Democracy and the Global Emergency – Shared Experiences, Starkly Uneven Impacts

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.

Leben in der Abwägung

Die politische und juristische Kernfrage der COVID-19-Pandemie ist spätestens mit den Öffnungsmaßnahmen, den über sie geführten Diskussionen und zahlreichen Gerichtsverfahren wieder offen: Wie steht es mit der Abwägung? Ist auch das Leben, dessen Schutz die umfangreichsten und in der Breite massivsten Grundrechtseinschränkungen in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik hauptsächlich dienen, in eine solche einzustellen und kann es in ihr verfassungsrechtlich zulässiger Weise überwunden werden? Muss es das ab einem gewissen Punkt sogar?

Lithuania’s Response to COVID-19: Quarantine Through the Prism of Human Rights and the Rule of Law

The COVID-19 outbreak constitutes an unprecedented challenge in the history of independent Lithuania, which in its 1992 Constitution embedded a broad list of human rights and freedoms. It seems that so far the emergency powers have been used proportionately and in a time-limited manner, albeit some concerns regarding human rights and the rule of law remain. While it is understandable that the pandemic required a quick response, more attention from the Lithuanian decision-makers on fundamental rights and the required balancing would have been welcome.

Excessive Law Enforcement in Kenya

Kenya's President is yet to declare a state of emergency and has opted to implement measures that ensure citizens can continue with their lives. Constitutionally, rights may only be limited by law and only to the extent that is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

Corona Constitutional #24: Ultra Vires, Runde 3

Ist im kalten Krieg zwischen Luxemburg und Karlsruhe die Atombombe gefallen? Und kann es sein, dass sie ihr Ziel verfehlt hat? Während Karlsruhe den Ultra-Vires-Backlash mit einer PR-Offensive in den großen deutschen Zeitungen einzudämmen versucht, ändert sich an den grundlegenden Problemen nichts. Diese, so ANUSHEH FARAHAT im Gespräch mit Max Steinbeis, liegen nämlich viel tiefer: In transnationalen Solidaritätskonflikten, unklaren Kompetenzordnungen und fehlendem politischen Willen, die europäischen Probleme wirklich anzugehen.

Kill the Chickens to Scare the Monkeys

As the Chinese saying goes, killing the chickens to scare the monkeys, China’s courts were quick to set examples of people who committed offences in relation to the country’s response to Covid-19 in order to deter potential offenders. However, the punishments of ordinary offenders and responsible officials highlight China’s constitutional setting – the dominance of the Communist Party in state affairs, and the political role of courts in times of national emergency. This is consistent with China’s self-proclamation – the centrality of the Communist Party’s leadership and the division of functions among state organs without separation of powers. Under such a setting, ordinary people and officials are subject to different rules and have different fates.

Is there a space for federalism in times of emergency?

In many legal cultures, federalism is the real “F word”. It stands for inequality, privileges, inefficiency. For many, there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the obvious requirement of a coordinated line of command in case of emergency and a pluralistic territorial structure. A closer look at the comparative practice shows a different picture. Has federalism really been an obstacle to effective decision-making? Or rather the opposite?

Japan’s Soft State of Emergency: Social Pressure Instead of Legal Penalty

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.

Beyond the State of Alarm: COVID-19 in Spain

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.