Marking the conclusion of the "Power and the COVID-19 Pandemic" Symposium, this webinar series brings together contributors from around the world to discuss the impact of the pandemic on law and governance, drawing on five transversal themes: human rights; democracy; the rule of law; science and decision-making; and the impact of an extended emergency.
The CompCoRe study, an ongoing qualitative comparison of policy responses to Covid-19 in sixteen core countries and two affiliates, begun in April 2020, sought to identify and explain patterns of perceived success and failure in managing this multifaceted crisis. [...] As national and international authorities look to futures beyond Covid-19, a lesson emerging from our study is that they should revisit their institutional processes for integrating scientific and political consensus-building. If free citizens are unable to see how expertise is serving the collective good, they will sooner rebel against the experts than give up their independence. Just as a sound mind is said to require a sound body, so the coronavirus has shown that the credibility of public health expertise depends on the health of the body politic.
On 29 April 2021, the Bundesverfassungsgericht published its decision that the Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019, establishing national climate targets and annual emission amounts allowed until 2030, violates fundamental rights. Do the judges in such a case undermine separation of powers as a time-honoured achievement of modern constitutional democracies in order to force the political branches to take urgently necessary actions? No. By allocating different functions to the three branches, executive, legislature, and judiciary, separation of powers aims to ensure that the tension between law and majoritarian politics is perpetuated and that neither law nor politics dominates the other.
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.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters