02 March 2021
The Pomp of Popular Constitutional Outrage
In January 2021, the Norwegian government decided to circulate a proposal for formally adding a curfew clause to the Act Relating to the Control of Communicable Diseases from 1994. The public reacted with an extraordinary expression of popular engagement and outrage. On 17 February 2021, in the face of strong public, commercial and political opposition, the proposal was shelved by the government. This case may show something both about the level of trust between the authorities and the public in Norway, and the reactions when one of the parties is perceived to break the “social contract” that is embedded in this relationship. Continue reading >>
0 
02 March 2021
COVID-19: Malaysia’s Fragile Constitutional Democracy
The COVID-19 pandemic occasioned a de facto worldwide state of exception. In Malaysia, the beginning of the pandemic would coincide with political turmoil. In 2018, a democratic reformist government surprisingly rose to power after unexpectedly winning the general election. The victory ended six decades of ethnocratic and authoritarian rule under the United Malay National Organization (“UMNO”), a Malay nationalist party committed to a political doctrine of ethnic “Malay Dominance.” However, in March 2020, just as the WHO declared a global pandemic, a series of political machinations brought down the reformist government. Continue reading >>02 March 2021
Constitutional Improvisation and Executive Omnipotence: the Cypriot Handling of the Pandemic
The outbreak of COVID-19 caught the Cypriot legal order unprepared as regards the effective response in containing the spread of the virus. Contrary to the approach of other European states that declared a state of emergency, Cyprus opted for the adoption of executive measures based on pre-existing, primary legislation. In the absence of any contemporary legislation and with the conscious decision not to table legislation, the executive employed the provisions of colonial legislation, namely the Quarantine Law (Cap. 260) which was enacted in 1932 by the British. The said law intended to regulate the imposition of quarantine and provided for the prevention in the then colony of dangerous infectious diseases. Following the independence of Cyprus in 1960, colonial legislation – including Cap. 260 – remained in effect, as per article 188 of the Cypriot Constitution, subject to compliance with constitutional provisions. Continue reading >>01 March 2021
A Year of Zeros? Legal Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Russia
As the end of the year 2020 approached, the Vice-President of the French Conseil d’État Bruno Lasserre commented on one line of the case-law that appeared in the pandemic year: urgent application judges had to decide on the legality of rules found in press-releases and interviews by first deciphering legal rules and their hierarchy from those texts. This reflected exactly my experience as a practitioner in 2020 Russia: advising a client having weighed whether a blog of the Speaker of the Moscow City Duma carried more authority than a televised interview of the Moscow Mayor. Continue reading >>
0
01 March 2021
Switzerland and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Look Back and a Look Into the Future
In our earlier blog contributions, we analysed whether the Swiss federal government (the Federal Council) acted within the bounds of the Swiss Constitution (hereinafter: Cst.) when enacting emergency ordinances in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. We criticised the self-suspension of Parliament in March 2020, and we had a first glance at the interaction between the Confederation and the cantons. We are now, hopefully, halfway through the pandemic, which justifies a look back and a look into the future, especially into the ongoing vaccination efforts. Continue reading >>26 February 2021
COVID-19 and the Crisis in Indian Democracy
In the recent global history of constitutional democracies, it is difficult to name a single crisis that has plagued them simultaneously, until the COVID-19 pandemic. The calamity brought in by the virus was universal. For governments, it presented an opportunity for crisis management without compromising rights guarantees. Some countries have marginally succeeded in this test while in others, concerns of democratic decline were amplified. Three features defined the Indian response to COVID-19: lack of transparency, executive monopoly and suppression of dissent. Continue reading >>
0
26 February 2021
Spain: One Pandemic and Two Versions of the State of Alarm
The Spanish response to the waves of the COVID-19 pandemic that have affected the territory has so far largely relied on emergency powers. The measures were adopted on the basis of the pre-existing legal framework provided in article 116 of the Constitution and its legislative development, Ley Orgánica 4/1981 on state of alarm, exception and siege, adopted on 1 June 1981 (henceforth LO 4/1981). As explained below, two different approaches have characterised the response to the first and second wave. However, both have their legal basis on the same norms and are based on the same legal category, i.e., the state of alarm ('estado de alarma'). Continue reading >>25 February 2021
COVID-19 in Mexico: A Year in Review
Close to a year since its first confirmed case of COVID-19, several indicators place Mexico among the countries that have suffered the worst effects of the pandemic. This post offers a critical overview of the governmental responses to the outbreak. It begins by describing the actions taken by officials of the different branches and levels of government. This is followed by an assessment of the many omissions and deficiencies that have characterized the response of the Federal Executive. Lastly, it closes by offering an outlook for 2021. Continue reading >>
0
25 February 2021
Constitutionalism and COVID-19 in Greece: The Normality of Emergency
In the first wave of the pandemic (March-June 2020) Greece has been widely praised for having taken all necessary actions to contain effectively the spread of the virus. Despite the reasonable concerns, a consensus among scholars about the constitutionality of harsh restrictions on rights was reached, along with a broad social acceptance, due to the priority of health public interest and the exceptional character of the measures. Set by an emergency mechanism, the framework of the “crisis-law” remains alive and binding, while the country is possibly entering, after the second and more lethal spike (November-January), the third wave of Covid-19. Continue reading >>24 February 2021
COVID-19 as an Opportunity for Democratic Consolidation?
The Covid-19 pandemic has tested the legal, political, economic and public health systems of countries all over the world, and Singapore – particularly as it found itself having to hold a general election in the middle of the pandemic – is no exception. However, it does seem that the pandemic has created opportunities for consolidation of democracy in Singapore as a result of increased citizen-state interactions during this time. Continue reading >>
0