The COVID-19 pandemic is not just a health or economic crisis, or even a balancing act between the two. It is also a crisis for the legitimacy of democratic institutions and the rule of law, which in many countries were already frayed by growing autocracy and staggering social inequalities. This symposium provides an overview of the range of legal measures taken so far in dozens of countries and seeks to highlight the complex relationship between the well-being of the population and the functioning of democratic institutions when examining the justification and quality of legal action. The “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to most international legal and political regimes, the long-term consequences of which we cannot yet predict. The legal and institutional system for preventing and controlling the international spread of diseases, based on the World Health Organization and the International Health Regulations (its 2005), has also been severely tested. Critics have questioned the apparent politicization of the WHO and the ineffectiveness of the IHR in 2005 as a tool for coordinating the international response to Covid-19. IG 2005 codified the WHO Secretariat`s business model at the time of its revision, but assumptions about epistemic authority and the willingness of States Parties to adapt to WHO`s leadership proved too optimistic. Nevertheless, addressing some of the main weaknesses of 2005 could give them new impetus and encourage States to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner to epidemics. Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance ActAn external symbol, the president can declare an emergency at the request of the governor of an affected state or an executive chief of an affected Indian tribe. The president may also declare a state of emergency without a request from the governor if the primary responsibility for the response rests with the federal government to provide the expedited federal assistance and support needed. During a pandemic, certain jurisdictional bodies, external symbols, policies, and regulations may apply and serve as the basis for the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) response. After its launch on May 12, 2020, the symposium will take place every Monday and Thursday for about a month as a series on the health project. When the entries are published, they will fill in the interactive map above. In addition to analyses of individual countries, I will write a series of articles that synthesize key themes across contexts. Although the United States is not part of the official symposium, we include links to health law documents on various legal and policy issues involved in the notoriously chaotic federal response, as well as different situations in the states. The Public Health Services Act (PHS) forms the basis of HHS`s legal authority to respond to public emergencies by empowering the HHS Secretary to take important actions, such as: directing all federal public health and medical efforts, declaring a public health emergency, assisting states in responding to health emergencies, maintain the strategic national stockpile and control communicable diseases. The PHS Act was amended by the Pandemic Preparedness and All Hazards Act (PAHPA) of 2006external icon and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Reauthorization Act of 2013external icon. We will continually update this page with the responses received. Browse the full list of submissions below or click on the interactive map above to read the individual entries. 37. Allen R. Taming Complexity: Rationality, Law of Evidence and the Nature of the Legal System.

Risk of probability of law. (2013) 12:99-113. DOI: 10.1093/LPR/MGS008 33. General design principles for resilience and adaptability in legal systems – with applications for climate change adaptation. (2011) 89:1373–401. Available online at: 19 Jamieson T. “Go hard, go early”: preliminary lessons from New Zealand`s response to COVID-19. Am Rev Public Adm. (2020) 50:598-605.

doi: 10.1177/0275074020941721 2. Teichman D, Underhill K. Infected by bias: behavioral science and the legal response to COVID-19. At J Law Med. Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research. (2020). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3691822 6. Ruhl JB, Katz D.

Measuring, monitoring and managing legal complexity. Iowa Law Rev. (2015) 101: 191-244. Available online at: Under Section 361 of the PHS Act, the Secretary of HHS has the authority to take action to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from abroad within the United States and between states. The authority to perform these tasks on a daily basis is delegated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Global Migration and Quarantine. For more information on regulatory authorities for isolation and quarantine, visit the CDC`s Quarantine and Isolation website. 4. Ruhl JB. The theory of complexity as a paradigm for the dynamic legal and social system: a wake-up call for legal reductionism and the modern administrative state. Duke Law J. (1996) 45:849-928. doi: 10.2307/1372975 An EEA declaration can only be made if certain legal criteria are met and there is scientific evidence to support its emergency response.