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
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. 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
12 May 2020
Human Rights – The Essential Frame of Reference in the Global Response to COVID-19
It is mistaken to conceive of COVID-19 principally as a threat whose eradication necessarily requires rights to be sacrificed. Rather, human rights standards and principles offer a means of transparently balancing competing interests and priorities in the cauldron of COVID-19 decision-making – and rights-respecting measures which secure public confidence are likely to be more effective and sustainable over time than arbitrary or repressive ones. Continue reading >>
0
11 May 2020
Georgia’s Coronation of an Orwellian Doublethink
On 21 March 2020, Georgia declared a nationwide State of Emergency for one month in an effort to halt the spread of COVID-19. The decree has recently been extended until May 22, 2020. To date, Georgia is among the countries with the least infected population and the mortality rate remains low (635 confirmed cases, 10 deaths, and 309 fully recovered as of May 10, 2020). Despite the relative success within the medical sphere, the rule of law, democracy and human rights are facing an epidemic of unseen scale. Continue reading >>
0
10 May 2020
Viet Nam: When Non-Emergency Measures Equal Emergency Measures
In Viet Nam, Wthe ‘state of emergency’ clauses are virtually a repetition of measures the government may take when there is no emergency. This means that were the government to declare a state of emergency there would be no reserving policy space for the government to fall back to. Viet Nam should thus seize the opportunity to revise its legislation and clearly distinguish between emergency and non-emergency measure, both in terms of degree and scope. 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
09 May 2020
Ecuador – Constitutionalism and Covid-19
When referring to the rule of law and constitutionalism we must be extremely cautious: Ecuador was founded in 1830 after the dissolution of Great Colombia, and in just 190 years has adopted 20 constitutions. The current Ecuadorian Constitution dates from 2008. This means that the nation does not possess a strong constitutional tradition nor a culture of promotion of the rule of law. On the contrary, Ecuador has a long history of institutional breakdowns and coup d'états which were caused by political and economic crisis. However, these were nothing compared with the situation all Ecuadorians are currently facing. Continue reading >>08 May 2020
Health Before Rights and Liberties: Thailand’s Response to COVID-19
On 13 January, Thailand was the first country outside of China to confirm a COVID-19 case. Prayuth invoked the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation on 26 March 2020. At present, new cases are down to a single-digit figure per day. However, the 2005 Emergency Decree may not be the appropriate tool, as it has misled the public’s understanding of the pandemic and allows the government to employ unnecessarily harsh measures, leading to over-criminalization and arguable abuses of power. Continue reading >>
0