17 May 2020
State of Emergency in Estonia
Due to the COVID-19 epidemic the Estonian Government (Vabariigi Valitsus), without consulting the parliament (Riigikogu), declared by Order Nr. 76 on 12 March 2020 a state of emergency (eriolukord), defining the epidemic as an “emergency situation”. This is the first time in our modern history where a state of emergency has been declared. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently informed the Council of Europe of the Estonian derogation under Article 15 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Continue reading >>
2 
14 May 2020
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. Continue reading >>
0
14 May 2020
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. Continue reading >>
0
13 May 2020
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? Continue reading >>13 May 2020
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. Continue reading >>13 May 2020
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. Continue reading >>
0
09 May 2020
Croatia’s Response to COVID-19: On Legal Form and Constitutional Safeguards in Times of Pandemic
Analysing national responses to the coronavirus, the University of Oxford study found that Croatia was the most rigorous of all the examined countries considering the actual number of infections. Overall, the Croatian response to Covid-19 might not pose an autocratic threat to the rule of law as in certain European countries. This is far, however, from suggesting there have not been significant constitutional challenges, or that we should not require an enhanced constitutional oversight over apparently quite restrictive governmental action. Continue reading >>
0
08 May 2020
The Netherlands: Of Rollercoasters and Elephants
The Dutch authorities take a quasi-legal, quasi-rhetorical approach to shape their intelligent lockdown and try to tame the pandemic beast, with questionable constitutional practices as a result. While the reliance on medical and other expertise might be a welcome difference compared to some other countries, overreliance on experts in communication may hide real political and legal choices that have been made. Continue reading >>
0
07 May 2020
Sweden and COVID 19: A Constitutional Perspective
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. Continue reading >>28 April 2020
The Downfall of a Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court of Chile faces the worst crisis in its history. It largely stems from the way the Court has exercised its powers in recent years. A blend of judicial activism and an utter disdain for rules has seriously undermined the Court’s reputation and the current shows that the Court has probably risen in prominence for the wrong reasons. Continue reading >>
0