The Philippines have one of the longest lockdowns in the world in response to COVID-19. This post reviews the past year, focusing on the main legal and political issues as well as prospects in the country with the second highest total number of COVID-19 cases in Southeast Asia.
The disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on minorities and indigenous peoples across the globe has been well documented. Individuals from these communities have been infected at a greater rate, are more likely to die after contracting the disease and now risk being at the back of the queue in national vaccination programmes. Our work has focussed on a number of elements of this phenomenon, including a study of the disproportionate burden of Covid-19 on the most marginalized communities worldwide, and the ways that members from these communities have been pushed into forced labour as a result of the pandemic.
The coronavirus pandemic posed an unprecedented challenge for the Lithuanian society and the decision-makers. Lithuania’s response to the disease was overseen by two different governments - a populist centre-left government in spring 2020 and a liberal-centre-right coalition formed after the 2020 October parliamentary elections. Since Lithuania’s approach to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic including its legal/constitutional framework has already been addressed, the present analysis will focus on the second quarantine as well as on some overarching issues concerning the rule of law, human rights and good governance.
Along with Covid, the Government’s response, and the growing public unrest, came a continuing string of constitutional questions and developments, that is unlikely to diminish anytime soon. Building on the abovementioned Verfassungsblog post, we will discuss the main constitutional Covid-19 highlights, largely chronologically. Throughout we will pay particular attention to three recurring and interrelated themes: the evolving role of Parliament in shaping the political and legal response to Covid-19, the relevance and varying intensity of judicial control in pandemic times, and the omnipresence of fundamental rights concerns.
Except for a minor hospital cluster infection in late January 2021, there has been no sign of community spreading. Compared to what has been going on globally with three million death, Taiwan’s control of Covid-19 pandemic is a miraculous success, particularly given its barred access to the World Health Organization and its geographic proximity and economic close ties with China. Notably, this success has been achieved without issuance of any emergency order for lockdowns, shelter in place, business closure, or school suspension. People’s daily lives have been kept without substantial interruption. Because of this, Taiwan’s legal and regulatory responses with the Covid-19 pandemic was praised as the least restrictive in the world.
Covid-19’s arrival in Ethiopia was especially inopportune, coming as it did when the country was at a political crossroads and the federation under heavy strain as a result of unprecedented intergovernmental disputes. Covid-19 emerged just two years after the three year public protests which began soon after the 2015 elections in which the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), the ruling coalition until 2019, claimed 100% victory. The public protests led to a political division within the party resulting in the coming to power of Abiy Ahmed who re-configured the party.
Just over a year since the first outbreak in New Zealand, we cast our eye back and reflect on the government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Without question, the response is a study in the wonders of modern government, given the magnitude of the threat, the different dimensions of community wellbeing at stake and different parts of government involved in the response. Public health guidance, clinical health care, economic support and stimulus, social welfare and support, border security and surveillance. The list goes on....
The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an extreme strain on legal systems worldwide, as they struggled to adapt existing legislative frameworks, administrative functions, and executive decision-making to the fast-changing and complex situation of the pandemic emergency. The measures adopted worldwide, including mandates in the form of lockdowns and restrictions on gatherings, closures of educational and business institutions, have been not only among the most restrictive limitations on the rights of the majority of global population but also long lasting, with uncertain ending.
One year into the pandemic it is necessary to take stock of what has been achieved by the measures that have been implemented, and to reflect on their costs. Phrased differently, how successful have the authorities been in their endeavors to contain and control the spread of COVID-19? And from a legal point of view, what are the constitutional and cultural legacies of a year of deploying war-like measures against the virus? In this contribution to the symposium, I revisit the Norwegian COVID-19 response. In particular, I begin to unpack the narrative of success and its impact on deliberative democratic discourse. I do this by way of taking stock of the response through the lens of three rule of law indicators, namely the application of the principle of legality, the degree of parliamentary control, and adherence to open and democratic principles of rule-making.
Indeed, from the very outset, Egypt’s attitude concerning the management of the pandemic crisis was the adoption of the minimum possible actions, which does not harm the state economic plan, nor change the way the system functions. From a formalist point of view, Egypt has existed in a permanent state of emergency since 2017, and as a consequence, no specific legal response was adopted by the state which might alter the regular decision-making process or power arrangements between different branches. The desire of presenting an image to the public that the situation is under control was a crucial factor in Egypt's political, legal, and economic response to the COVID-19 crisis.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters