States of Emergency, Simultaneous Overreach and Underreach and the COVID-19 Pan(dem)ic

IF 1.8 Q1 LAW European Journal of Risk Regulation Pub Date : 2023-12-13 DOI:10.1017/err.2023.82
Max Steuer
{"title":"States of Emergency, Simultaneous Overreach and Underreach and the COVID-19 Pan(dem)ic","authors":"Max Steuer","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.82","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research has neglected how repeated declarations of states of emergency (SsoE) in response to the same emergency may combine with executive overreach and underreach within a single jurisdiction, undermining the authority of the SsoE as a legal institution and increasing the vulnerability of the constitutional system as a result. This article examines how decision-makers’ commitment to a culture of justification is central to avoiding emergency mismanagement via underreach, overreach or their combination. The simultaneous instances of executive overreach and underreach as emergency management failures are studied via the Slovak case, which was celebrated for its initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic but castigated for its failure to contain the subsequent waves. The analysis of the legal framework of the SsoE and the justifications for SsoE declarations uncovers the lack of justifications for the patterns of simultaneous executive underreach and overreach, underscoring the elusiveness of these categories. The limited justifications for the decisions demonstrated by the “government in panic” point to the undermining of the SsoE as a legal institution. The article concludes with highlighting how leaders’ role conceptions as democratic emergency managers might be necessary to sustain the authority of the SsoE.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.82","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research has neglected how repeated declarations of states of emergency (SsoE) in response to the same emergency may combine with executive overreach and underreach within a single jurisdiction, undermining the authority of the SsoE as a legal institution and increasing the vulnerability of the constitutional system as a result. This article examines how decision-makers’ commitment to a culture of justification is central to avoiding emergency mismanagement via underreach, overreach or their combination. The simultaneous instances of executive overreach and underreach as emergency management failures are studied via the Slovak case, which was celebrated for its initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic but castigated for its failure to contain the subsequent waves. The analysis of the legal framework of the SsoE and the justifications for SsoE declarations uncovers the lack of justifications for the patterns of simultaneous executive underreach and overreach, underscoring the elusiveness of these categories. The limited justifications for the decisions demonstrated by the “government in panic” point to the undermining of the SsoE as a legal institution. The article concludes with highlighting how leaders’ role conceptions as democratic emergency managers might be necessary to sustain the authority of the SsoE.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
紧急状态、同时过度和不足以及 COVID-19 Pan(dem) ic
以往的研究忽视了为应对同一紧急情况而反复宣布紧急状态(SsoE)如何在单一管辖范围内与行政越权和执法不足相结合,从而削弱紧急状态作为法律制度的权威,并因此增加宪法制度的脆弱性。本文探讨了决策者对合理性文化的承诺如何成为避免紧急情况管理不善的核心,从而避免 "越权"、"越位 "或两者的结合。斯洛伐克因其对 COVID-19 大流行病的最初反应而备受赞誉,但却因其未能控制随后的疫情而备受指责。对 SsoE 法律框架和 SsoE 声明理由的分析揭示了行政部门同时存在的 "不作为 "和 "过度作为 "模式缺乏正当理由,突出了这些类别的不确定性。慌乱中的政府 "所展示的决策理由有限,这表明作为法律机构的 SsoE 遭到了破坏。文章最后强调了领导者作为民主应急管理者的角色概念对于维持 SsoE 的权威性的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: European Journal of Risk Regulation is an interdisciplinary forum bringing together legal practitioners, academics, risk analysts and policymakers in a dialogue on how risks to individuals’ health, safety and the environment are regulated across policy domains globally. The journal’s wide scope encourages exploration of public health, safety and environmental aspects of pharmaceuticals, food and other consumer products alongside a wider interpretation of risk, which includes financial regulation, technology-related risks, natural disasters and terrorism.
期刊最新文献
Management and Enforcement Theories for Compliance with the Rule of Law A Robust Governance for the AI Act: AI Office, AI Board, Scientific Panel, and National Authorities Standards for Including Scientific Evidence in Restrictions on Freedom of Movement: The Case of EU Covid Certificates Scheme Collaborative Governance Structures for Interoperability in the EU’s new data acts Dangerous Legacy of Food Contact Materials on the EU Market: Recall of Products Containing PFAS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1