Parliament Hill, Ottawa, Canada.

The Canadian Response to COVID-19

By Vanessa Gruben

Like many other countries, different levels of government in Canada have adopted a wide range of measures in response to COVID-19. Many of the measures vary from province to province and municipality to municipality.

Canada is a federation composed of a federal government, three territorial governments (which operate with delegated federal authority), ten provincial governments, and thousands of municipal governments (which exercise powers delegated by the provinces).

Each level of government has distinct responsibilities under the Constitution Act, and each has used a variety of legal instruments including laws, regulations, executive orders, directives and by-laws, during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect public health. This brief overview offers a few examples of the legal instruments that have impacted individual civil liberties.

Read More

Paris, France.

COVID-19 in France: Health as a Constitutional Value and Limitations on Civil Liberties

By Stéphanie Dagron

This piece was written on May 13, 2020 amid a rapidly evolving situation. The post reflects the state of knowledge at the time of writing.

In France, a state of sanitary emergency was declared for a period of two months starting on March 23rd, 2020 in order to allow the authorities “to deal with the major health threat” created by SARS-Cov-2.

In many ways, this regime resembles the State of Emergency regime which currently exists in French law (Emergency Powers Law of April 3rd, 1955).  However, it seems the public authorities wished to instate, at least symbolically, a different regime from the ones imposed in times of terrorism or armed conflict.

Read More

COVID infodemic concept illustration.

Why Government Information Isn’t Curing the ‘Infodemic’

By Nancy Fairbank

Coronavirus misinformation is beating truth to the punch – hitting the public more quickly and directly. This “infodemic” anchors readers to its core messages and makes dislodging its falsehoods all the more difficult.

The consequences of misinformation are also heightened in a pandemic context, when accurate information is critical to ensuring cooperation with public health measures and acting on falsehoods can rapidly endanger countless lives. Governments trying to compete are faced with two (non-exclusive) options: (1) attempting to get out accurate information first and (2) employing strategies to evict misinformation that’s already filled the gaps before they could.

Read More

Copenhagen, Denmark.

How Denmark’s Epidemic Act Was Amended to Respond to COVID-19

By Janne Rothmar Herrmann

On March 12, 2020 the Danish Prime Minister informed the nation in a televised statement that she was effectively shutting down the country in response to COVID-19. She urged parents to keep their children home the next day, but gave schools, daycare centers, kindergartens, and all public employees two working days to shut down.

That same day Parliament passed an Act that made major changes in the Epidemic Act, which Denmark has had in force since 1915. The current Epidemic Act dates from 1979 and has been amended with minor revisions several times since then.

Read More

Amsterdam, Netherlands.

COVID-19, the Netherlands, and Human Rights: A Balancing Act

By Brigit Toebes

The Netherlands, a country with 17 million inhabitants, had its first COVID-19 hospitalizations in the beginning of March 2020. On March 16th, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced a range of measures aimed at “maximum control,” but not “maximum containment” of the virus: in other words, social distancing measures, but no full lockdown.

After an initial two-month closure, schools, sports clubs, bars and restaurants began gradually reopening after May 18th. All major events, however, remain cancelled until further notice.  According to the statistics, by May 22, over 11,000 people had been hospitalized and nearly 5,800 people had died.

Read More

Auckland, New Zealand.

New Zealand’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

By Paul Rishworth

On March 21st, 2020 New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced four “Alert Levels” in the fight to contain COVID-19.

The concept of “Alert Levels” had no specific legal basis; it denoted escalating restrictions to be imposed by a combination of exhortation and legal orders.  Level 2 was implemented that day, involving heightened border controls and a request that persons over 70 years old stay at home. Level 4 came four days later.

Read More

Covid 19 map confirmed cases reported worldwide globally.

Emerging Themes from the “Global Responses to COVID-19” Symposium

By Alicia Ely Yamin

The shape of the COVID-19 pandemic and legal responses to it are changing rapidly across different contexts.  Nonetheless, many of the issues raised in this global symposium will undoubtedly be the subject of scholarly and policy debates for the foreseeable future. Here I synthesize three emerging themes regarding structural challenges and democratic design.

Read More

Bogota, Colombia.

General Quarantine, Social Emergency, and Economic Crisis: COVID-19 in Colombia

By Isabel C. Jaramillo Sierra

The first case of COVID-19 diagnosed in Colombia was declared on March 6th. The first COVID-19-related death occurred on March 16.

Between the first known case and the first death in Colombia, the government took action to stop the spread of the disease. All of these decisions, insofar as they are considered part of ordinary police powers, will be reviewed by the State Council as to their legality. The State Council has decided to review 400 administrative acts that it has identified as related to the emergency.

Read More