Suchergebnisse

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a severe strain on health systems globally, while simultaneously presenting a social, economic, legal, political, and regulatory challenge. Where the efficacy of pandemic laws adopted by governments are a matter of life and death, the urgency with which action needs to be taken during a pandemic creates a law-making environment which incentivises rapid action without scrutiny and the use of power without restraint. Under such conditions, adherence to the foundational values of democracy and the rule of law come under increased pressure if not threat. The demands of emergency provide a convenient guise and means of justification for the use of power which only serves to consolidate power within the executive to the detriment of the separation of powers and weakening of the institutions of liberal democracy. This article provides a preliminary analysis on how the global health crisis has affected the state of democracy and the rule of law. While the specific examples are drawn from across the globe to highlight common trends and concerns, specific highlight is given to the EU and its Member States. It offers an outlook on how to prepare for future emergencies by building on the lessons of the current one.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a severe strain on health systems globally, while simultaneously presenting a social, economic, legal, political, and regulatory challenge. Where the efficacy of pandemic laws adopted by governments are a matter of life and death, the urgency with which action needs to be taken during a pandemic creates a law-making environment which incentivises rapid action without scrutiny and the use of power without restraint. Under such conditions, adherence to the foundational values of democracy and the rule of law come under increased pressure if not threat. The demands of emergency provide a convenient guise and means of justification for the use of power which only serves to consolidate power within the executive to the detriment of the separation of powers and weakening of the institutions of liberal democracy. This article provides a preliminary analysis on how the global health crisis has affected the state of democracy and the rule of law. While the specific examples are drawn from across the globe to highlight common trends and concerns, specific highlight is given to the EU and its Member States. It offers an outlook on how to prepare for future emergencies by building on the lessons of the current one.

Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, and C-625/18 concerning the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Polish Supreme Court) is the latest in a series of European Union (EU) Member States requesting the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to rule on the independence of their judicial systems. While the organization of justice systems within Member States is a competence of Member States (and thus not for the EU to determine or decide), the CJEU has held that Member States are nevertheless required to comply with obligations under EU law to ensure effective judicial protection and, as a necessary corollary, judicial independence. The significance of the current case lies in the formulation by the CJEU of a "European" standard of judicial independence, and its finding that national judges may set aside the jurisdiction of courts found not to be independent against that standard and to disapply any national measure (in accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law) that gives jurisdiction to a non-independent court.

From 6 April to 26 May 2020, the Verfassungsblog and Democracy Reporting International Symposium reported on states of emergency and measures taken in response to COVID-19 in 74 countries, analysing legal measures and the use of emergency powers which impact nearly 80% of global population.The fifty days of the Symposium covered the height of the global legal reaction to the pandemic, offering a snapshot of countries in collective crisis. It began with a call for a global conversation on the kind of legal norms which should govern the situation of worldwide pandemic. This final contribution aims to trace the central themes, questions and issues raised by the Symposium. It considers constitutional safeguards on a 'state of emergency', and whether this is preferable to the use of ordinary legislation in managing a crisis. It examines the dangers of executive action, and whether countries have been successful in limiting the potential for abuse, as well as preventing or sanctioning it. It examines how states have struggled to maintain some degree of legislative and judicial normality, while other states have given it up entirely. It considers the relevance of trust and transparency of government action, and the concerns related to an approach driven by surveillance and sanction. Finally, it identifies the most successful approaches adopted, and the most detrimental. In doing so, it aims to form part of that global conversation which seeks to identify the most concerning legal developments in a global emergency, but also to advocate for the best practices emerging worldwide. Analysis is drawn from country reports and commentaries available at Verfassungsblog. The countries reports cover: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, United States of America, Venezuela, Vietnam

The UK was initially slow to adopt measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic. However on 23 March 2020 and following escalating infection and mortality rates, the government introduced the most restrictive measures on movement in modern UK history. These lockdown measures which introduced sweeping limitation on movement outside the home were introduced through statutory legislation: regulations which were made by the government and not debated nor legislated by Parliament. This paper considers the issues the UK's legal responses to address the COVID-19 raises in terms of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

This article provides a taxonomy of the impact of the Brexit on human rights, categorised by the degree of risk posed by the process of separation and legal reform during and following withdrawal from the European Union. First providing an overview of the envisioned Brexit legal process, it outlines what will be lost, critically at risk, vulnerable to repeal, and at low risk of removal. It considers the loss of effective remedies; the (avoidable) uncertainty of EU and UK citizens' rights; the exclusion of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from incorporation as retained EU law; the implications of extensive delegated powers to amend retained EU law; and the systematic removal of executive and state accountability mechanisms under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It assesses the potential impact of removing the foundation of equality, worker and consumer rights, and the acute vulnerability of 'new' rights. It argues that even where protections are not lost, they are critically at risk or significantly and substantially weakened. It questions whether common law and domestic remedies could fill the gap left in rights protection, exploring the complexities and contradictions arising from the new constitutional (un)settlement of powers. By categorising the impact of the Brexit process on rights by risk, this Article establishes the acute vulnerability of the UK's framework of rights protection during and after the Brexit Process.

Many political and constitutional steps are needed in order for the UK to leave the European Union, after 45 years as a full member. Cumulatively they form one of the biggest constitutional changes in British history, and one dogged by intense controversy and disputes. Joelle Grogan examines how far the Brexit process can meet democratic criteria for such a momentous transition, or may fall short of these standards

The pandemic and the future of global democracy / Tom Gerald Daly -- COVID-19 vaccines and global governance : how structural factors dictate procurement and vitiate patient autonomy / Jerome Amir Singh -- Accountability through dialogue : New Zealand's experience during the COVID-19 Pandemic / Dean R Knight -- China and COVID-19 : an archetypal legal and governmental response to an exceptional challenge / Jacques deLisle and Shen Kui -- (Un)Governing : COVID-19 Response in the UK / Joelle Grogan -- COVID-19, the United States and evidence-based politics / Mark A Graber -- Democracy in the time of COVID-19 : pandemic management, public trust and democratic consolidation in Singapore / Shirin Chua and Jaclyn L Neo -- Human Rights - the essential frame of reference in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic / Alice Donald and Philip Leach -- Assessing human rights compliance during COVID-19 / Martin Scheinin -- Going beyond the rhetoric : taking human rights seriously in the post-COVID-19 world / Stéphanie Dagron -- Finland's success in combating COVID-19 : mastery, miracle or mirage? / Martin Scheinin -- A crisis of rights and democracy in India / Thulasi K Raj -- Dealing with the pandemic and social unrest : a stress test for Colombian institutions / Julián Gaviria-Mira and Esteban Hoyos-Ceballos -- Thailand's response to COVID-19 : human rights in decline and more social turbulence / Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang and Rawin Leelapatana -- Political opportunism and pandemic mismanagement in Kenya / Tara Imalingat, Nerima Were and Allan Maleche -- The rule of law as the perimeter of legitimacy for COVID-19 responses / Joelle Grogan and Julinda Beqiraj -- Baselining COVID-19 : how do we assess the success or failure of the response of governments to the pandemic? / Hans Petter Graver -- Brazil : COVID-19, illiberal politics and the rule of law / Thomas Bustamante and Emílio Peluso Neder Meyer -- Dealing with COVID-19 in Sweden : choosing a different path / Iain Cameron and Anna Jonsson Cornell -- Turkey : pandemic governance and executive aggrandisement / Başak Çalı and Emre Turkut -- The COVID-19 Pandemic : a pretext for expanding power in Hungary / Kriszta Kovács -- The politicisation of health and threats to the rule of law in Pakistan / Shaheera Syed and Nadia Tariq-Ali -- A stress test for politics : a comparative perspective on policy responses to COVID-19 / Sheila Jasanoff and Stephen Hilgartner -- Open science, data sharing and pandemic preparedness / Ciara Staunton -- Taiwan's effective pandemic control with dialogic constitutionalism / Wen-Cheng Chang and Chun-Yuan Lin -- Public health, technology and social context in Rwanda's COVID-19 response / Denis Bikesha and Allan T Moore -- Germany and COVID-19 : expertise and public political deliberation / Anna Katharina Mangold -- The rationality of South Africa's State of Disaster during COVID-19 / Melodie Labuschaigne and Ciara Staunton -- Iran's COVID-19 Response : who calls the shots? / Marzieh Tofighi Darian -- Responding to COVID-19 with States of Emergency : reflections and recommendations for future health crises / Cassandra V Emmons -- The COVID-19 emergency in Western European democracies : trends and issues / Arianna Vedaschi and Chiara Graziani -- Exposing inequalities : the experience of minorities and indigenous peoples during COVID-19 emergencies / Rasha Al Saba and Samrawit Gougsa -- When emergency is permanent : Egypt's legal response to COVID-19 / Ahmed Ellaboudy -- The COVID-19 emergency : Malaysia's fragile constitutional democracy / R Rueban Balasubramaniam -- The French management of COVID-19 : normalisation of regimes of exception and degradation of the rule of law / Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche -- The Philippines under lockdown : executive dominance and an unclear pandemic response / Maria Ela L Atienza -- All bets on the executive(s)! The Australian response to COVID-19 / Marco Rizzi and Tamara Tulich -- Lessons for a 'post-pandemic' future / Joelle Grogan and Alice Donald.