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

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

Orcas, Dolphins, and Whales: non-human persons and animal rights

With few exceptions, most cultures put homo sapiens at the center or the apex of creation. Humans, it is generally believed, are distinguished from other animals by our self-awareness and our ability to use tools, to think, reason, and construct meaning and representations about life. The Abrahamic religious traditions are most notable in their anthropocentric vision of human purpose in creation; and although the metaphysics and teleology are sometimes challenged by advances in science and technology, the fact remains that human beings remain the paradigmatic case against which other animals or even artificial intelligence is measured. As a Muslim and a theist, I avow my belief in the unique status of humans; however, as someone who also believes in science and is keenly attuned to the environment, I have a great love for nature and the animal world, and a great desire to protect them.

It is with this, then, that I want to propose to put ethics before metaphysics in considering the moral status of what legal scholars and ethicists call “non-human persons.” In particular, I want to look at cetacean intelligence of orcas, dolphins, and whales to understand the way in which we might classify them as non-human persons which would be given certain rights and protections. Doing so, I argue, would enable us to collapse the bifurcations that influences much of Western thought thereby ushering in a more holistic, ecological and relational approach to ethics and being.

To begin with, I would like to make a distinction clear: I am not claiming that orcas, for example, are morally equivalent to humans, but I am suggesting that we ought to be more cautious with regard to understanding our place in the animal world as a whole, particularly as it relates to the precariousness of life itself. My argument below follows philosophical and ethical reasoning, though this might also be understood in the context of religious texts. The story of Yunus (aka Jonah) and the whale is found in both the Bible and the Qur’an. In short, Yunus felt discouraged that the people of Nineveh did not heed his call to worship God, and so he left in anger. Being cast into the sea, followed by being swallowed by the whale, was ostensibly punishment for his loss of hope and leaving the city without God’s permission; though on another level the exegetical scholars point to the fact of his supplication “O Lord! There is no god but you: Glory to you: I was indeed wrong” (Qur’an 21:87) as instructive of submitting to God’s will and the significance of humility. Indeed, the Qur’an goes on to say elsewhere: “Had he not been of those who exalt God, he would certainly have remained inside the whale until the Day of Resurrection.” (Qur’an 37:143-144). The whale, on this reading, is integral to the Abrahamic worldview insofar as it is the manifestation of God’s power and dominion over creation, as well as his lesson to human beings to remain humble. Read More