It appears that Bangladesh’s legal responses to the COVID-19 crisis are inconsistent, ad hoc, and deficient in transparency and democratic practices. The unprecedented nature of the pandemic requiring exceptionally urgent actions, may be attributed to the sorry state of affairs. A thoughtful, more legitimate approach could nevertheless have been taken.
One of the problems for Indonesia’s government when dealing with the coronavirus crisis was its non-transparent approach towards the public. Not least because of that, many people in Indonesia do not trust the government when it comes to handling the pandemic. The government’s attempt to declare the civilian emergency status which would have enabled it to control the flow of information has failed due to public opposition. A move by its police chief, however, is now trying to introduce emergency powers through the back door and in blatant disregard of a Constitutional Court ruling.
The current pandemic is said to be the worst health crisis the world has experienced for a century. Beyond causing thousands to die and millions to lose their jobs, it has also caused more than ever before governments to declare a state of emergency and, thus, to considerably broaden their own competencies. Previous experience, however, has shown that governments do not use their additional powers to save lives but, rather, to make themselves better off. Considering that more than half of the world’s democracies have declared a state of emergency, the rule of law will be subject to a number of dangers in the following months.
The late Giovanni Sartori once said that we lacked a general theory of dictatorship. It is very likely that we are also short of a theory of emergency. As the current pandemic has come to show us, not only we still have difficulties to include emergency into our conception of constitutional law; we seem to differ on what emergency means and necessitates and on what should be its place in the functioning of the democratic State.
Many argue that derogations, permitted under many human rights instruments, provide a useful framework for assessing whether any human rights infringements that arise from emergency provisions adopted in response to Covid-19 are justified. Drawing on jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) in relation to Northern Ireland, this post argues that it is likely that the vast majority of cases exploring derogation will be found in a government’s failure.
Wir beklagen zurzeit Grundrechtseingriffe ungeahnten Ausmaßes. Wir müssen aber noch etwas beklagen, nämlich einen ziemlich flächendeckenden Ausfall rechtsstaatlicher Argumentationsstandards. Zwar betonen die Entscheider, die momentan mit Rechtsverordnungen Grundrechte suspendieren, immer wieder, wie schwer ihnen dies falle. Dem rechtlich wie ethisch gebotenen Umgang mit den Grundrechten wird die momentane Rechtfertigungsrhetorik jedoch nicht gerecht. Grundrechte können nur unter Beachtung der Verhältnismäßigkeit eingeschränkt werden. Der Eingriff unterliegt einem Rationalitätstest anhand von faktenorientierten Maßstäben und einer Verantwortbarkeitskontrolle orientiert an normativen Maßstäben.
Canada is in almost full emergency mode in its bid to flatten the pandemic curve. But so far the federal government has not declared a federal state of emergency in terms of the Emergencies Act (1985), although it has discussed publicly the pros and cons of taking this step and has been urged to do so on the basis that such a declaration would enable a nationwide testing program. There are four main reasons for this hesitation to declare a national state of emergency.
Der Vorwurf der Machtversessenheit, das Raunen über den selbstbestimmten Ausnahmezustand, ein Entsetzen über die Selbstverzwergung, in die sich das Parlament gegenüber dem ministerialen Aktivismus fügt – der Diskursbeitrag der Rechtswissenschaft in der Corona-Krise ist der des erhobenen Zeigefingers. Wo, will man den juristischen Mahnrufen entgegenhalten, bleibt denn der konstruktive und lösungsorientierte Beitrag des Rechts zur Krisenbewältigung?
Gloomy future scenarios are currently popular. Hardly a day goes by without predictions of the demise of the EU, a spiral of nationalism or the path to an authoritarian, xenophobic surveillance state. However, in the current competition to outbid disaster scenarios, we tend to forget that political developments are just as little inevitable and without alternatives as crisis response measures. The choice between alternatives still exists and is more important today than ever.
Nicht nur die aktuell getroffenen Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der akuten gesundheitlichen Krise beruhen auf politischen Entscheidungen zwischen Alternativen, sondern auch die Gestaltung unserer Zukunft nach Corona. Welchen Schaden unsere politischen Systeme nach der akuten Corona-Krise nehmen werden, hängt maßgeblich von drei Faktoren ab: der aktiven Auseinandersetzung mit den sozialen Folgen der Krise; den Konsequenzen, die wir für die Organisation transnationaler Solidarität ziehen und der Resilienz unserer Verfassungen in der Krise.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters