Articles for tag: Europäisches ParlamentEuropean defenseeuropean security policyNotstandsbefugnissePandemieVerteidigung

Moving towards a SAFE Defense Policy in Europe

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has presented Europe with new challenges regarding security. As a response, the EU adopted the so-called SAFE Regulation in 2025. It is based on Article 122 TFEU and is intended to accelerate efforts to achieve autonomous defense capability. By choosing this legal basis, the Commission continues a trend which begun in the pandemic and was reinforced during the energy crisis: relying on emergency competences without parliamentary involvement. But whether this exceptional provision can legitimize the profound changes facing the Union is doubtful.

“Very Tight Control”

In 2020, at the height of the Covid crisis, the EU had its 'Hamiltonian Moment'. To overcome the pandemic's economic shock, Member States agreed to back an unprecedented, capital markets-based 750 billion Euro funding scheme to kickstart the European economy. However, since then, it proved surprisingly hard to make sense of where all the money went. Apparently, one main oversight body is a rather informal committee of Member States. Now, internal documents paint a picture of peer scrutiny that remains at a general level, is conducted under tight deadlines, and is strongly limited by scarce resources. They also reveal an evolution of the process to a point what looks much like a mere formality.

Access and Benefit-Sharing Isn’t Equity

It is unsurprising that equity has featured so prominently in the Pandemic Treaty negotiations – the Treaty is a direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was characterised by gross inequality between high-income and LMICs. For all the talk at the start of the Treaty negotiation process of equity, of doing things differently in the future, it appears that very little will change. If it works, and there are very good reasons to believe that it will not work, it will at best make sure that a small proportion of vaccines end up where they need to be, and the rest will continue to go to the highest bidder, regardless of need, equity, or justice.

One Health – One Welfare – One Rights

The projected WHO Pandemic Agreement, as currently under negotiation, will most likely contain a detailed prescription of a One Health approach (Art. 1(d) and Art. 5 of the INB negotiating text of 30 October 2023). This contribution examines the legal potential of a One Health approach for laws and policies towards animals raised, kept, and slaughtered for providing meat, milk, fur, and other body products for human consumption. My main argument will be that, taken seriously, the idea of One health defies a hierarchy between the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems. The inner logic of One Health is to exploit the positive feedback loops between safeguarding human, animal, and ecosystem health. This approach should modify the still prevailing unreflected and unchecked prioritisation of measures in favour of human health at the expense of and to the detriment of animal health and life. I will illustrate my claim with two policy examples.

The Silent Disintegration of Global Health Governance?

With an estimated 6,9 million deaths and with its enormous scale of economic, social and political collateral damages, the COVID-19 Pandemic has created excessive momentum for re-considering the rules and procedures governing global health – or has it? In this blog contribution, I will discuss the promises and pitfalls of current law-making and law-amending efforts that seek to strengthen pandemic governance post COVID-19 by reflecting on three distinct features of global health as an area of international cooperation.

Jenseits der Pandemie

Als die WHO am 11. März 2020 COVID-19 als weltweiten Gesundheitsnotstand einstufte, wurde auch der größten Optimistin klar: Jetzt wird es ernst. Wenige Tage später erschienen die ersten Beiträge auf dem Verfassungsblog, der sich zur wichtigsten Plattform der rechtswissenschaftlichen Diskussion und Vergewisserung in der Pandemie entwickeln sollte. Nun, drei Jahre später, ist es auch hier still geworden. Das Virus, das so viel Unheil und Unfrieden angerichtet hat, ist auf Abschiedstournee in den endemischen Modus. Es beginnt die Zeit der öffentlichen Bilanzen, die mal selbstgerecht, mal selbstkritisch ausfallen.

Einmal Top, einmal Flop

Zu Beginn einer Pandemie ist vieles erlaubt – aber doch nicht alles. So lassen sich die ersten beiden Hauptsacheentscheidungen des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts (BVerwG) vom 22. November 2022 zu Coronamaßnahmen aus der Anfangsphase der Pandemie (hier und hier) grob zusammenfassen. Konkret ging es um Vorschriften der Sächsischen Corona-Schutz-Verordnung und der Bayerischen Infektionsschutzmaßnahmenverordnung. Damit steht fest: Bayern hat im Überbietungswettkampf der Länder um die schärfsten Corona-Maßnahmen die Grenzen der Rechtsstaatlichkeit überschritten.

Das Ende der Isolierungspflicht für COVID-19-Infizierte

Bayern, Baden-Württemberg, Hessen und Schleswig-Holstein haben sich dafür entschieden, die häusliche Isolierungspflicht für COVID-19-Infizierte abzuschaffen. Diese Entscheidung ist nicht nur rechtspolitisch begrüßenswert, sondern bereits verfassungsrechtlich geboten. Konkret verstößt § 30 Abs. 1 S. 2 IfSG als Rechtsgrundlage der bisherigen Isolierungspraxis gegen das Zitiergebot aus Art. 19 Abs. 1 S. 2 GG. Überdies stellt sich die Isolierungspflicht bei COVID-19 spätestens im dritten Jahr der Pandemie als unverhältnismäßiger Eingriff in Art. 2 Abs. 2 S. 2 GG dar.

Future-Proofing Global Health Governance Through the Proposed Pandemic Treaty

It is clear that humanity is not prepared for the next pandemic; the global health governance architecture requires fundamental change in order to get us to that point. If humanity is to be prepared for the next pandemic, we must fix the deep rooted, structural inequalities which are embedded within our global health system. The pandemic treaty is an opportunity to do this, but on the basis of the present proposals, and the manner in which the treaty is being developed, it is clear that the treaty will fall far short of such expectations.