scholarly journals The Separation of powers in the state of exception

2020 ◽  
pp. 221-247
Author(s):  
Carlos Zuñiga Rendón
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The State ◽  
State Of Exception ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Traditional Notion ◽  
Specific Objective ◽  
Adequate Understanding

The article aims to analyze the principle of separation of powers in the Ecuadorian context of the state of emergency, decreed due to the health emergency caused by COVID-19. Its specific objective is to provide reasons to consolidate this principle and an adequate understanding of it, within a regime of exception. A brief introductory look at the theoretical and experiential aspects of the state of exception reveals the general suspicion of said institution. Then, from the analysis of its defining features, its regulated nature is deduced and conditioned by constitutional presuppositions. Thus, the state of exception exists and operates in observance of the principle of separation of powers. On this principle, an analytical journey of doctrinal bases consolidates the overcoming of its traditional notion towards a collaborative and dialogic opening between powers. Furthermore, the review of the minimum functions of each power of the state during the exceptional regime shows the prevalence of one power over others to be refuted. Already in the Ecuadorian context, a review of some specific scenarios induces the ratification of the operation of the principle of separation of powers and constitutional jurisdiction during the state of emergency. Finally, critical thinking is collected regarding the management of the pandemic, from which risks and warnings for democracy and human rights are inferred. 

Sovereign Exception, Destructive Exception

2020 ◽  
pp. 87-95
Author(s):  
Willy Thayer
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
The State ◽  
State Of Exception ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Rule Making

This chapter discusses Walter Benjamin's “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” which refers to a regime of sovereign representation where the state of emergency is the rule. It explains the paradigm of sovereignty that is constituted teleologically from exception, as the foundation and conservation of representational regimes. For Benjamin, the state of emergency is equivalent to “progress as a historical norm.” The chapter also looks at the commissary-sovereign state of exception that is functional to a policing critique and a politics whose prerogative is to put the regimes of representation into crisis. It analyzes a prerogative that subsumes the destructive character of the exception within a dialectical concentration of the rule, making the spectrality of destruction a function of the system of representation.

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

Separation of Powers and Alternative Dispute Resolution before the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-271
Author(s):  
Cedric Jenart ◽  
Mathieu Leloup
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Level ◽  
European Court

Alternative dispute resolution procedures before the European Court of Human Rights – The state agent, a member of the executive branch, tasked with representing the respondent state – Judicial and legislative branches of the respondent state limited or bound by concessions by the state agent – Convention framework effectively increases the power of the executive branch to the detriment of the other branches of government in the respondent state – Tension with national separation of powers – Possible solutions on a national and international level

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.

scholarly journals Derogation of Human Rights and Freedoms in RNM during the State of Emergency Caused by COVID-19

SEEU Review ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-42
Author(s):  
Abdulla Azizi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Territory Government ◽  
Restrictive Measures

AbstractConsidering that in times of state of emergency or civil emergency (such as the pandemic caused by COVID 19), governments in many countries around the world have restricted human rights and freedoms through legally binding government decrees. These restrictive measures increasingly raise dilemmas about their effect and possible violations by the government of international norms guaranteeing human rights. The paper aims to analyze whether these restrictive measures set out in the decisions of the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia (RNM) are in compliance with the derogations allowed under the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms (ECHR) and the positive laws in power. In the framework of this paper is analyzed whether these measures have the sole purpose of protecting the health of citizens or not.The work is limited in terms of time (as long as the state of emergency lasted three months) and territory (government decrees with the force of law).Descriptive, historical, analytical, comparative and citizen survey methods are used in this paper.Government decrees have been analyzed in order to assess whether they were prudent, in accordance with international standards and consequences that they have caused to citizens.The conclusions provide data on whether the management of the situation has been appropriate or not and to what extent it has been effective, as well as how much it has been within the international framework and how they have affected the quality of life of citizens.

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 Eswatini's legislative response to COVID-19: Whither human rights?

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Musa Njabulo Shongwe
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Emergency Powers ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
Constitutional State ◽  
Response Measures ◽  
Long Term Impact

Having been confronted with the COVID-19 pandemic, the Kingdom of Eswatini has had to adopt both soft and hard response measures. The constitutional emergency response framework had not envisaged the type of emergency brought about by COVID-19, forcing the state to enact extraordinary regulatory measures. Unprecedented emergency powers have been conferred on state functionaries. Questions have arisen as to the nature of these emergency powers, the manner in which these powers have been exercised and the absence of special oversight mechanisms. The response measures and regulations have had an unparalleled impact on lives and livelihoods of Emaswati. This article explores the nature of emergency powers in the laws of Eswatini, and the particular effects of the COVID-19 regulations on human rights. This article commences with an analysis of constitutional emergency powers in Eswatini and the limitations thereof, and considers the question of why the state did not invoke a constitutional state of emergency. The article proceeds to examine the nature of statutory emergency powers under the Disaster Management Act, and considers whether there are effective legal limitations on the exercise of executive authority and effective safeguards against the abuse of power. The article then deals with the particular impact of the COVID-19 response legal framework on human rights protection. In this regard, the article advances examples of situations where rights have been infringed. Finally, the article proposes that the state's response measures should continuously endeavour to mitigate the long-term impact on human rights.

Ethiopian protest risk rises as emergency declared

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Developing Economies ◽  
Risk Tolerance ◽  
The State ◽  
Internet Usage ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Content Type

Significance The declaration came a week after reports emerged that protestors were attacking foreign businesses in the country as well as government property. Under the state of emergency, security forces will have expanded powers to search homes without warrants, detain individuals and restrict rights of assembly. Impacts Most foreign investment comes from firms based in other developing economies that have a high (but not unlimited) risk tolerance. Ethiopian claims of Egyptian and Eritrean links to violent protesters are tenuous and are meant to shift causality to external issues. Donors have limited traction and will push only for an outcome that yields stability rather than improvements in human rights. Further restrictions on communication (especially internet usage) are likely.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document