-19 – the Maltese Response: Slow at First but Steady and Effective

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.

4. Mai 2020

,

Something is Forgotten in the State of Denmark: Denmark’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

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.

4. Mai 2020

, ,

COVID-19 in Latvia: Precaution Above All

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.

2. Mai 2020

,

The Fight Against COVID-19 in Argentina: Executive vs Legislative Branch

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.

1. Mai 2020

, ,

Concentration of Powers in the Federal Executive: The Application of Emergency Powers in Switzerland

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.

30. April 2020

, , , ,

A Tale of Two: The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Rule of Law in Cyprus

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.

30. April 2020

,

The Protection of Health Must Take Precedence: Testing the Constitutional State of Crisis in Luxembourg

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.

29. April 2020

,

Challenges Beyond Public Health – Guatemala and the Covid-19 Crisis

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.

28. April 2020

, ,

Austria: Rule of Law Lacking in Times of Crisis

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?

28. April 2020

, ,