Taking Stock of Global Democratic Trends Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  

This GSoD In Focus provides a brief overview of the global state of democracy at the end of 2019, prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, and assesses some of the preliminary impacts that the pandemic has had on democracy globally in 2020. Key findings include: • To address the COVID-19 pandemic, starting in March 2020, more than half the countries in the world (59 per cent) had declared a national state of emergency (SoE), enabling them to take drastic temporary (and in most cases necessary) measures to fight the pandemic. These measures have included in most cases temporarily curbing basic civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly and movement, and in some cases postponing elections. • International IDEA’s Global Monitor of COVID-19’s Impact on Democracy and Human Rights finds that more than half the countries in the world (61 per cent) had, by the end of November 2020, implemented measures to curb COVID-19 that were concerning from a democracy and human rights perspective. These violated democratic standards because they were either disproportionate, illegal, indefinite or unnecessary in relation to the health threat. • Concerning developments have been more common in countries that were already non-democratic prior to the pandemic (90 per cent) and less common, although still quite widespread, in democracies (43 per cent). • The democracies that have implemented democratically concerning measures are those that were already ailing before the pandemic. More than two-thirds were democracies that were either backsliding, eroding or weak prior to the pandemic. • Almost a year since the first outbreak of COVID-19, the pandemic seems to have deepened autocratization in most of the countries that were already non-democratic. However, in at least 3 of those countries (Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Thailand), the pandemic has also tapped into existing simmering citizen discontent and may have been the tipping point in unleashing massive protest waves demanding democratic reform. The pandemic has also seemingly deepened democratic backsliding processes and exposed the democratic weakness and fragility of new or re-transitioned democracies (Malaysia, Mali, Myanmar, Sri Lanka). In a few cases, the pandemic has also exposed countries that showed no apparent sign of democratically ailing prior to the pandemic, but where concerning democratic developments have occurred during the pandemic and which risk seeing a significant deterioration in their democratic quality as a result (i.e. Argentina, El Salvador). • The aspects of democracy that have seen the most concerning developments during the pandemic are freedom of expression, media integrity, and personal integrity and security. However, the freedoms that have been restricted across most countries are freedom of movement and assembly. Another core democratic process that has been heavily affected by the pandemic is the electoral, with half the elections scheduled between February and December 2020 postponed due to the pandemic. • The pandemic has also shown democracy’s resilience and capacity for renovation. Innovation through accelerated digitalization has occurred across most regions of the world. And democratic institutions, such as parliaments, courts, electoral commissions, political parties, media and civil society actors, have fought back against attempts at executive overreach and democratic trampling or collaborated to ensure effective responses to the pandemic. The review of the state of democracy during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 uses qualitative analysis and data of events and trends in the region collected through International IDEA’s Global Monitor of COVID-19’s Impact on Democracy and Human Rights, an initiative co-funded by the European Union.

Author(s):  
Anzhelika Krusian ◽  
Vadym Tsiura ◽  
Boris Perezhniak ◽  
Roman Sabodash ◽  
Lyudmila Kazakova

Under uncertain conditions, the introduction of a state of emergency and quarantine measures, the scope of human rights may be subject to state interference and some rights cannot be exercised at all. The aim of the work is to examine the problem of the exercise of the right to freedom of movement and personal integrity in the context of COVID-19 through the practice of the European Court of Human Rights ECTHR. The theme of the study is the social relations that arise in the exercise of the right to freedom of movement and personal integrity in the COVID-19 pandemic. Research methods are the dialectical method, the method of system analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, modeling, comparison, generalization, and formalization. As a result of the study, the problems of the realization of the right to freedom of movement and personal inviolability in COVID-19 were analyzed through the prism of ECtHR decisions. The international experience of regulating the right to circular under quarantine conditions was clarified and suggested ways to solve this problem to protect human dignity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 9-26
Author(s):  
Paweł Turczyński ◽  

The coronavirus pandemic that hit the world in early 2020 has weakened Europe very severely. In the first period (January-February), the disease was often neglected, which allowed it to spread rapidly. In March, panic struck European societies, the health systems of many countries collapsed, and governments introduced drastic restrictions on civil liberties and on the functioning of the economy. The European Union, which was helpless in the first period, took steps in the spring to restore the European economy after the end of the epidemic.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-345
Author(s):  
Klaus D. Beiter ◽  
Terence Karran ◽  
Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua

Focusing on those countries that are members of the European Union, it may be noted that these countries are bound under international human rights agreements, such as the International Covenants on Civil and Political, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights, to safeguard academic freedom under provisions providing for the right to freedom of expression, the right to education, and respect for ‘the freedom indispensable for scientific research.’ unesco’s Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, a ‘soft-law’ document of 1997, concretises international human rights requirements to be complied with to make the protection of the right to academic freedom effective. Relying on a set of human rights indicators, the present article assesses the extent to which the constitutions, laws on higher education, and other relevant legislation of eu states implement the Recommendation’s criteria. The situation of academic freedom in practice will not be assessed here. The results for the various countries have been quantified and countries ranked in accordance with ‘their performance.’ The assessment demonstrates that, overall, the state of the protection of the right to academic freedom in the law of European states is one of ‘ill-health.’ Institutional autonomy is being misconstrued as exhausting the concept of academic freedom, self-governance in higher education institutions sacrificed for ‘executive-style’ management, and employment security abrogated to cater for ‘changing employment needs’ in higher education.


Author(s):  
Soumi Banerjee

The world has undergone a change from ancient to modern. The enthusiasm among people to discover the undiscovered actually marked the beginning of the modern era and the advent of globalisation can be viewed as a bi-product of this modern civilisation. Globalisation was apparently meant to enhance cooperation among nations as partners in trade, but, gradually with better exposure to each other's culture, people started embracing the global ideas, habits, and way of life. Globalisation is therefore not just the integration of economies and markets, but it is also the integration of cultures and understandings, making people aware of their rights and role to be played in transforming the society for better. Thus, globalisation can rightly be called as the source of modern human rights, as it has no doubt played an active role in preserving and protecting Human Rights by technological expansion, increasing neo-liberal values, establishing certain super-national institutions and by promoting and maintaining civil liberties that uphold freedom, transparency, and popular participation.


Author(s):  
Rhona K. M. Smith

This chapter examines the regional organizations with jurisdiction over human rights in Europe, focusing on the Council of Europe, and describes relevant work of the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It highlights the success of the Council of Europe in developing a system which ensures the protection of basic human rights through a judicial mechanism, and concludes that the European Convention on Human Rights has matured into the most sophisticated and effective human rights treaty in the world.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicholas Cross

<p>Globalisation and the availability of information through television and the internet have been a boon for the spread of ideas and for freedom of expression. These trends have also created challenges for the regulation of expression. Those with hateful views or harmful information have just as much access to modern communication tools as the rest of us. How policy makers respond to the free flow of information raises a multitude of questions.  However there is no doubt that the state still holds the upper hand in controlling the freedom of movement between borders. Despite the availability of information technology there is still a need for interpersonal communication to facilitate the freedom of expression. The freedom of movement is therefore important to enabling the freedom of expression, and states can restrict the later by restricting the former.  The aim of this paper is to comprehensively scrutinise the different approaches taken to regulating freedom of movement for the purpose of regulating freedom of expression. It looks with judicial reviews within common law jurisdictions and how the issue is managed within their existing human rights legal frameworks.  Firstly the paper will lay out a preferred approach to dealing with the regulation of freedom of expression in an immigration context, bearing in mind the rights which states have to control their borders and the justifications for doing so. The approach places strong emphasis on protecting the freedom of expression for all groups without seeking to challenge the existence or legitimacy of the ways states choose to regulate expression within their borders. It suggests that regulation should be limited to situations where it is likely that the visitor would choose to break the laws of the state they seek to visit, or where their visit could spark disruption involving violence which could not reasonably be controlled by law enforcement.  Secondly the paper will examine four cases from two common law jurisdictions in detail. There is an emphasis on understanding two themes. The first is explaining the broader context of human rights protection within those jurisdictions and how their approach to immigration control reflects or contradicts that protection. The second is upon critiquing and understanding the administrative law implications of the standards of review applied. Reference is made back to the preferred framework to help understand to what extent the cases stand for genuine protection of freedom of expression.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol IV (III) ◽  
pp. 20-27
Author(s):  
Tasaddaq Hussain ◽  
Muhammad Aslam Pervez ◽  
Shahid Minhas

(FOE) is a basic human right, unanimously accepted all over the world; however it has no universal definition. The Islam condemns the Blasphemy strongly, whereas the West takes it as an offshoot of FOE and a symbol of democracy. This paper is an attempt to investigate, to what extent the Islamic concept of FOE is consistent with the Western concept? Its main objective is to point out the real cause of the rift and to discover recipe which could be used in curing the bleeding sore of humanity. Methodologically, qualitative research technique is used; analytical approach is adopted. Principal books, Scholarly articles, and academic writings are especially consulted. It is concluded that all the basic human rights have limits; therefore FOE must also be aligned. In this way, a common socio-religious definition of FOE is suggested for a peaceful and tolerant democratic global society.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 170-202
Author(s):  
Anna Kobernjuk ◽  
Agnes Kasper

Abstract With the rapid growth of disinformation, two major steps were taken to battle the phenomenon in the online environment—first on the global level, and second on the European Union level. The first step is the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda, which provides a general overview of possible actions to be taken to fight disinformation, and how “things should be”. The steps are connected to following human rights standards, promoting the diversity of media, and paying special attention to intermediaries and media outlets. The second one is the Code of Practice on Disinformation, which is a self-regulatory document that can be voluntarily signed by major social media platforms and advertising bodies, and its main focus is making political advertising coherent and clear, preventing the creation of fake accounts, providing users with tools to report disinformation, and promote further research. Nevertheless, based on the reports and criticism from stakeholders, the Code of Practice has not reached a common ground regarding definitions, it has provided no mechanism to access the development, and has had several other drawbacks which need additional attention and discussion. The article is devoted to identifying gaps in the Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the reports and criticism provided by the stakeholders and elaborating on possible practices to regulate the legal issues raised by disinformation on the European Union level. We use doctrinal and comparative methods in the work. The doctrinal method targets the cluster that was identified in order to analyze the Code of Practice, identifies weak spots and inconsistencies, and offers solutions from different areas of law. The comparative method was selected since in several areas of law, such as human rights and consumer protection law, the previously identified approaches will be addressed to find the best outcomes. This combination of methods allows an in-depth understanding of legal documents and identifying successful solutions, which can influence further development based on efficient examples.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fajar Muhammad Nugraha

The EU is very concerned with the implementation of Human Rights, so it has become the basic value and the main terms in its membership1. The EU's desire toexpand the territorial prompts efforts to discipline the implementation of Human Rights is intensified in order to increase the number of members. However, individual identity, how one defines itself as a nation, and freedom of expression are also major points in Human Rights. This is clearly a major obstacle that unknowingly appears in the territorial expansion efforts being undertaken by the European Union. The most obvious and most recent example is the occurrence of Brexit through the EU referendum in June 2016 which resulted in the United Kingdom having to quit the EU membership. This is a major blow to the EU, because in the course of territorial expansion, the EU would have to lose one of its larger member states. This paper discusses the paradox of the virtue of Human Rights as a value that is upheld within the EU and the freedom of individuals and nations in defining themselves, as well as an identity crisis which is beginning to undermine the comfort of life in society.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Pina Sodano Omizzolo

In mid-December 2019, several atypical cases of pneumonia were detected in hospitals in Wuhan City – Hubei Province – in Inner China. It turns out that the first patients had already fallen ill in early December or even mid-November. However, only on the last day of the year 2019, Chinese doctors were able to officially identify a new virus in a 41-year-old patient admitted 5 days earlier. The virus belongs to the class of “coronavirus”, the same to which the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) viruses belong. It is initially baptized 2019-nCov, or “new 2019 coronavirus”. In February, the official name assigned to the virus is Sars-COV-2 and the associated disease is named COVID-19. The outbreak took on considerable proportions in China and then spread to the rest of the world, leading the World Health Organization to declare the infection a “pandemic” on 11 March 2020. The containment strategies applied in the most affected countries have proved to be very different in effectiveness, to the point that the lethality of the virus appears very different from country to country. This difference in impact has led to different legal, economic and social consequences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document