Search

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(2), 513-527 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. – II. The rise of executive migration governance in the EU. – III. Emergency: when soft law creates law. The example of the hotspots. – IV. From emergency to exception: on the abnormal normalisation of executive governance. – V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) : In the name of effectiveness, European Union (EU) governance has long departed from the traditional approach of governing through law, venturing onto new paths of making and discharging policies across different policy fields. Through new and creative governance, networked governance, and gov-ernance through agencies, flexibility and functionalism have become the new paradigms of EU govern-ance. This is particularly striking in the interiors area, including internal security and migration, where the fuzziness of the constitutional framework leaves wide margins to new governance approaches to intervene to “fill the gaps”. Failing to achieve harmonization through law (because of the high sovereign sensitivity and politicization), EU governance turned to harmonization through practices, trying to in-crease trust and boost cooperation on a practical level playing field. While legislative production regu-lating the core of EU asylum and migration is still scarce (i.e., regulating the substance of migration), hard law provisions mushroom when it comes to empowering agencies, regulating operational cooper-ation, or harmonizing practices across the EU (i.e., regulating the administration of migration). The ac-tual management of migration occurs then within this latter executive/administrative dimension. Ana-lysing (executive) migration governance in terms of whether it achieved its original intents (effective-ness and depoliticization) would only tell something about its goodness of fit, and little about its good-ness. In light of the incessant crises that have hit the EU, this Article reflects on the close-to-Schmittian state of exception, that is fuelling an increasingly creative governance in the Union.

In this study, an attempt will be made to draw a general framework on the main characteristics of democracy in Türkiye by identifying both the conceptions of law and politics of the current political parties and the judges of the higher courts in Türkiye and the position of freedoms through the rule of law and the functioning of justice. For this purpose, data was collected through in-depth interviews with MPs (16) elected from the 27th Legislative Period Parliament and jurists (14) elected from the members of the higher courts, and a comparative qualitative analysis was conducted on the basis of the participant groups. The research is analyzed under four categories: (1) Lawyers' and politicians' conceptions of law (2) Definitions and conceptions of politics by lawyers and politicians (3) Evaluation of the priority of law to politics and politics to law, (4) Evaluation of the place of freedoms and democracy in terms of the rule of law and the functioning of justice. When we look at the results of the research, in terms of the rule of law, law is prioritized over politics in the ordinary period, but politics is prioritized over law in periods of state of emergency. When a ranking of concepts is made in the context of justice and the functioning of the rule of law, it can be said that freedom is not among the prioritized concepts. The prioritization of politics in times of emergency and the inability of the concept of freedom to find a place among the priority concepts reveals an important characteristic of the understanding and practice of democracy in Türkiye. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised consciousness across the globe of how constitutions respond to crises. This article examines the issue of the Palestinian President declaring a state of emergency in Palestine on March 5, 2020, under Presidential Decree No. 1 of 2020, to confront the spread of the Coronavirus. However, the President continues to extend the thirty-day state of emergency ten times. In addition, the article discusses a crucial issue associated with the extent to which the extended constitution of emergency in Palestine lasts, as the Basic Law only allows him to declare the state of emergency for a one-time limit. The article aims to clarify the constitutionality of the extension of the state of emergency in Palestine, in addition to placing some legal alternatives to avoid the President’s breach of the Basic Law. To achieve the objectives of the article, socio-legal research using a qualitative approach and face-to-face interviews was adopted. Accordingly, findings show the inconsistency of the extension of the state of emergency with the Basic Law due to the suspension of the role of the Legislative Council in Palestine. The article emphasizes and recommends that the role of the Legislative Council shall be activated to oversee the presidential decrees extending a state of emergency issued by holding the legislative elections in Palestine.

The subject of the research is public relations in the sphere of health protection rights, medical care and ensuring sanitary and epidemiological well-being proceedings (in the context of infection safety).The purpose of the research is formulating recommendations for a conceptual solution of the contradictions that have arisen between the public relations that are developing during the period of COVID-19 counteraction and the current regulatory framework. Research methods: formal-legal, comparative-legal, general philosophical methods (synthesis, analysis, induction, deduction, etc.).The aim. The article examines the contradictions between the current system of responding to the occurring emergency situations and the established acting procedure and legislative regulation of public relations associated with the COVID-19 spreading counteraction. A proposition has been formulated on the appropriateness of using a specific concept of infectious safety, which correlates but does not duplicate the existing emergency response system.The main results. It is proposed to call this system a "system for preventing the spread of infectious diseases". Its elements (stages of preventing the spread of infectious diseases) are introduced. It is noted that this system is integrated into the already existing, but unspecified in a sufficient number of legal acts of biological safety statutory regulation. As elements (stages) of the prevention the spread of infectious diseases system it is proposed to consider the prevention of infectious diseases, the elimination of the infectious threat, the restoration of public relations to the state that was in effect at the time of activation the elimination of the infectious threat phase. The content of each stage is reviewed in detail considering new social relations circumstances that are not recognized in the existing emergency prevention system and are not directly affected by it. The abstracts of foreign authors were used, who also note similar problems in public relations of foreign countries (in particular, the United States) in connection with countering the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions. Conceptual conjectures were formulated to resolve the accumulated contradictions between the public relations developing in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic and the existing statutory and administrative institutions in the Russian Federation for the prevention of emergency situations. It is significant to mention that the research is not a comprehensive review on the problem of preventing the spread of infectious diseases, but it provides an additional view on potential ways of solving it. The concept of the prevention the spread of infectious diseases is also opened towards improvement and refinement in future considering new incoming information and legislative innovations.

The emanation of the Covid-19 global pandemic has managed to influence specific legal, political and socio-economic aspects. Public health, public institutions, as well as concepts such as: the rule of law, restriction of certain human rights and socio-economic wellbeing became characteristics of the global pandemic and as such triggered a state of emergency. The pandemic cannot be a justified pretext for an unlimited suspension of democracy. Indeed, restrictions on civil rights and liberties ought to be interim, proportional and transparent. Although the emergency measures taken by governments against the Covid-19 should be provisional, timebound and in congruence with democracy as any contemporary political regime or state governed by the rule of law. This situation once again revealed to us the importance of a constitutional state of emergency guided by public law in its forms and examples of comparative constitutional law regarding events which in 2020 demanded the emergence and function of public institutions in an effort to protect society. The state of emergency is regulated by the Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia of 1991 in general which gives the government expansive power, such as bypassing the parliament’s power through issuing acts by force of law. It is worth mentioning that in North Macedonia there is no lex specialis or special legislative act that regulates a state of emergency.

The legal regime of the state of emergency is regulated very poorly in Republika Srpska and Bosnia and Herzegovina in general. It is necessary to carry out a detailed positive legal and comparative legal analysis of this legal regime, to formulate proposals for amending the Constitution and laws of Republika Srpska. Their goal would be greater legal certainty and more detailed and meaningful legal regulation, which would reduce opportunities for abuses of state power and endangering human rights. The author first analyzes the constitutional provisions on the declaration of a state of emergency, the functioning of state institutions and the restriction of human rights during its duration. The author concludes that the constitutional provisions are so lapidary, that the state institutions, especially the executive, have wide possibilities for regulation of the state of emergency and the exercise of state power during its duration, even relatively wide possibilities of limiting human rights. The author believes that this is an extremely inappropriate legal solution. Therefore, he made a series of proposals for amendments to the Constitution of Republika Srpska, so that the legal regime of the state of emergency would be as fully regulated as possible, which would significantly reduce the possibilities of abuse of state power.

Due to the extraordinary circumstances caused by the covid-19 virus, numerous states adopted different measures in order to mitigate the consequences of the epidemic, and many of them represented a restriction of human rights and freedoms. This paper is devoted to the analysis of (legal) consequences caused by epidemic measures in the Republika Srpska adopted during the state of emergency. In particular, the legal and sub-legal provisions regulating the actions of authorities in extraordinary circumstances are analyzed, as well as the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Republika Srpska. The aim of the paper is to show that the by-laws, enacted during the state of emergency, were largely in conflict with constitutional and statutory provisions, and it is particularly striking that numerous measures were enacted by non-competent authorities. Although it is an unquestionable obligation of the state to react in a state of emergency, that reaction must be in accordance with the principles of constitutionality and legality, since extraordinary circumstances cannot be an excuse for violating the fundamental values of the legal order. From that point of view, the decisions of the authorities of the Republika Srpska during the state of emergency caused by the covid-19 virus are paradigmatic, but as an anti-model.

The right to privacy is one of the fundamental human rights, as it encompasses a wide range of relationships related to the private life of the individual. Starting with the right to family life and the right to private life, many institutions that seem very important nowadays, such as data protection, find their place and are part of the right to privacy. Nevertheless, the right to privacy is one of the relative rights protected by the European Convention, which means that it can be derogated in specific cases and under certain conditions. The purpose of this article is to examine the conditions set out in the European Convention for the derogation of right to privacy and to analyse the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. This Court has, in its jurisprudence, restrictively derogated the right to privacy, with fulfilling three conditions: prescription by law, necessary in a democratic society and achieving certain legitimate aim. One of the examples of the possibility of its restriction is the epidemic of the Covid-19 virus. Considering that numerous countries around the world have restricted the right to privacy, the question is whether and to what extent the restriction was in accordance with prescribed conditions for derogation of this right.

This paper analyzes the problems caused by the state of emergency in Indonesia. It focuses on explaining the meaning of a state of emergency, based on Article 12 of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution. It addresses how Indonesia determines the emergency status and how checks and balances regarding the emergency status were implemented. This paper highlights three points. First, the existing law on the state of emergency is no longer in line with Indonesia's constitutional concept, following the amendment; second, there are findings indicating that several emergency statuses were not appropriately declared; third, the lack of the Parliamentary and court role in conducting checks and balances on the President in the state of emergency. This paper offers a recommendation concerning the importance of strengthening checks and balances to ensure there will be no abuse of power in implementing a state of emergency in the future.

This scientific article examines the exceptional situation that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent imposition of states of emergency, which raised concerns about potential abuses of power by governments. Employing analytical and comparative approaches, the research explores the connection between the pandemic and its effects on human rights and freedoms, particularly regarding movement and assembly restrictions. The study highlights the diverse implementation of states of emergency across countries during the crisis. The findings reveal international gaps in preparedness, the violation of human rights, and the potential exploitation of emergencies for other purposes. Recommendations include enhancing international cooperation, reevaluating intellectual property rights related to combating epidemics, establishing a global health cooperation fund, setting reasonable limits for emergency measures, and implementing internal monitoring committees to ensure the proportionality of restrictions. These insights have significant implications for global health security, human rights protection, and international collaboration in response to future health emergencies. Highlights: • Impact of state of emergency: Examining the repercussions of COVID-19 pandemic emergency measures on human rights. • Global health challenges: Assessing health system effectiveness in confronting COVID-19 and its impact on human rights. • Recommendations for action: Proposing measures for international cooperation, intellectual property rights reconsideration, establishing a health cooperation fund, setting reasonable emergency limits, and implementing monitoring committees. Keywords: COVID-19, state of emergency, human rights, global health, recommendations.

The debate of the decrees of President Soekarno and President Abdurrahman Wahid regarding the constitutional and unconstitutional presidential decree in emergency constitutional law continues to be a controversy that does not end until now because it is still being discussed related to the situation. This paper discusses 2 (two) phenomenal decrees related to constitutional or unconstitutional in terms of emergency constitutional law. By using normative juridical research methods. The approaches used are the statutory approach, the conceptual approach, and the historical approach. This paper discusses 3 (three) main findings, among others: First, the Presidential Decree is de facto and de jure motivated by no recognition of political action or legal action; Second, the decree is formally regulated in Article 12 and Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia because in the 1945 Constitution it is regulated that if the country is in a state of danger, the president can make decisions in accordance with the authority regulated by laws and regulations; and Third, The decree can be said to be unconstitutional because it is not in accordance with the Indonesian constitution. The decree is not regulated by Indonesian legislation so that formation is considered unconstitutional because it cannot be based on law. However, in the emergency constitutional law, this situation becomes normal because the emergency constitutional law does not use legislation as usual when the country is in normal condition.

There has been an unprecedented impact on the all spheres of society from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). As it has rapidly become a global pandemic, states around the world had to implement appropriate measures for responding to it containment and control. The different countries have used various approaches to responding to the pandemic. This article explores the UK's approach to the COVID-19 health emergency. More precisely, it will be analysed two main aspects: on the one hand, the acts that were adopted in the context of the health crisis and its assessment; on the other hand, it will be analysed attention is focus to the issue related to the limitation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. In the early stages of epidemic, UK implemented herd immunity strategies and its danger was initially underestimated by the authorities. Nevertheless, watching how things unfolded, from March 2020 onwards UK took drastic measures to prevent the spread of the virus. including country-wide lockdown and the powers of public administration entities are expanded. The sagnificant of these measures have been implemented using acts of soft law or non-binding guidelines and recommendations, the legal status of which is not entirely clear. In addition, preference was given to the adoption of new legislation to combat the pandemic, regardless of the existing legal basis for emergency situations. At the same time, the authority to take measures to contain and spread СOVID-19 was transferred to the executive authority with minimal parliamentary control.

During the state of emergency declared in the Republic of Serbia in early 2020 due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, medical professionals in the Republic of Serbia were subject to a special regime of work. In performing their professional duties, they were subject to specific restrictions in accordance with the Decision on the State of Emergency, the Defence Act, the Act on Military, Labour and Material Obligations, and the decisions of the RS Government and the Ministry of Health. Their employment position was subject to complex regulations and the organization of their professional duties was highly specific as well. The authors' research includes the normative analysis of their employment status during the state of emergency, with specific reference to some labour-related issues: working hours, work schedule, change of workplace, and the mandatory duty regime based on regulations that did not adequately respond to the current situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The paper points to a more flexible approach to work in the state of emergency, the good and bad characteristics of the current legal framework, and the good and bad practices observed in this regard. Special attention is given to the illegal prolongation of the duration of emergency measures even after the termination of the state of emergency. The author gives recommendations for better regulation of these issues and for strengthening the mechanisms of protection of labour rights of medical professionals in specific (extraordinary) circumstances caused by medical reasons.

In 2007, The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the potential pandemic of an infectious respiratory disease to be the most feared security threat (WHO, 2007), with most researchers consid­ering the outbreak of a severe respiratory disease epidemic to be a certainty, a question of ‘when’ and not a question of ‘if’ (Kamradt-Scott, 2018). Law en­forcement plays a key role in emergency manage­ment. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is expected that the mission and role of the police in society, but also the responsibilities of the institution will be adapted to the new needs. Changes regard­ing the object of the work, the organization, and its activity, as well as the relationship with the society, can be extensive and long-lasting. The article ana­lyzes the way in which the relationship between the Romanian Police and the community influenced the implementation of the public health measures tak­en during the state of emergency and state of alert. Recommendations on how the institution should adapt to the new extended pandemic context, plan­ning for similar situations and the relationship with the community served are also formulated.

Because of the economic, political and social conditions of iran in the early 1950s which resulted in a state of emergency, Dr. Mosadegh, the incumbent prime minister, made some supposedly legal actions and decisions affecting the Majles (the Parliament) and its law-making power. At first, to enquire the people's opinion he held a referendum, and based on its result he asked for the dissolution of the 17th Majles. In addition to that, he asked the Majles to delegate him the legislative power in nine specific issues, in August 1952. But in this case, he did not refer to the people’s vote. Since the Constitution of 1906 is silent about the issues such as referendum, state of emergency, and delegation of power, this article tries to recognize the mentioned subject matters in constitutional law and to analyze Dr. Mossadegh’s actions in holding referendum, dissolution of parliament, and requesting the delegated powers from the viewpoint of “the Constitutional Theory” in the parliamentary system.

The enactment of a Government Regulations in Lieu of Laws during states of emergency raises problems. This is evident so in the enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2020 which was formed based on an emergency but used the framework of normal legal regime. Such has led to legal uncertainty and is hence vulnerable to abuse. This research was conducted to answer the problems regarding: the application of emergency laws in Indonesia and the government regulations in Lieu of Laws during states of emergency. This paper used normative legal research conducted by means of statutory, case study, and conceptual approaches. The study concludes that there have been some developments in the application of emergency law in Indonesia, since the status of the current public health emergency s is categorized as an emergency that must be responded to by legal regime in a state of emergency. From the aspect of legal regulation, it is apparent that there are various forms of emergency laws in Indonesia, and each of these legal forms has a different impact on the regulation and its legal binding power. However, the diverse arrangements of emergency laws are not supported by the standard concepts of the state of emergency and these arrangements tend to overlap which has caused ambiguity in the arrangement of emergency law in Indonesia. government regulations in lieu of laws that are stipulated the states of emergency bear the status of emergency regulations. Therefore, the issuance of a government regulations in lieu of Las in the state of emergency must comply with the legal principles of the state of emergency. On this basis, the issuance of government regulations in lieu of laws in the state of emergency must firmly determine the period of its validity as a way to ensure that the existence of the government regulations in lieu of laws does not create legal uncertainty. Keywords: government regulations in lieu of laws, state of emergency, emergency law. Peraturan Sebagai Pengganti Statuta Dalam Keadaan Darurat Di Indonesia Abstrak Pemberlakuan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang pada saat keadaan darurat menimbulkan permasalahan. Hal ini terlihat dari lahirnya Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2020 yang dibentuk berdasarkan keadaan darurat tetapi menggunakan kerangka rezim hukum yang normal. Hal tersebut telah menyebabkan ketidakpastian hukum dan karenanya rentan terhadap penyalahgunaan. Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menjawab permasalahan mengenai: penerapan undang-undang darurat di Indonesia dan peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang pada saat keadaan darurat. Tulisan ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan melalui pendekatan perundang-undangan, studi kasus, dan konseptual. Kajian menyimpulkan bahwa telah terjadi beberapa perkembangan dalam penerapan hukum kedaruratan di Indonesia, karena status kedaruratan kesehatan masyarakat saat ini dikategorikan sebagai kedaruratan yang harus ditanggapi oleh rezim hukum dalam keadaan darurat. Dari aspek pengaturan hukum, terlihat bahwa ada berbagai bentuk hukum darurat di Indonesia, dan masing-masing bentuk hukum tersebut memiliki dampak yang berbeda terhadap pengaturan dan kekuatan mengikat hukumnya. Namun, pengaturan undang-undang darurat yang beragam tidak didukung oleh konsep standar keadaan darurat dan pengaturan ini cenderung tumpang tindih yang menyebabkan ambiguitas dalam pengaturan undang-undang darurat di Indonesia. peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang yang mengatur keadaan darurat berstatus peraturan darurat. Oleh karena itu, penerbitan peraturan pemerintah pengganti Las dalam keadaan darurat harus sesuai dengan asas-asas hukum keadaan darurat. Atas dasar itu, penerbitan peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang dalam keadaan darurat harus secara tegas menentukan masa berlakunya sebagai upaya untuk memastikan bahwa keberadaan peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang tidak menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum. Kata kunci: peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang, keadaan darurat, hukum darurat.

This paper analyzes the political and constitutional confrontation of Kosovo and Croatia with the COVID-19 pandemic. The similarities of the constitutional provisions governing emergency situations and possible restrictions on human freedoms and rights in both countries, alongside hybrid parliamentary systems with strong presidents, have produced the same approaches, respectively similar in political and constitutional terms as well as in the academic and professional aspect. Therefore, this paper is focused more on government responses to the situation, including divergences between presidents and governments, as well as constitutional court approaches and respective academic opinions on the subject axis: extraordinary measures within the ordinary or extraordinary legal order with a formal declaration of a “State of Emergency”. Both countries set out for the first model, contenting themselves with amending legal frameworks without a formal declaration of a state of emergency. How and why, it happened is explained in the second and third parts of the paper, resulting in conclusions and recommendations.

Relying on the Madison-Schmitt dichotomy in the theory of emergency governance, this article will explore to what extent constitutional courts of Southeast Europe imposed warranted limits to the executive power in their responses to the Covid-19 global pandemic. The specific aim of this article is to illustrate how the constitutional courts of Croatia and Serbia responded to the question of whether the Covid-19 pandemic called for the introduction of the state of emergency. The dilemmas that emerged in the Covid-19-related rulings of these courts reflect the heated constitutional theoretical debates on emergency powers, which could be roughly reduced to three main points of examination: (1) Is the executive de facto Schmitt's sovereign , who decides on the case of exception even when the constitution states other-wise? (2) Should the courts, following the historically repetitive practice, demonstrate special deference to other branches of government in the time of crisis such as the Covid-19 pandemic? (3) Are the courts in the position to assess the constitutionally envisaged facts and conditions for introducing the emergency regime, e.g., to go into a formal and substantive review of the declaration of the state of emergency? The analysis will conclude that the constitutional courts of Serbia and Croatia failed to set out a robust doctrine of emergency powers and constrain other branches of governments effectively. In Serbia, that resulted in a constitutionally legitimized NEO-Schmittian model, which presupposes that in the time of a crisis, the powers of emergency decision making significantly shift to the executive. On the other hand, the Croatian Constitutional Court missed the chance of entrenching a strong Madisonian model based on the interbranch checks and balances and cooperation.

Between 4 November 1925 and 31 October 1926, Tito Zaniboni, Violet Gibson, Gino Lucetti, and Anteo Zamboni all tried and failed to kill Benito Mussolini. The significance of these attempts on Mussolini's life and their relationship to the establishment of Fascism has gone overlooked as much scholarship focuses almost exclusively on the consequences of socialist deputy Giacomo Matteotti's murder in June 1924. In this article, I analyse the impact that these assassination attempts had on Mussolini's construction of the Fascist state. The article asks two main questions: What role did these assassins, and the state of emergency that their acts generated, play in the establishment of Fascist control? And how did they contribute to Mussolini's cult status and his consecration as a 'man of providence'? I argue that the failed assassination attempts were instrumental in allowing the Fascist regime to create a state of emergency and to capitalize on a fabricated demand for crisis management. These attempts fundamentally structured the conditions for the regime's consolidation of power, including a vast expansion of laws that dismantled the liberal state and established the Fascist dictatorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The declaration of the state of emergency in 2020, in the context of curbing the effects of the COVID-19 crisis, issued public debates referring to the constitutional and legal limits of presidential powers, the effectiveness of parliamentary and judicial control, the shape of constitutional relations between the legislative and executive powers. Several decisions of the Constitutional Court were issued concerning the constitutional powers of public authorities during crisis situations and the imperatives of limitation of fundamental rights and exercise of freedoms. The analysis of these decisions was the first trigger of the research. The first approach tries to identify the compatibility of constitutional texts to international law imperatives, to principles of rule of law and separation of powers in the context of limitation of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, during emergency states. The study proposes the analysis of constitutional instruments of public authorities to put into practice an efficient management of crisis situations. The conclusions reveal the requirement of clarification and unification of the Constitutional Court jurisprudence regarding the emergency ordinances, the need to clarify fundamental law texts related to limitations of the fundamental rights and exercise of freedoms during crisis situations, as well as the necessity to strengthen the judicial control on measures issued during emergency states.

Copyright of Tabayyun is the property of Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The worldwide pandemic caused by the coronavirus has disturbed the pure conception of the separation of powers. States forced by the newly established situation, declared a state of emergency, thus the Republic of North Macedonia was not an exception. This paper will focus on the divergences from the separation of powers in the countries from the Western Balkans and across Europe whose departure in the well-established system of checks and balances intrigued the media. The case of North Macedonia was maybe the most interesting because in time of declaring the state of emergency by the President of the Republic, the legislative branch of power – the Assembly was dissolute which meant that the already difficult situation became more complicated to establish a balance between the branches of power to function in protecting the general health of the citizens and the fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Based on the constitutional approach, this article examines three special legal regimes in the Lithuanian legal system: the state of emergency, disaster management regime, and quarantine. The article uses four methodological criteria to reveal the differences and similarities between these legal regimes: a) the basis for the declaration of a particular legal regime, b) the subjects of their declaration and management, c) their duration, and d) the special measures applied during them, including human rights restrictions.

The impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic has brought up one of the major and outstanding problems afflicting Ecuador and Latin America in general, namely the drastic social and economic inequalities. The protection of the weekest and most vulnerable members of society - that is to say the most affected by the consequences of this pandemic crisis - would require cooperation among all State’s institutions. However, the dominance of the Head of State - with respect to other conter-powers of the Government - has been a ramarkable limit for a peaceful and fair collaboration between the executive and legislative branches in managing the emergency. In particular, it withheld the adoption of economic and social measures to support the most deprived sections of the population.

The Decree of the President of Romania establishing or prolonging the state of siege or the state of emergency constitutes an administrative act, subordinated to the law. It is not a decree-law, so it does not represent an act of primary regulation, the President of Romania not being a legislator even in exceptional situations. The adoption of legislative measures through such decrees is unconstitutional.

The essay addresses some aspects regarding the characteristics of the criminal phenomenon and the state reaction against it, in the context of the state of emergency established following the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic (SARS CoV-2). The first part is intended to assess the current phenomenon (I. The certainty zone), and the second outlines a possible evolution of it (II. Probability zone).

In this article, I shall present the procedure for issuing a presidential decree to institute the state of emergency in accordance with art. 93 of the Constitution, as well as with Emergency Ordinance no. 1/1999 concerning the regime of the state of siege state and the regime of the state of emergency (EOG no. 1/1999). There is no maximum time limit for the duration of the state of emergency. However, there is a fundamental rule provided by EOG no. 1/1999 according to which the prolongation of the state of emergency can be disposed by the President only with the consent of the Parliament, and only for short consecutive 30 days periods. This legal guarantee against abuse of power provides an efficient control and consensus building mechanism.

The Romanian Constitution authorizes the restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms only by law. The decrees of the President of Romania establishing or prolonging the state of emergency or the state of siege and the military ordinances issued during these states represent administrative acts, in addition, their legal force is inferior to that of the law. In implementing the law on the legal regime of the state of siege and the state of emergency, which contains the general legal framework for restricting the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, decrees and military ordinances may decide which rights and freedoms and to what extent they may be subject to restriction.

Following the state of emergency declared as a result of the COVID19 pandemic, the Romanian legislator adopted in March 2020 an Emergency Ordinance which, among others, modified the Criminal Code and introduced a new offence, which sanctions the omission to declare certain information regarding the possibility of having had contact with a person infected with a contagious disease. The paper underlines the deficiencies of these modifications, analyzing the lack of clarity of several notions used by the legislator, as well as the potential negative effects of such way of regulating criminal offences.

In this article, I shall examine the legal nature of presidential decrees for instituting and prolonging the state of emergency. Despite their content, which provides various restrictions on fundamental rights and liberties, in fact, they remain true normative administrative acts issued in order to execute legal provisions of Emergency Ordinance no. 1/1999 concerning the regime of the state of siege and the regime of the state of emergency, approved by the Parliament through organic law no. 453/2004.

Similar to the situations that existed during wars, the medical personnel involved in combating the pandemic during the state of emergency must be decorated, as an expression of the gratitude of the Nation and the State.

Unlike human rights interferences, which constitute a restriction on human rights during normal periods, human rights derogations are severe and widespread restrictions in exceptional cases. They are authorized only in one of the four exceptional states expressly and exhaustively listed in the Constitution: the state of war, the state of mobilization of the armed forces, the state of siege and the state of emergency. The state of alert, regulated only by law, does not represent a state in which derogatory human rights measures can be used.

The decrees establishing and extending the state of emergency contain an article expressly enshrining the human rights covered by the derogating measures. Although the wording of the text indicates that the list is exhaustive, in reality in the annexes to decrees other human rights are also covered by the derogating measures. This renders the "law" (in the autonomous European sense) establishing the derogating measures as lacking clarity.

In this article, I shall discuss two issues. First, I shall explain the Constitutional Court case-law on matters related to restrictions of fundamental rights and liberties by emergency decrees adopted by the Government. Second, I shall propose a specific and different interpretation of the constitutional provisions regulating the state of emergency (art. 93), the restriction of fundamental rights and liberties (art. 53) and the legislative delegation (art. 115).

The paper reopens the famous dispute on the ‘state of exception’ from a citizen’s perspective. Is the rule-giver immune to the rule he enacted? The finding is that the rule should be observed by the ruler in the first place in order to give an example to the others. Also, it is explored the dialectic tension between the self-respecting rules and rules that needs to be sanctioned by the State’s agents. While no rule could be placed in one single category, it is the right combination between drafting rules easy to comply with and imposing penalties proportionate with the infringement that will ensure a stable legal system.

Annotation: the article analyzes the peculiarities of the procedure for granting permission for conducting secret investigative actions in the conditions in the martial law, emergency or in the area of anti-terrorist operations. It is noted that the nascence as well as the currently existing problems of practical and applied nature connected with the implementation of the provisions of Article 615 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. Summarizing the above, by partially resolving issues relating to the peculiarities of pre-trial investigation in the conditions of a military, state of emergency or in the area of ATO, the law simultaneously put new, even more serious and complicated, caused by the nature of the changes. The separate aspects of the institute of pre-trial investigation that are considered within the article testify to the lack of legal certainty in many issues, which leads to the uneven application of these provisions in practice. In this regard, article 615 of the CPC of Ukraine needs legislative correction.

Copyright of Mukaddime Journal is the property of Mukaddime Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper analyses three key decisions issued by the French State Council in 2020 following emergency proceedings concerning the impact of pandemic-related measures on the freedom of worship. The Council interestingly recalls that the freedom of worship is a fundamental freedom, but shows, too, how it is influenced by circumstances when determining whether the measures limiting the freedom to practice one’s religion are proportionate to the goal of protecting public health.

State of emergency is a specific form of state of emergency in which there is a state due to the occurrence of unexpected and difficult circumstances for the survival of the property and citizens. This state requires the introduction of the regime of emergency measures that aim to keep legal and political activities of state bodies. Author of the paper studies the powers and duties of the parliament as the bearer of the sovereignty of the emergency legal regime. At the first part analyzes the normative solutions in Serbia and surrounding countries. Author analyzes solutions of the Constitution of Republic of Serbia and solutions of legislatory. Special emphasis is placed on the existence of unjustified legal dualism between emergency and situations of emergency. The second part studied the action of public authorities because of extraordinary circumstances where specifically analyzing the authority of Parliament and the declaration of the state of emergency, parliamentary work, attitude toward executive power and restriction of human and minority rights.

Natural and human induced disasters have always been one of the biggest threats to human security, quality of life, material goods, the environment, society and the economy. Causes of disasters can have crossborder origins and their consequences can simultaneously affect multiple countries, whole regions, even the whole world. For an efficient response to disaster risks, besides local and national actions, international cooperation is very important and when disasters strike, the affected countries often cannot deal with their consequences without international assistance. Based on these considerations and needs, during the past quarter of a century, within the United Nations system and regional organisations, as well as on the bilateral plan, intensive cooperation has been developed. So far, it has resulted in the conclusion of a number of important conventions and a far larger number of bilateral agreements, and particularly in numerous resolutions, guidelines, guidebooks and other soft law instruments. The author analyses the basic results of international cooperation with an aim to identify the international obligations of the Republic of Serbia in the field of disaster risk reduction. Based on that, the author provides some recommendations important for the improvement of cooperation of the Republic of Serbia in this field and upgrading of the domestic legal and institutional framework.