scholarly journals Special Legal Regimes and Their Status under the Lithuanian Legal System

Teisė ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 117 ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
Vaidotas A. Vaičaitis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Disaster Management ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Management Regime ◽  
Legal Regimes

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.

scholarly journals Parlamentārās kontroles īstenošanas īpatnības un problēmjautājumi Covid-19 pandēmijas laikā

2021 ◽  
pp. 467-473
Author(s):  
Aleksandrs Kuzņecovs ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Rapid Spread ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Due to rapid spread of Covid-19 worldwide, Latvian government declared the state of emergency. This decision was adopted by the parliament in order to contain the virus and undertake all the necessary measures to prevent its further spread. At the same time, it is clear that government’s actions undertaken within the state of emergency mostly remain unchecked. The absence of any legal basis for the parliament to extend their oversight during the state of emergency makes role of the parliament in these circumstances unclear. The current position of the parliament precludes political and legal liability over the executive and their officers. Lack of the delegated legislative and human rights restriction clause applicable specifically during the state of emergency raises questions regarding powers of the government and parliamentary control during the state of emergency. The article explores the possible solutions to rectify such flaws in the legal system of the Republic Latvia

The Duty to Capture

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens David Ohlin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Other ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
Legal Regimes

The duty to capture stands at the fault line between competing legal regimes that might govern targeted killings. If human rights law and domestic law enforcement procedures govern these killings, the duty to attempt capture prior to lethal force represents a cardinal rule that is systematically violated by these operations. On the other hand, if the Law of War applies then the duty to capture is fundamentally inconsistent with the summary killing already sanctioned by jus in bello. The following Article examines the duty to capture and the divergent approaches that each legal regime takes to this normative requirement, and evaluates internal debates within these regimes over when a duty to capture might apply. At issue in these debates, regardless of the body of law that applies, is the scope and content of the concept of necessity, i.e. when is it truly necessary to target an individual with lethal force. The key question is whether a unified and trans-regime understanding of the concept could promote doctrinal unity across legal regimes. However, this Article concludes that the concept of necessity stubbornly defies such attempts; necessity is a term of art with a distinct history and meaning in each body of law, and unification of these meanings can only come at the cost of betraying the fundamental precepts of one legal regime over the other. Part I begins by examining the scope of international humanitarian law and concludes that its application is often unduly constrained; a new analysis is offered of the classification of armed conflicts, the level of organization required before a non-state actor can be a party to an armed conflict, and the legal geography of armed conflict. Part II examines the concept of necessity and concludes that military necessity (destruction of “life and limb” related to the war aim) is fundamentally incompatible with human rights law and its understanding of necessity as the least-restricti ve means. Finally, Part III concludes that the IHL regime, and its permissive notion of military necessity, should apply when the state is acting as a belligerent against other co-equal belligerents, but that human rights law, and its more restrictive notion of necessity, should apply when the state acts as a sovereign over its own subjects.Published: Minnesota Law Review, vol. 97, no. 4 (April 2013)

State of emergency in Poland: constitutional regulation and “hybrid” nature during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-67
Author(s):  
Valentina Chekharina
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Hybrid State ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
The World ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Emergency Measures

The COVID-19 pandemic became widespread across the world throughout 2020 and 2021 in an emergency that gravely impacted the health and lives of people around the world. States have taken exceptional measures to combat the pandemic, including controversial decisions to introduce emergency regimes, which have been questioned in regards to their compliance with constitutional regulations. The fight against the COVID-19 pandemic requires special measures, however they must remain within the constitutional framework. Consequently, the pandemic and its effect upon the legality of regimes in a state of emergency has captured the attention of legal scholars. The aim of this study is to analyse the constitutional regulation of the state of emergency in the Republic of Poland which was introduced in the country during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Poland, an emergency regime was introduced following an order by the Minister of Health. However the state of emergency (here, natural disaster) as stated by the Constitution was not introduced, although, according to analysts, some state bodies and officials had confirmed that all the necessary conditions for this were met. On 2 March 2020, the so-called Special Law on Coronavirus was adopted, followed by other regulations to fight the pandemic. These analysts stated that the measures introduced by the new acts corresponded to a legal regime containing the constitutional characteristics of a state of emergency, but lacked the appropriate constitutional procedure for their introduction. Presidential elections were held at this time, however legally they cannot be held during a state of emergency, as it indicates the presence of political interests in the choice of the regime. The unconstitutional procedure of the introduction of emergency measures alongside their characteristics of the state of emergency make it possible to consider the epidemic regime introduced in Poland a “hybrid” state of emergency, which is not detailed by the Constitution or legislation. On this basis, the study concludes that reasons behind the unconstitutional response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland can be found in both the Constitution, and in the manifestations of the crisis of the constitutional and legal system, which began with the reform of Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal by the ruling Law and Justice party in 2015.

scholarly journals THE RESTRICTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN A PANDEMIC CRISIS: THE CASE OF UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-176
Author(s):  
Nadiia Kobetska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Emergency Situation ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
The Government ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
Legal Grounds

The presented paper is aimed at substantiating the formal and legal grounds for the introduction of restrictions on human rights in the battle against the spread of COVID-19 in Ukraine. The analysis of restrictive measures introduced by the Government of Ukraine is conducted by the author on the basis of their interpretation and comparison of Ukrainian legislative acts that define the legal regimes of quarantine, an emergency situation and a state of emergency. The author analyzes the problematic legislative provisions that formed the basis for the introduction of quarantine measures and an emergency situation in Ukraine and established restrictions on the implementation of a number of the constitutional rights of citizens. The article substantiates the conclusion on the constitutionality and legality of restrictions on human rights under a state of emergency, which was not introduced in Ukraine.

Approaches to understanding the category "special legal regimes"

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-78
Author(s):  
Oleksandr M. Bukhanevych ◽  
Anastasiia M. Mernyk ◽  
Oleh O. Petryshyn
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Martial Law ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Legal Regimes

The study investigates the main approaches to understanding such legal categories as “legal regimes” and “special legal regime”, and provides their classification. Special legal regimes serve as the legal basis for restricting human and civil rights and freedoms; therefore, the relevance of the study of the concept, types, and main features of special legal regimes is beyond doubt. The authors of the study consider the relationship between the categories of special legal regime of a state of emergency and martial law, and describe the main grounds for their imposition. The authors noted a need for a clear, consistent legal regulation of the model of behaviour aimed at overcoming and eliminating negative consequences of an emergency and military nature. Attention is focused on the fact that in Ukraine, the regulation of public relations arising in connection with emergencies and military situations has become particularly important after the emergence of a military conflict on the territory of Ukraine and the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The study provides the author’s vision of the categories “legal regimes” and “special legal regimes”. it is proposed to interpret the legal regimes as the regulatory procedure, which is expressed in a set of legal means that describe a special combination of interacting permits, prohibitions, and obligations, while implementing a special focus of regulation. The latter should be interpreted as a form of public administration that makes provision for the restriction of the legal personality of individuals and legal entities, introduced as a temporary measure provided by means of administrative and legal nature, and aimed at ensuring the security of the individual, society, and the state. The study provides the classification of special legal regimes and contains proposals to distinguish them according to the content and basis of occurrence as follows: state of emergency, martial law, state of siege, state of war, state of public danger, state of tension, state of defence, state of threat, state of readiness, state of vigilance

scholarly journals National Wisdoms and the ASEAN Human Rights Legal Regime

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Heribertus Jaka Triyana
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Disaster Management ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Human Rights Based Approach

Recently, the discourse on the relation between local wisdom and human rights shows its relevance. This article describes and critically examines the human rights norms and procedures with regards to common local wisdoms to remedy and redress human rights problems in South East Asian countries. It takes an example of redressing problem in rights to development and also focuses on the application of the ASEAN agreement on Disaster Management Response to contextualize role and influence of local wisdoms to manage and to mitigate disaster response within the ASEAN human rights protection. This writing also highlights that human rights based approach is needed in the implementation of the ASEAN human rights norms and mechanisms in accordance to local wisdoms of respective countries where disaster occurs.

Les minorités dans la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme, une absence délibérée

2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 557-590
Author(s):  
Fernando Arlettaz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
The United Nations

Summary The League of Nations established, in the interwar period, a legal regime for the protection of minorities which considered them as intermeditate groups between the State and the individuals. On the contrary, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the United Nations, assumed a radically individualistic point of view and did not include any mention to minority rights. The travaux préparatoires of the Universal Declaration suggest that the question of minorities caused strong tension among States and that, for this reason, they avoided its inclusion in the 1948 document.

scholarly journals Separating Normalcy from Emergency: The Jurisprudence of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 1764-1785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Greene
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Imminent Danger ◽  
European Court ◽  
Tight Rope ◽  
Legal Document

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is as much a political as it is a legal document. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) constantly walks the delicate tight rope between vindicating human rights and respecting the sovereignty of contracting states. This balancing act is particularly sensitive when a situation of “exceptional and imminent danger” exists. In such instances of national security the state may need to act in a manner beyond the parameters of normalcy in order to neutralize the threat and protect both itself and its citizens. Article 15 of the ECHR therefore allows states to derogate from its obligations under the convention when a state of emergency is declared. On foot of a notice of derogation, a state has more discretion and flexibility to act accordingly to respond to a threat without being constrained by its obligations under the treaty. However, it is also in these conditions that human rights are at their most vulnerable as the state's response may encroach severely on individuals' rights and the liberal-democratic order of the state.

Notstandskontrolle

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Weber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Level System ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
States Of Emergency ◽  
Multi Level

Between 2015 and 2017, France, Turkey and Ukraine, as member states of the European Convention on Human Rights, declared a state of emergency according to Art. 15 ECHR. The events associated with the suspension of Convention rights show the current significance of the legal standardisation of political and social states of emergency. In the end it is all about the question of who ultimately controls the state of emergency: the sovereign state, the state community with a supranational judicial control, or both in terms of a horizontal overlapping of powers in the European multi-level system? Art. 15 ECHR still leaves unanswered questions to which the Strasbourg organs have responded over the years with a differentiated jurisprudence and with the granting of a certain margin of discretion. The book deals with these issues in the light of ECtHR case law and case studies on France, Turkey and Ukraine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document