Two simultaneous narratives are unfolding as Malaysia responds to Covid-19. The first is the specific character of the ongoing legal response. The second is salient backdrop to any evaluation of this legal response that Malaysia is in political turmoil.
Curating analysis of these developments since early April through the COVID-DEM project, and reading across the 62 published contributions to this outstanding symposium, there are clear commonalities across all democracies affected. Beyond these commonalities, the effect of the COVID-19 response on the democratic system has been – and will be – starkly uneven across democracies worldwide, due to the different democratic ‘starting point’ of each state as the pandemic hit.
People have been perplexed by the slow and soft approach of the Japanese government in their attempt to bring COVID-19 under control. The first case of COVID-19 in Japan was confirmed on 16 January 2020. On 30 January, the Japanese government set up the COVID-19 Countermeasures Headquarters. It published emergency countermeasures against COVID-19 on 13 February and presented Basic Policies for Coronavirus Disease Control on 25 February. However, none of these measures have introduced drastic measures such as border controls and/or curfews.
The confinements imposed by the Spanish Government in response to the pandemic are among the most intense in comparative terms since they contain a prohibition of going out into the street with only limited exceptions. Given their intensity, especially the strong limits imposed on the freedom of movement, the restrictions are rather suspensions than mere restrictions of fundamental rights and as such go beyond their legal basis of the state of alarm.
Session I of our discussion series on the COVID-19 crisis from a German, European and International Perspective, jointly organized by IFHV and Verfassungsblog - streamed live here on Verfassungsblog from 4:00 - 5:45 pm. Join now!
On 21 March 2020, Georgia declared a nationwide State of Emergency for one month in an effort to halt the spread of COVID-19. The decree has recently been extended until May 22, 2020. To date, Georgia is among the countries with the least infected population and the mortality rate remains low (635 confirmed cases, 10 deaths, and 309 fully recovered as of May 10, 2020). Despite the relative success within the medical sphere, the rule of law, democracy and human rights are facing an epidemic of unseen scale.
As the entire world is struggling with the Covid-19 pandemic, academics have been rediscovering the debate on emergency in public law. Our post explores whether the theory of disaster risk regulation can infuse the public law’s approach to emergency with new conceptual tools that contribute to mitigating the impact of emergencies. In so doing, we would like to recall how comparative public law has approached emergency and we shall then look at the insights coming from the theory of risk.
The Swedish government’s ways of handling the Corona crisis have drawn a lot of international attention. Sweden has tried to limit the spread of the disease by means of recommendations, rather than quarantines and curfews. There is no provision in the Swedish constitution for the declaration of a state of emergency in peacetime, only in war or where there is an imminent danger of war. Instead, the Swedish approach is to have delegations to the government, and sub-delegations to administrative agencies in a variety of statutes.
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.
Our 22 April post on the Verfassungblog about Viktor Orbán’s state of emergency generated a thoughtful reply from Dr. Dániel Karsai, a well-respected Hungarian lawyer. We appreciate the chance to respond to his criticisms, alleging that we made some factual errors about the operation of Hungarian law.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters