covid and constitutional law

The COVID-19 pandemic swept the world in 2020 impelling us to reconsider the basic principles of constitutional law like the separation of power, the rule of law, human rights protection, etc. The two most pressing legal issues that have attracted the attention of legal scholars so far are, on the one hand, the different regulatory policies implemented by governments and, on the other, the balance among the branches of government in deciding matters of the emergency. The pandemic has determined a further and violent acceleration of the legislature's temporal dimension and the acknowledgement that, to make legislation quicker, parliament must permanently displace its legislative power in favour of government. Measures adopted to tackle the outbreak and recover from the interruption of economic and industrial businesses powerfully confirm that today our societies are more dependent on the executives than on parliaments and, from a temporal perspective, that the language of the law is substantially the present instead of the future. Against this background, this article discusses how the prevalence of governments' legislative power leads to the use of temporary and experimental legislation in a time, like the pandemic, when the issue of 'surviving' becomes dominant.

"The response to the Covid-19 health emergency in Muslim-majority countries: some comparative remarks"
The paper addresses some constitutional implications of state authorities' legal responses to the health emergency related to Covid-19 pandemic in Muslim-majority countries. In particular, two main keys of interpretation will be used in order to understand the political and constitutional dynamics at work in highly differentiated legal orders: on the one hand, the expansion of the Executive Power and the limitation of constitutional rights and safeguards; on the other hand, the implications of religion in the management of the crisis and the adoption of restrictive measures.

The response to the Covid-19 pandemic in federal and regional legal systems: a comparative overview.
In all federal and regional legal systems, the Covid-19 pandemic has put under pressure the relationship between levels of government, bringing out the fragility of the constitutional distribution of competences. But which legal systems responded better to the crisis, revealing a stronger resiliency? This paper addresses this issue through a comparative analysis of the responses given to pandemic by some of the main federal or regional legal systems. The outcome of this research is that what made a real difference between success and failure was the capacity of the various parties involved in the emergency management to put aside competition and embrace cooperation.

Não estamos face a conflitos sociais e técnicas de controle moldadas em razão das nossas próprias opções. O coronavírus foge aos nossos domínios. Enfrentamos inimigo oculto. Se a racionalidade humana, aí incluída a razão jurídica, é limitada para domar problemas complexos gerados pelos homens, o que dizer das respostas a problemas ainda desconhecidos, criados pelo ambiente e que, possivelmente, sequer decorram de escolhas sociais deliberadas?

COVID-19 became a stress-test for many legal systems because it required that a balance be found between rapid action to prevent the spread of the disease, and continued respect for human rights. Many states in Europe, including Ukraine, chose to enforce an obligation to self-isolate. In this article we review what the obligation to self-isolate entails in the case of Ukraine. We also analyse whether such an obligation should be viewed as a deprivation or a mere restriction of liberty, and if it is permissible under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.