24 April 2020

How Ecuador’s Constitutional Court is Keeping the Executive Accountable During the Pandemic

On 16 April 2020, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court announced Decision No.1-20-EE/20, allowing it to monitor the impact of its previous judgments on the constitutionality of emergency powers granted to the President in the fight against Covid-19. This decision shows that a Constitutional Court can indeed play an essential role in a country’s response to a catastrophe, whose consequences are painfully obvious in Ecuador, one of the countries in Latin America worst hit by the pandemic. Continue reading >>

It’s not about Bathroom Policies, it’s about Constitutional Principles

The United States Supreme Court is expected to soon deliver its judgment in the first transgender rights case before it. In the absence of federal laws protecting transgender persons from discrimination, the case revolves around the question whether the prohibition of discrimination ‘because of … sex’ transgender discrimination. The US Supreme Court appears to turn this into a question of political deliberation, bathroom policies and dress codes. The ECJ, on the other hand, instead of getting lost in policy discussions, has already in 1996 recognized the protection of transgender persons against discrimination based on the core constitutional principle of equality. The ECJ’s approach does in fact have a foothold under US case law and the US Supreme Court could seize the opportunity to bring transgender persons closer to enjoying the same rights as the general population. Continue reading >>
0

The Iranian Legal Response to Covid-19: A Constitutional Analysis of Coronavirus Lockdown

In its early stages, the COVID-19 crisis in Iran looked nothing like a crisis. The initial reactions to the outbreak were met by skepticism by both the public and many of Iranian officials – despite the World Health Organization warning of the potential for a catastrophe for weeks. Indeed, in late February Iran’s deputy health minister – Iraj Harirchi who denied accusations that the government was downgrading the coronavirus outbreak in the country – has reportedly tested positive for the sickness. Continue reading >>
0
,

The Law of the WHO, COVID-19 and the Multilateral World Order

A new virus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of 2019. Infected persons developed an atypical form of pneumonia, later known as COVID-19. The pathogen created a pandemic, with fatalities throughout the world, and also led to the adoption of restrictive measures which were, until recently, unthinkable, as well as fostering new political conflicts. Even the path of the multilateral order in its current form is at stake. For a take on these issues under international law, the legal regime of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its response to the pandemic provides an insightful access. Continue reading >>
0

An Emergency By Any Other Name? Measures Against the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland

The measures introduced to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in Poland are among some of the most extensive and far-reaching, affecting many spheres of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Few of these measures amount to recommendations and suggestions of specific behaviour, most of them are hard, legally enforceable orders and prohibitions and flouting them incurs the risk of severe financial punishment. Yet the legal framework for these measures causes a significant degree of controversy. This report aims to present a birds eye’s view on the measures in Poland and to highlight some issues legal scholars and experts have taken with both the substantive side of the measures and the means they were introduced. Continue reading >>
0
23 April 2020

Effective but Constitutionally Dubious

Although the pandemic is far from over, Greece has been praised so far for its fast and firm response to the crisis. The country’s efforts to contain the dissemination of the virus seem to have achieved а flattening of the curve, i.e. the slowing of the spread so that fewer people need to seek treatment at any given time. Greece owes much of its – to date – accomplishment to a number of dubious applications of the rules laid down in the Constitution. Continue reading >>

A “Marshall Plan” for Rule of Law in Europe

In the past weeks, the European judges have been confronted in multiple ways by the Covid19 crisis. The challenges for judiciary were exceptional: the willingness to serve our fellow citizens, providing solidarity and support, in times of plague; the duty to supervise, as broadly as permitted by political authorities, the lawfulness of emergency measures; the emergent call to deal with the negative consequences of judicial lockdowns for the efficiency of courts and, moreover, the anxiety arising from the need to look after one’s own health and that of others, in particular witnesses, litigants or other citizens present in court. Continue reading >>
22 April 2020

Auf der Suche nach der europäischen Solidarität in der Corona-Krise

Mehr Solidarität? Am 23. April 2020 wollen die im Europäischen Rat versammelten Staats- und Regierungschefs über weitere Schritte in der Corona-Krise beraten. Wer Corona-Bonds fordert, muss aber auch über eine grundlegende Reform des Euroraums mit mehr europäischer Kontrolle sprechen. Continue reading >>
,

Don’t Be Fooled by Autocrats!

On 9 April, Vera Jourová, Vice President of the European Commission for values and transparency with lead responsibility for rule of law, gave an interview to Euronews on democracy in the pandemic. A journalist asked whether she believes that Hungary still qualifies as a democracy after the Enabling Act creating an indefinite state of emergency was enacted by the Hungarian Parliament on 30 March. Her answer was not reassuring. Continue reading >>
0

The US Supreme Court’s Activism in the Wisconsin Election

United States lawyers may wonder whether President Trump has captured its Supreme Court. One day before a presidential primary and local election in Wisconsin, the Court intervened in an extraordinary way to add a new voting restriction. The decision in Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee provides further evidence that the Court has abandoned its high court role in favor of unusual partisan interventions to effectuate results found congenial by its Republican majority. Furthermore, a Court usually sensitive to national security concerns reached its judgment about the Wisconsin election without taking the threat the coronavirus poses to democratic processes seriously. Continue reading >>

Taiwan’s Proactive Prevention of COVID-19 under Constitutionalism

On December 31, 2019, the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sent the above message via email to the International Health Regulations (IHR) focal point under the World Health Organization (WHO). In the meantime, Taiwan also initiated COVID-19 epidemic prevention measures. This article endeavors to explain Taiwan’s emergency command and response system, to summarize Taiwan’s current regulatory actions against the epidemic outbreak, and to provide a few remarks on the emergency measures undertaken from the perspective of constitutionalism. Continue reading >>
0

Rescuing Human Rights in Mauritius During the COVID 19 Tsunami

In the evening of 18 March 2020, Mauritians learnt the harsh news that their tropical heaven island of about 1.2 million people was also being swept by the coronavirus (COVID 19) tsunami, with three confirmed cases. As of 21 April 2020, the country has recorded a total of 328 cases, with 73 of them still being active and 9 deaths. Initially recording high increases in the confirmed number of COVID 19 cases, the country has been able to flatten its curve, without even a single case being recorded on some days. Depending on the trend of the spread, the government is working on a COVID 19 Bill that will gradually re-open the economy as from 4 May 2020. Continue reading >>
21 April 2020

State of Emergency Through the Back Door

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. Continue reading >>

The Constitution as a Bargaining Chip

Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Poland’s government is refusing to announce an emergency state, presumably in order to go ahead with the Presidential election on 10 May. Instead, the ruling coalition in Poland has been presenting increasingly controversial proposals aimed at ensuring that the country’s PiS-aligned President will remain in office. The most recent one envisages a constitutional amendment which would extend the president’s term of office. This proposal is nothing but an attempt to blackmail the opposition: either vote for a constitutional change or be blamed for the consequences of holding a presidential election during the pandemic. Continue reading >>

The Philippines’ Dalliance with Authoritarianism in Times of National Emergency

The Philippines is remarkably familiar with national emergencies, having faced just in the past three decades alone two global financial catastrophes, a number of coup attempts, a couple of destructive volcanic eruptions, a slew of ravaging typhoons, deadly terrorist attacks, and a devastating earthquake. Notably, the national response at these moments of crisis is to give the President “emergency powers”. Of course, this also comes with the admonition that citizens must fall in line and obey the commands of the government, which usually means temporarily “adjusting” adherence to human rights and respect for civil liberties. Continue reading >>

Belgium and COVID-19: When a Health Crisis Replaces a Political Crisis

The COVID-19 health crisis is happening in the context of a political crisis in Belgium. As the virus was spreading in the EU in early March, political parties were still negotiating the formation of a federal government. The need to provide a unified and strong answer to the situation added another layer to the political crisis and seems to have put the main political disagreements on the backburner. Even though, many institutional and constitutional challenges have been solved without considerably affecting basic democratic principles. This is not true when it comes to fundamental rights, especially fundamental rights of vulnerable groups such as migrants and prisoners, female victims of violence etc. Continue reading >>
0

Zwei Schritte vor, einer zurück

Am 16. April um 18 Uhr sollte in Hamburg eine Versammlung unter dem Titel „Abstand statt Notstand – Verwaltungsrechtler*innen gegen eine faktische Aussetzung der Versammlungsfreiheit“ stattfinden. Zu ihrer Zulässigkeit erließen Verwaltungsgericht (VG) und Oberverwaltungsgericht (OVG) jeweils Beschlüsse im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz. Unterschiedlicher hätten sie nicht ausfallen können, beide aber sind (auf ihre Art) bemerkenswert. Continue reading >>
20 April 2020

Schmittian Instincts at Odds with Neoliberalism

Carl Schmitt is now regularly referenced in discussions of President Trump’s extraordinary and probably unprecedented claims to unchecked executive power. The President’s knee-jerk hostility to the administrative state, however, has helped spare Americans the worst consequences of his Schmittian legal instincts. Yet that hostility has come with its own high price. Continue reading >>
0

Gegen obrigkeits­staatliche Tendenzen in der Krise

Als Korrelat zur krisenbedingten Rechtfertigung von Grundrechtseingriffen ergibt sich aus dem Prinzipiencharakter der Grundrechte eine Schutzpflicht des Staates, im Rahmen des Möglichen und nach Maßgabe dessen, was erforderlich und verhältnismäßig ist, eine Situation herbeizuführen, in der die Beschränkungen wieder aufgehoben werden können. Wenn das richtig sein sollte, hat das auch wichtige Konsequenzen für die Art und Weise, in der Diskussionen über die Lockerung der Coronamaßnahmen geführt werden sollten und nach welchen Maßstäben die Arbeit der Regierung/en sinnvollerweise beurteilt wird. Continue reading >>

Iceland’s Rule of Common Sense … and Law?

While Iceland is not under a lockdown, the borders have been closed and wide-ranging measures implemented concerning a ban on gathering, social distancing, closing down or restricting the operation of schools, hair salons, organized sports and so on. When this is written, the current version of the ban on gathering is destined to last until 4th of May but some measures will be in place throughout the summer and maybe even longer. Now, gatherings of more than 20 people are forbidden, including in workplaces, cafés, restaurants and shops but special rules apply to grocery shops and pharmacies. The so-called two metre rule applies in these places. Other places have been shut down completely, such as gyms, swimming pools and pubs. The economic situation is also dire. Businesses are struggling and unemployment is on the rise. The last big depression is still fresh in memory. In what follows, I will focus on measures concerning the health crisis. Continue reading >>
0
19 April 2020
,

The State of Emergency Virus

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. Continue reading >>
,

Critique and Crisis: The German Struggle with Pandemic Control Measures and the State of Emergency

SARS-CoV-2 has hit Germany hard with (as of Easter 2020) more than 120,000 confirmed cases. The entire development of the pandemic has been accompanied by a critical debate about whether the Federal Government and the Länder (states) took the appropriate measures to fight the virus. The first objective of this post is to show which legal measures are available to the Federal Government and the Länder and to briefly report which of those have been applied to. It discusses whether extraordinary times are the right moment for constitutional amendments and why a critical reflection of the current legislative changes is not only necessary but essential for the understanding of our constitution. Continue reading >>
,

Domestic Courts Pushing for a Workable Test to Protect the Rule of Law in the EU

On 17 February 2020, the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe passed a decision in a surrender case that we expect to shape the future of the LM-test. Its decision can be seen not only as a result of Luxembourg’s unworkable LM test but also as an acknowledgement of the effect of Poland’s muzzle law on the independence of its judiciary. Shortly after, Rechtbank Amsterdam engaged with this decision, thus making it more likely that the CJEU will have to move forward and develop its test into a more meaningful one. Continue reading >>
18 April 2020

Europa als Haftungsunion – Europa scheitert an deutschen „Juristen“

Die aktuelle Diskussion um Coronabonds basiert auf der falschen Vorstellung, dass nationale Regierungen ihre Ausgaben durch den Verkauf von Anleihen an „die Märkte“ finanzieren. Während emotional „Solidarität“ eingefordert wird, haben EZB und EU die Weichen schon gestellt, damit sich eine Eurokrise mit Austeritätspolitik nicht wiederholt. Dies wird allerdings mittelfristig nicht ausreichen. Der Euro wird scheitern, wenn die Deutschen nicht einsehen, dass ihre „Juristen“ das Problem völlig verkennen – es geht nicht um Haftung. Continue reading >>
,

Singapore’s Legislative Approach to the COVID-19 Public Health ‘Emergency’

Up till late March 2020, Singapore’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was the envy of many nations. Its strategy of early testing, rapid contact tracing, and isolating cases and close contacts was praised for its effectiveness. Indeed, for some time, Singapore seemed to be successfully ‘flattening the curve’. And to top it off, the Singapore government managed to contain the spread of the disease while keeping workplaces, businesses, and schools open. This all, however, changed when a sudden spike in cases occurred in the latter half of March. Continue reading >>
0

Testing the Limits of EU Health Emergency Power

Due to their inherent cross-border spillovers, many of the national responses to COVID-19 raise major concerns under EU law. Yet only a few of them have been timidly denounced by the EU Commission as the Guardian of the Treaty. How long will this last? Continue reading >>
0
,

Luxembourg’s Unworkable Test to Protect the Rule of Law in the EU

A key rule of law case illustrating the conversation taking place between national judges and the Court of Justice about the how-to of rule of law protection is the CJEU’s LM ruling dealing with the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant. In it the CJEU developed a test to balance mutual trust and individual rights, particularly the right to a fair trial. The Rechtbank Amsterdam and the Karlsruhe Oberlandesgericht applied Luxembourg’s LM test with respect to Polish suspects in a series of recent (interlocutory) rulings. This national case-law is interesting both for its immediate outcome (suspension of surrenders) and its implicit message to Luxembourg: “Sorry, we tried, but your test is unworkable.” Continue reading >>
0
17 April 2020

COVID, Crisis and Change in Global Governance

Crises facilitate change: they remove obstacles which, in normal times, favour the status quo. Crises often strengthen existing trends which may have been slowed down by institutional inertia or political resistance. An event of the magnitude of the COVID-19 crisis is likely to have serious consequences in domestic as well as international politics. What will it mean for global governance? Which tendencies is it going to reinforce, which ones will it weaken? Six conjectures. Continue reading >>
0

Pandemie und Strafvollzug

Ein Ausbruch des Coronavirus hätte im Gefängnis schwerwiegende Folgen, weshalb unter anderem der Kontakt nach außen stark beschränkt wurde. Auch wenn all diese Einschränkungen dem Schutz der Gefangenen dienen, wirken sich diese für die Gefangenen und ihre Familien teilweise gravierend aus. Insbesondere ihre Rechte aus Art. 6 GG und das Recht auf Resozialisierung sind stark betroffen. Continue reading >>
0

Legitimacy in the Time of Coronavirus

In this post, I want to focus on two issues of the many emergent themes in the constitutional politics of pandemic management: expertise and political accountability and the classic tension between legality and legitimacy in EU governance; and particularly what Max Weber, arguably the greatest theorists of political legitimacy, can teach us about these issues in the context of responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Continue reading >>

Right Restriction or Restricting Rights? The UK Acts to Address COVID-19

The UK initially downplayed concerns arising from the spread of COVID-19: Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggesting Britain should ‘take it on the chin’, pursued a policy which introduced no significant measures beyond encouraging hand-washing for 20 seconds. This changed, abruptly, on 12 March. On the same day schools and businesses were shut in Ireland and France, and three days after Italy was locked down, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a move to the delay phase and advised, though did not direct, over-70s to stay home, and travellers to avoid cruises. People should ‘avoid pubs and restaurants’, but they would not be closed. Large gatherings, such as the Cheltenham Festival, would not be prevented from going ahead. On 19 March following the rapid spread of the virus, the government announced that there was ‘zero prospect’ of a lockdown in London which would place limits on peoples’ movement. Four days later, on 23 March, the capital entered lockdown along with the rest of the country. ‘Zero prospect’ had lasted less than four days. Continue reading >>

Corona­resistenz der Versammlungs­freiheit?

Endlich. Erstmals zu Corona-Zeiten hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht zugunsten der Versammlungsfreiheit entschieden. Erstmals hat es, seit durch die Ausgangsbeschränkungen „der massivste kollektive Grundrechtseingrifff in der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik“ ins Werk gesetzt wurde, ein Grundrecht gegenüber einer damit verbundenen Maßnahme zur Geltung gebracht. Continue reading >>
,

Pandemic and Executive Powers in Colombia: A Problem and a Modest Proposal

The way in which the events surrounding the pandemic in Colombia have unfolded, and the measures taken so far by the executive branch have led us, once again, to think about presidential powers: their scope, extent and limits. The first question we ask ourselves is: what kind of powers does the executive branch exercise when it orders measures such as national mandatory self-confinement? Perhaps in the midst of uncertainty and fear it seems natural to us that mayors, governors and ultimately the President have decided to confine us to our homes under threat of a fine if we don’t follow the precise guidelines of the various decrees and administrative acts. But such power and restriction of our freedom is a matter of concern that we must examine closely. We must also pay attention to the institutional mechanisms that are being deployed to deal with the crisis. In the current situation, not only does the what in the decision matter (i.e., mandatory self-confinement measures), but also the who and the how (i.e., whether the decisions are adopted by mayors, governors or the President – and, in the latter case, if the President does it through exceptional or ordinary powers). Continue reading >>
16 April 2020

Von Theorie und Praxis

Viel ist hier bereits zu lesen gewesen, zu den grundsätzlichen Fragen, welche die gegenwärtige Corona-Gesetzgebungs- und -Verordnungspraxis aufwirft. Den fundierten theoretischen Erwägungen der Kolleg*innen sind aber auch Beobachtungen aus der Praxis zu den mittelbaren Auswirkungen der gegenwärtigen Situation zur Seite zu stellen: Für das Asyl- und Flüchtlingsrecht stellt die derzeitige Situation eine ganz eigene Herausforderung dar. Continue reading >>
0

Is the Constitution Law for the Court Only?

According to Chancellor Kurz, this is not the time for juridical sophistry (juristische Spitzfindigkeiten). At the end of the day, it would be left to the Constitutional Court to decide on the legality of the COVID-19 measures which, when it will hand down a decision, will have been already revoked. These remarks betray a certain outlook on the authority of constitutional law. Putting the matter starkly, it suggests that the constitution is law for the Constitutional Court only. Continue reading >>
0

COVID-19 and Disposable Migrant Workers

Picture this: The world is battling a pandemic, with many countries in lockdown and borders closed. You arrive at a regional airport in northern Romania and wait for hours in the parking lot to board a charter flight. You might end up in Baden-Baden, Berlin or Düsseldorf—it’s hard to know, since no one is telling you what the final destination is. Physical distancing seems not to apply. You are jammed together with 2000 other people waiting to be placed as seasonal workers in the fields of Germany. Asparagus needs to be picked and the new crop need to be planted so the Germans can enjoy uninterrupted production of the spring vegetable through 2020 and 2021. Continue reading >>

The COVID-19 Emergency in Finland: Best Practice and Problems

Finland has a modern Constitution with an ambitious catalogue of fundamental rights. Has this framework, including the constitutional regulation of emergency powers, been able to cope with the COVID-19 crisis? Are there lessons to learn from Finland? Continue reading >>

Mexico: Emergency Powers and COVID-19

As of April 5th, the Federal Health Ministry reported 2,143 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Mexico. International experience suggests that the country is at the cusp of confronting the full effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This post provides a description of the constitutional and statutory regulation of emergency powers and a brief commentary on the government’s actions thus far. It starts by offering an account of the constitutional provision of emergency powers, noting from the outset a disinclination to the prospect or desirability of their application. Then, it describes the emergency powers to confront a health crisis contained in statutory form. Finally, it evaluates the government’s response to the pandemic. Continue reading >>
15 April 2020

Die Auflösung des „Flügels“ in der AfD – Gewinn für die freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung?

Für die Verantwortlichen segensreich überschattet von der COVID-19-Pandemie, ereignete sich in der AfD ein in der deutschen Parteiengeschichte bisher wohl einmaliger Vorgang: Eine politische Partei löst nach einer Stellungnahme des Verfassungsschutzes ihre Flügelorganisation offiziell auf. Dies ist nicht nur aus parteienorganisationsrechtlicher Sicht bemerkenswert, sondern macht vor allem die problematische Rolle des Verfassungsschutzes im politischen Prozess deutlich. Continue reading >>

Data crossing borders

The cross-border sharing of personal data to combat coronavirus raises questions under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the GDPR) - two of which will be dealt with here. The first question is whether EU data protection law is flexible enough to allow the international sharing of personal data to fight the pandemic. Secondly, data protection law has traditionally been shaped by pivotal events in history (think of the effect that the reaction to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 had on data protection law), and one can ask what implications the crisis will have on the future development of data transfer regulation. Continue reading >>
0
, ,

Versammlungs­freiheit – auch in Krisenzeiten!

Die Bundesländer haben in den letzten Wochen durch ihre Verordnungen zur Eindämmung der Corona-Pandemie auch weitreichende Beschränkungen der Versammlungsfreiheit (Art. 8 GG) erlassen. Die Versammlungsfreiheit ist als kollektive Meinungsfreiheit für die Demokratie essentiell, wie das Bundesverfassungsgericht seit Jahrzehnten immer wieder unterstreicht. Gerade in Krisenzeiten, in denen Regierungen, Verwaltungen und Sicherheitsbehörden weitreichende Möglichkeiten zu Grundrechtseingriffen haben, ist die Versammlungsfreiheit ein wichtiges demokratisches Korrektiv. Die derzeitigen Krisenregelungen und ihre praktische Anwendung durch Versammlungsbehörden und Polizei werden der Bedeutung der Versammlungsfreiheit für die Demokratie nicht gerecht. Continue reading >>

Infringement Procedures in the Time of COVID-19

In the last weeks, members of the European Parliament and observers in the legal and academic community have, explicitly or implicitly, criticised the European Commission and the Court of Justice for their handling of ongoing infringement procedures. Put simply, the two institutions have been criticised for moving the existing cases forward, despite the fact that certain countries (first Italy, then followed by almost all other Member States) are in lockdown and, consequently, their administrations are unable to effectively respond. Continue reading >>
0

The Constitutionalized State of Emergency

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. Continue reading >>
0
,

How to protect the Vulnerable?

In the Corona crisis, balancing between containment measures and the protection of fundamental rights becomes even more pressing with respect to vulnerable groups, especially in view of proposals aiming at restricting curfews to high-risk populations. Over-emphasizing their need for protection bears the risk of disregarding their rights and autonomy and one-sidedly imposing paternalistic measures in order to urge a solution and alleviate economic consequences. Continue reading >>
0

Emergency Powers in Nepal: An Ordinary Response?

Compared to many other countries, the known impact of COVID-19 on public health in Nepal has thus far been small. At the time of writing (4 April), only nine COVID-19 infections have been identified. However, as in many low-income developing countries, Nepal is particularly vulnerable to the spread of the virus. The country’s healthcare system is weak and, even at the best of times, hospitals suffer from chronic shortages of oxygen cylinders and ventilators—essential tools to fight the disease. Test kits are limited and the capacity to test samples in large quantities quickly is severely lacking. Moreover, while the existence of the virus within the community is known, the extent of its spread remains hidden The mass migration of workers back to their villages in pre-emption of the looming nation-wide lockdown potentially carried the virus throughout the entire country. Continue reading >>
0

Fighting COVID-19 – Legal Powers, Risks and the Rule of Law: Turkey

In order to ensure a quick and flexible response in fighting against COVID- 19, Turkish presidency and administration preferred to introduce the measures against the pandemic in the form of circulars instead of declaring a state of emergency. This choice is being criticised for opening the way for arbitrariness and undermining the principle of legality. Continue reading >>
0
14 April 2020

Don’t Call a Spade a Shovel

Such concerns are, not only but to a large extent, fueled by the apparent indeterminacy of the terms employed to regulate fake news. This is true for Hungary, but also for France, Russia and several Asian countries, which have already passed fake news legislation. Uncertainties concerning the definition may have discouraged other states from passing similar laws, out of legitimate worries over freedom of expression. In fact, however, many scholars and institutions actually agree on the characteristics of the phenomenon. Continue reading >>
0

Abstract panic: On fake news, fear and freedom in Southeast Asia

In Southeast Asia, which is the world’s most dynamic laboratory of fake news legislation, the corona crisis has put previously created laws to practice and sparked additional legislative activity. The professed goal is to prevent public panic. Recent enforcement actions, however, demonstrate the complete irrelevance of any panic indicators. A falsehood’s panic potential is simply assumed. In short, an abstract panic threat is fought with very concrete measures: Arrests and criminal prosecutions. Cases from across Southeast Asia prove the trend, whereas two decisions in Singapore deserve particular attention. Continue reading >>
0
, ,

Not a Safe Place?

In an unprecedented move, the Italian government has declared Italy’s ports “unsafe” due to the COVID-19-pandemic. It did so by issuing an executive decree late Tuesday last week, seemingly in response to the rescue of 150 shipwrecked by the Sea-Eye’s Alan Kurdi. This is not the first time that the Italian government has used decrees to close its borders for sea-rescue ships. However, given the extraordinary circumstances of this case in the midst of the on-going Corona-crisis and the novel argument made by the Italian government, the decision warrants closer examination. Continue reading >>
0

The Coronavirus Crisis-Law in Greece: A (Constitutional) Matter of Life and Death

Each time a crisis emerges, the law is entitled to seize the exceptional moment and contain it, within the limits of democracy and the rule of law. Legal normality, as a vague standard, is usually redefined by the legislator and the courts and rapidly adjusted to reality. The constitutional value of public interest comes into conflict with civil liberties and scholars begin to question the law. The saga of the (Greek) coronavirus crisis-law is, like everywhere, utterly reduced to the proportionality of the exceptional measures of the (Greek) State, but its moral and political implications seem far broader and ambiguous. Continue reading >>
0