The COVID-19 emergency in the age of executive aggrandizement: what role for legislative and judicial checks?

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW
Jan Petrov
{"title":"The COVID-19 emergency in the age of executive aggrandizement: what role for legislative and judicial checks?","authors":"Jan Petrov","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2020.1788232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Extraordinary limitation of certain fundamental rights seems necessary in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries have declared a state of emergency for that purpose. Yet, there is also a risk of misusing the emergency for power grabbing, especially in the current era of executive aggrandizement, democratic decay and abusive populist constitutionalism. In this setting the legislative and judicial checks on the executive create a dilemma. Their standard operation in the state of emergency could control the executive, but might also impair its capacity to fight the pandemic effectively. This article therefore focuses on the desired role of the legislature and the judiciary in COVID-19 emergencies. Although many constitutions address emergencies, they are often vague and leave considerable room for the involved actors themselves to adjust their behaviour. This article asks how parliaments and courts should use this de facto room. I argue that they should show some deference to the executive, its level depending on the stage and severity of the crisis, but should not clear the field for governments. They must modify their activities but not suspend them. My main argument is that the deliberative and scrutiny functions of the legislature and the dispute-resolution function of courts are crucial not only for preventing the abuse of emergency measures, but also for increasing the effectiveness of emergency measures by improving conditions necessary for compliance. The legislature and courts can contribute to the higher feasibility and legitimacy of the emergency measures and thereby increase voluntary compliance, which is crucial for tackling the spread of the new coronavirus. The article illustrates these issues by way of the case study of the Czech Republic – a country experiencing its first nationwide state of emergency amid tendencies towards democratic decay and managerial populism.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20508840.2020.1788232","citationCount":"39","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2020.1788232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

Abstract

ABSTRACT Extraordinary limitation of certain fundamental rights seems necessary in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries have declared a state of emergency for that purpose. Yet, there is also a risk of misusing the emergency for power grabbing, especially in the current era of executive aggrandizement, democratic decay and abusive populist constitutionalism. In this setting the legislative and judicial checks on the executive create a dilemma. Their standard operation in the state of emergency could control the executive, but might also impair its capacity to fight the pandemic effectively. This article therefore focuses on the desired role of the legislature and the judiciary in COVID-19 emergencies. Although many constitutions address emergencies, they are often vague and leave considerable room for the involved actors themselves to adjust their behaviour. This article asks how parliaments and courts should use this de facto room. I argue that they should show some deference to the executive, its level depending on the stage and severity of the crisis, but should not clear the field for governments. They must modify their activities but not suspend them. My main argument is that the deliberative and scrutiny functions of the legislature and the dispute-resolution function of courts are crucial not only for preventing the abuse of emergency measures, but also for increasing the effectiveness of emergency measures by improving conditions necessary for compliance. The legislature and courts can contribute to the higher feasibility and legitimacy of the emergency measures and thereby increase voluntary compliance, which is crucial for tackling the spread of the new coronavirus. The article illustrates these issues by way of the case study of the Czech Republic – a country experiencing its first nationwide state of emergency amid tendencies towards democratic decay and managerial populism.
行政扩张时代的新冠肺炎紧急情况:立法和司法检查的作用是什么?
摘要在抗击新冠肺炎疫情时,对某些基本权利的特别限制似乎是必要的。许多国家为此宣布进入紧急状态。然而,也存在滥用紧急情况夺取权力的风险,尤其是在当前行政权力扩张、民主衰退和滥用民粹主义宪政的时代。在这种情况下,对行政部门的立法和司法检查造成了一种困境。他们在紧急状态下的标准操作可以控制行政部门,但也可能削弱其有效抗击疫情的能力。因此,本文侧重于立法机构和司法机构在新冠肺炎紧急情况中的预期作用。尽管许多宪法都涉及紧急情况,但它们往往含糊其辞,为相关行为者自己调整行为留下了相当大的空间。这篇文章询问议会和法院应该如何使用这个事实上的房间。我认为,他们应该对行政部门表现出一定的尊重,其程度取决于危机的阶段和严重程度,但不应该为政府扫清障碍。他们必须修改自己的活动,但不能暂停。我的主要论点是,立法机构的审议和审查职能以及法院的争端解决职能不仅对于防止滥用紧急措施至关重要,而且对于通过改善遵守必要条件来提高紧急措施的有效性也至关重要。立法机构和法院可以提高紧急措施的可行性和合法性,从而增加自愿遵守,这对应对新型冠状病毒的传播至关重要。这篇文章通过对捷克共和国的案例研究来说明这些问题。捷克共和国在民主衰退和管理民粹主义的趋势中经历了第一次全国紧急状态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信