Hubbry Logo
State of emergencyState of emergencyMain
Open search
State of emergency
Community hub
State of emergency
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
State of emergency
State of emergency
from Wikipedia

Members of the Royal Malay Regiment during the Malayan Emergency in 1949, inspecting equipment captured in a raid

A state of emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to put through policies that it would normally not be permitted to do, for the safety and protection of its citizens. A government can declare such a state before, during, or after a natural disaster, civil unrest, armed conflict, medical pandemic or epidemic or other biosecurity risk, although, the declaration is not influenced by these events.

Relationship with international law

[edit]

Under international law, rights and freedoms may be suspended during a state of emergency, depending on the severity of the emergency and a government's policies.[1]

Use and viewpoints

[edit]

Democracies use states of emergency to manage a range of situations from extreme weather events to public order situations. Dictatorial regimes often declare a state of emergency that is prolonged indefinitely for the life of the regime, or for extended periods of time so that derogations can be used to override human rights of their citizens usually protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[2] In some situations, martial law is also declared, allowing the military greater authority to act. In other situations, emergency is not declared and de facto measures taken or decree-law adopted by the government. Nicole Questiaux (France) and Leandro Despouy (Argentina), two consecutive United Nations Special Rapporteurs, have recommended to the international community to adopt the following "principles" to be observed during a state or de facto situation of emergency: Principles of Legality, Proclamation, Notification, Time Limitation, Exceptional Threat, Proportionality, Non-Discrimination, Compatibility, Concordance and Complementarity of the Various Norms of International Law (cf. "Question of Human Rights and State of Emergency", E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/19, at Chapter II; see also état d'exception).

Article 4 to the ICCPR, permits states to derogate from certain rights guaranteed by the ICCPR in "time of public emergency". Any measures derogating from obligations under the Covenant, however, must be to only the extent required by the exigencies of the situation, and must be announced by the State Party to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The European Convention on Human Rights[3] and American Convention on Human Rights[4] have similar derogatory provisions. No derogation is permitted to the International Labour Conventions.

Some, such as political theorist and Nazi Party member Carl Schmitt, have argued that the power to decide the initiation of the state of emergency defines sovereignty itself. In State of Exception (2005), Giorgio Agamben criticized this idea, arguing that the mechanism of the state of emergency deprives certain people of their civil and political rights, producing his interpretation of homo sacer.[5]

Graduation

[edit]

In many democratic states there are a selection of legal definitions for specific states of emergency,[6] when the constitution of the State is partially in abeyance depending on the nature of the perceived threat to the general public. In order of severity these may include:

Abuse

[edit]

The state of emergency can be abused by being invoked. An example would be to allow a state to suppress internal opposition without having to respect human rights. An example was the August 1991 attempted coup in the Soviet Union (USSR) where the coup leaders invoked a state of emergency; the failure of the coup led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Derogations by states having ratified or acceded to binding international agreements such as the ICCPR, the American and European Conventions on Human Rights and the International Labor Conventions are monitored by independent expert committees, regional Courts and other State Parties.[7]

Law in selected countries

[edit]

Albania

[edit]

The Constitution of Albania grants only the Parliament of Albania the power to declare a state of emergency, based on the advice of the government. The state of emergency can last for up to 60 days, and may be extended by the parliament for no more than 90 days.[citation needed]

The Albanian Armed Forces are only permitted to intervene if the civil police have been unable to restore order. During a state of emergency, articles 15 (inviolability of constitutional rights), 18 (equality before the law), 19 (right to citizenship), 20 (protection of minority rights), 21 (right to life), 24 (freedom of conscience and religion), 25 (right to not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment), 29 (prohibition of ex post facto law), 30 (innocence before being proven guilty), 32 (rights during a criminal proceeding[8]), 32 (self-incrimination), 34 (double jeopardy), 39.1 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals), 41 (right to property and related rights), 42 (due process clause), 43 (right to appeal), 48 (right to complain to public bodies), 54 (special protection of children, pregnant women, and new mothers), and 55 (right to healthcare from the state and equality of health services) of the constitution may not be limited.

If a natural disaster is declared, articles 37 (inviolability of the residence), 38 (right to choose residence), 41.4 (right to fair compensation for expropriation), 49 (right to freely choose your profession), 51 (right to strike) may be limited. The state of a natural disaster is distinct from that of a national emergency.

During a state of emergency, the parliament may not be dissolved, a new president may not be elected, elections for local government bodies or referendums may not be held, and the Constitution, the electoral code, and the extraordinary measures law may not be changed. The constitution requires proportionality with regards to the level of risk and requires the government to work to re-establish the conditions for the normal functioning of the state as soon as possible.

Argentina

[edit]

The Constitution of Argentina, which has been amended several times, has always allowed for a state of emergency (literally estado de sitio, "state of siege"), to be declared if the constitution or the authorities it creates are endangered by internal unrest or foreign attack. This provision was much abused during dictatorships, with long-lasting states of siege giving the government a free hand to suppress opposition.[9] The American Convention on Human Rights (Pacto de San José de Costa Rica), adopted in 1969 but ratified by Argentina only in 1984 immediately after the end of the National Reorganization Process, restricts abuse of the state of emergency by requiring any signatory nation declaring such a state to inform the other signatories of its circumstances and duration, and what rights are affected.

Australia

[edit]

State-of-emergency legislation differs in each state of Australia. With regard to emergency management, regions (usually on a local government area basis) that have been affected by a natural disaster are the responsibility of the state, until that state declares a State of Emergency where access to the Federal Emergency Fund becomes available to help respond to and recover from natural disasters. A State of Emergency does not apply to the whole state, but rather districts or shires, where essential services may have been disrupted.[10]

On 18 March 2020,[11] a nationwide human biosecurity emergency was declared in Australia owing to the risks to human health posed by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, after the National Security Committee met the previous day. The Biosecurity Act 2015[12] specifies that the governor-general of Australia may declare such an emergency if the Health Minister is satisfied that "a listed human disease is posing a severe and immediate threat, or is causing harm, to human health on a nationally significant scale". This gives the Minister sweeping powers, including imposing restrictions or preventing the movement of people and goods between specified places, and evacuations.[13] The Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Declaration 2020 was declared by the Governor-General, David Hurley, under Section 475 of the Act.[11]

New South Wales

[edit]

In New South Wales, the NSW Premier can, pursuant to the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989, declare a state of emergency due to an actual or imminent occurrence (such as fire, flood, storm, earthquake, explosion, terrorist act, accident, epidemic or warlike action) which endangers, or threatens to endanger, the safety or health of persons or animals in the State, or destroys or damages, or threatens to destroy or damage, property in the State, or causes a failure of, or a significant disruption to, an essential service or infrastructure.[14] The Premier declared a state of emergency on 11 November 2019 in response to the 2019–2020 New South Wales bushfires. It was the fifth time that a state of emergency had been declared in that state since 2006 and it lasted for seven days. Subsequent declarations were made on 19 December for a further seven days, and again on 2 January 2020. In NSW, the 2019–2020 bushfire season resulted in 26 deaths, destroyed 2,448 homes, and burnt 5.5 million hectares (14 million acres).[15][16]

Victoria

[edit]

In Victoria, the Victorian Premier can declare a state of emergency under the Public Safety Preservation Act 1958[17] if there is a threat to employment, safety or public order.[18] A declared state of emergency allows the Premier to immediately make any desired regulations to secure public order and safety. The declaration expires after 30 days, and a resolution of either the upper or lower House of Parliament may revoke it earlier. However, these regulations expire if Parliament does not agree to continue them within seven days.

The Premier (or a delegate) may operate or prohibit operation of any essential service, such as transport, fuel, power, water or gas, under the Essential Services Act 1958.[19][20]

If there is an emergency which the Premier, after considering the advice of the relevant Minister and the Emergency Management Commissioner, is satisfied constitutes or is likely to constitute a significant and widespread danger to life or property in Victoria, the Premier, pursuant to the Emergency Management Act 1986, may declare a state of disaster to exist in the whole or in any part or parts of the State.[21] The state of disaster addresses matters beyond public health issues and is intended to deal with emergencies such as natural disasters, explosions, terrorism or sieges, and it can also be used to deal with 'a plague or an epidemic'.[22]

The Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 gives the Chief Health Officer extensive powers to take action 'to investigate, eliminate or reduce public health risks', including power to detain, restrict the movement of or prevent entry of any person in the emergency area, "and to give any other direction that the authorized officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health."[23]

Brazil

[edit]

The current constitution of Brazil[24] allows the president to declare two states, in order to "preserve or establish peace and order, threatened by grave and imminent institutional instability or severe natural disasters". The first, and less severe state is the state of defense (estado de defesa), while a more severe form is the state of siege (estado de sítio).

In a state of defense, the federal government can occupy and use any public building or demand any service as it sees fit. It may suppress secrecy of correspondence and freedom of assembly as necessary, as long as it specifies a defined region and time period. If the president finds this insufficient, he or she may decree a state of siege, which further reduces civil liberties, removing freedom of movement, allowing for search without consent or warrant, and seizure of any assets the government deems necessary. The government may also intervene and direct the function of any company. If a state of siege is declared, the National Congress of Brazil is required to convene and approve the declaration in ten days or it is automatically cancelled. The state of siege is also subject to renewal by the Congress after a thirty-day period, unless it was raised as response to a war, in which case the government is free to set it to last until the end of said war.

Since the end of the military dictatorship in 1985, and the formation of the sixth Brazilian Republic, neither state has ever been raised.[clarification needed]

Brunei

[edit]

The 1959 constitution allows the Sultan of Brunei to declare a state of emergency at the national or local level. The sultan may extend the state of emergency after a two-year period or cancel it altogether.[25]

Under emergency rule, the sultan can proclaim royal decrees, known as Orders, which have the force of law and can affect wide-ranging domains such as censorship, freedom of movement, finance, and modification of legislation. These Orders are then subject to review by the Legislative Council, which may promulgate them into law as Acts through the normal legislative process.[25][26] Some Acts are typically overridden by new Orders from the sultan.[26]

The current state of emergency in Brunei predates its history as an independent state, having been invoked by Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddien III on 12 December 1962, when Brunei was still a British protectorate, in response to the Brunei revolt which was later put down with British assistance.[27] Because the rebellion came to be associated with derhaka (treachery against the Sultan) by the sultanate, it has not lifted the state of emergency nor has it reinstated the elected Legislative Council which was dissolved shortly after emergency rule was proclaimed.[28][26] The state of emergency has also restricted many civil liberties.[29]

Canada

[edit]

The federal government of Canada can use the Emergencies Act to invoke a state of emergency. A national state of emergency automatically expires after 90 days, unless extended by the Governor-in-Council.[30] There are different levels of emergencies: Public Welfare Emergency, Public Order Emergency, International Emergency, and War Emergency.[31]

The Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act in 1988. The War Measures Act was invoked three times in Canadian history, most controversially by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau during the 1970 October Crisis, and also by Prime Minister Robert Borden during World War I (from 1914 to 1920, against threat of Communism during the Revolutions of 1917–1923) and by Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King during World War II (from 1942 to 1945, against perceived threat from Japanese Canadians following Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor).

Under the current Emergency Act a state of emergency can also be declared by provincial, territorial, and municipal governments.[32] In addition Canada's federal government and any of its provincial governments can suspend, for five years at a time, Charter rights to fundamental freedoms in section 2, to legal rights in sections 7 through 14, and to equality rights in section 15 by legislation which invokes the notwithstanding clause, section 33, and therefore emergency powers can effectively be created even without using the Emergency Act.

The first usage of the Emergencies Act was invoked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on 14 February 2022 in response to the Freedom Convoy 2022 protests that occupied the capital of Ottawa. The Canadian House of Commons voted to approve the invocation 185–151 with support from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party and opposition from the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois.[33] Prime Minister Trudeau previously considered invoking it at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020, but faced unanimous disapproval from all thirteen provincial and territorial premiers at the Council of the Federation.[34][35]

Egypt

[edit]

States of emergency in Egypt are governed by Law 1958/162.[36] The law grants greater powers to the police, suspends some constitutional rights and legalizes media censorship and state detention of individuals, who may be tried before military courts created under emergency rule.[37][38]

Since the proclamation of the republican system in 1953, Egyptians have lived under four successive periods of emergency rule lasting more than a year: 1956–1964, 1967–1980, 1981–2012 and 2017–2021.[38][39] The emergency law received widespread criticism during the presidency of Hosni Mubarak, when thousands of civilians were detained under the law according to human rights groups, with estimates of political prisoners running as high as 30,000.[40][41]

Ethiopia

[edit]

Article 93 of the Constitution of Ethiopia provides for a six-month state of emergency under certain conditions.[42]

Finland

[edit]

The Finnish Government, in cooperation with the President of Finland, may declare a state of emergency in Finland, after which it is possible to apply the provisions of the Emergency Powers and Defence Act. A state of emergency may only be declared when all other legislative means have been exhausted.[43]

According to an earlier law, passed in 1930, Finland could be declared a state of war if necessary.[44] Under this law, Finland was declared a state of war on 30 November 1939, after the start of the Winter War, and the state of war continued until 26 September 1947.[45]

The most recent state of emergency was declared during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when the Marin cabinet invoked a state of emergency in Finland to alleviate the epidemic.[46] These measures included, among other things, isolating the Uusimaa region from the rest of Finland.[47][48][49]

France

[edit]
Police stationed in Paris during a state of emergency, November 2015

Three main provisions concern various kinds of "state of emergency" in France: Article 16 of the Constitution of 1958 allows, in time of crisis, "extraordinary powers" to be used by the president. Article 36 of the same constitution regulates a "state of siege" (état de siège). Finally, the Act of 3 April 1955 allows the proclamation, by the Council of Ministers, of a "state of emergency" (état d'urgence).[50] The distinction between article 16 and the 1955 Act concerns mainly the distribution of powers: whereas in article 16, the executive power overturns the regular procedures of the Republic, the 1955 Act permits a twelve-day state of emergency, after which a new law extending the emergency must be voted by the Parliament of France. These dispositions have been used at various times: three times during the Algerian War (in 1955, 1958 and 1961), in 1984 during violent pro-independence revolts in New Caledonia, during the 2005 riots, following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, and during the 2024 unrest in New Caledonia.

Germany

[edit]

The Weimar Constitution (1919–1933)[51] allowed states of emergency under Article 48 to deal with rebellions. Article 48 was often invoked during the 14-year life of the Weimar Republic, sometimes for no reason other than to allow the government to act when it was unable to obtain a parliamentary majority.

After 27 February 1933, Reichstag fire, an attack blamed on the communists, Adolf Hitler declared a state of emergency using Article 48, and then had President Paul von Hindenburg sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended some of the basic civil liberties provided by the Weimar Constitution (such as habeas corpus, freedom of expression, freedom of the speech, the freedom to assemble or the privacy of communications) for the whole duration of the Third Reich.[52] On 23 March, the Reichstag enacted the Enabling Act of 1933 with the required two-thirds majority, which enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without legislative participation. The Weimar Constitution was never actually repealed by Nazi Germany, but it effectively became inoperable after the passage of the Enabling Act.[53] These two laws implemented the Gleichschaltung, the Nazis' institution of totalitarianism.

In the postwar Federal Republic of Germany the Emergency Acts state that some of the basic constitutional rights of the Basic Law may be limited in case of a State of Defence, a state of tension, or an internal state of emergency or disaster (catastrophe). These amendments to the constitution were passed on 30 May 1968, despite fierce opposition by the so-called extra-parliamentary opposition (see German student movement for details).

Hong Kong (China)

[edit]

During a state of war or turmoil which threatens national security or unity, and which the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress believes is beyond the control of the local government, the Standing Committee can invoke Article 18 of the Hong Kong Basic Law and declare a "State of Emergency" in Hong Kong; thus, the Central People's Government can selectively implement national laws not normally allowed in Hong Kong.[54] Deployment of troops from the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison under the "Law of the People's Republic of China on Garrisoning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" can happen.[55]

The Chief Executive of Hong Kong along with the Executive Council can prohibit public gatherings, issue curfew orders, prohibit the movement of vessels or aircraft, delegate authority, and other listed powers, under "Cap. 245 Public Order Ordinance".[56]

Although the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison may not interfere in internal Hong Kong affairs, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government may invoke Article 14 of the Hong Kong Basic Law and request permission of the Central People's Government to have the garrison assist in "maintenance of public order or disaster relief".[54]

Since 1997, a State of Emergency has never been declared. However, emergency measures have been used in varying degrees over the years during British rule and after the establishment of the Special Administrative Region. A few notable mentions are as follow:

On 4 October 2019, Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong S.A.R., invoked Section 2(1) of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance[57] implemented since 1922 and last amended by the Legislative Council in 1999, which allow the government to implement the new, Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation.[58] The new regulation forbid public assembly participants from wearing masks or obscure faces during such events without reasonable excuses. The permitted excuses are: pre-existing medical or health reasons, religious reasons, and if the person uses the face covering for physical safety while performing an activity connected with their profession or employment. Any person defying the new regulation face possible criminal prosecution. The government's motive in doing so is to end months of social unrest and riots, however, did not declare a "State of Emergency". The new regulation took effect at 00:00 HKT on 5 October 2019.[59] Offenders risked a maximum of one-year imprisonment or a fine of HK$25,000 (US$3,200).[60]

The High Court of Hong Kong denied an application for a judicial injunction of the anti-mask law, on the same night shortly before the new regulation took effect. A subsequent attempt by pro-democrats to halt the new regulation also failed, however, the court recommended a judicial review at a later date.[61]

On 18 November 2019, the High Court ruled the "Cap. 241 Emergency Regulations Ordinance" is "incompatible with the Basic Law", however, the court "leaves open the question of the constitutionality of the ERO insofar as it relates to any occasion of emergency." The court also held the ordinance meets the "prescribed by law" requirement. However, the court deemed s3(1)(b), (c), (d) and s5 of the regulation do not meet the proportionality test as they impose restrictions on fundamental rights that goes beyond what is necessary in furthering its intended goals.[62]

On 22 November 2019, the High Court made the following remark:

Nevertheless, we recognize that our Judgment is only a judgment at first instance, and will soon be subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal. In view of the great public importance of the issues raised in this case, and the highly exceptional circumstances that Hong Kong is currently facing, we consider it right that we should grant a short interim suspension order so that the respondents may have an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeal, if so advised, for such interim relief as may be appropriate. Accordingly, we shall grant an interim temporary suspension order to postpone the coming into operation of the declarations of invalidity for a period of 7 days up to the end of 29 November 2019, with liberty to apply.[63][64]

On 26 November 2019, the High Court announced hearing for the government appeal against the judgement is on 9 January 2020.[65]

On 27 November 2019, the Court of Appeal extended the interim suspension of the judgment until 10 December 2019.[66][67]

On 10 December 2019, the Court of Appeal refused to suspend the "unconstitutional" ruling by the Court of First Instance on the anti-mask regulation. As scheduled, a full hearing will commence on 9 January 2020.[68][69][70]

On 21 December 2020, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that the prohibition on the use of face coverings at public gatherings, regardless of legality, was constitutional.[71]

Hungary

[edit]

According to the Hungarian Constitution, the National Assembly of Hungary can declare state of emergency in case of armed rebellion or natural or industrial disaster. It expires after 30 days, but can be extended. Most civil rights can be suspended, but basic human rights (such as the right to life, the ban of torture, and freedom of religion) cannot.

During state of emergency, the Parliament cannot be disbanded.

Iceland

[edit]

The Icelandic constitution provides no mechanism for the declaration of war, martial law nor state of emergency.[citation needed]

India

[edit]

The State of Emergency can be proclaimed by the President of India, when they perceive grave threats to the nation, albeit through the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. Part XVIII of the Constitution of India gives the President the power to overrule many provisions, including the ones guaranteeing fundamental rights to the citizens of India

In India, a state of emergency was declared twice:

  1. Between 26 October 1962 to 10 January 1968 during the Sino-Indian War—the security of India having been declared "threatened by external aggression".[72]
  2. Between 3 December 1971 to 21 March 1977 originally proclaimed during the Indo-Pakistani War, and later extended on 25 June 1975, along with the third proclamation—the security of India having been declared "threatened by external aggression" and by "internal disturbances".

The first internal State of Emergency, popularly known as the Emergency, was declared by the then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed on advice of then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. The provisions of the Constitution allows the Prime Minister to rule by decree.

Ireland

[edit]

In Ireland declaring a state of "national emergency" involves Article 28.3.3° of the 1937 Constitution of Ireland, which states that:[73]

Nothing in this Constitution [...] shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas [parliament] which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in pursuance of any such law.

In addition, during a "war or armed rebellion", military tribunals may try civilians,[74] and the Defence Forces are not bound by habeas corpus.[75]

The First Amendment of the Constitution of 1939 allows an emergency to be declared during wars in which the state is a non-belligerent, subject to resolutions by the houses of the Oireachtas.[76] By the 2nd Amendment of 1941, an emergency ends, not automatically when the war does, but only by Oireachtas resolutions.[77] The 21st Amendment of 2002 prevents the reintroduction of capital punishment during an emergency.[78]

The first amendment was rushed through the Oireachtas after the outbreak of the Second World War, in which the state remained neutral. Immediately after, the required resolution was passed, in turn enabling the passage of the Emergency Powers Act 1939 (EPA), which granted the government and its ministers sweeping powers to issue statutory orders termed "Emergency Powers Orders" (EPOs).[79][80] (The period in Ireland was and is referred to as "The Emergency".) The EPA expired in 1946, although some EPOs were continued under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act 1946 until as late as 1957.[81][82] Rationing continued until 1951.

The 1939 state of emergency was not formally ended until a 1976 resolution, which also declared a new state of emergency in relation to the Troubles in Northern Ireland and in particular the recent assassination of the British ambassador to Ireland, Christopher Ewart Biggs.[83] The Emergency Powers Act 1976 was then passed to increase the Garda Síochána powers to arrest, detain, and question those suspected of offences against the state.[84] President Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh referred the bill under Article 26 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, which upheld its constitutionality.[85] The referral was condemned by minister Paddy Donegan as a "thundering disgrace", causing Ó Dálaigh to resign in protest. The 1976 EPA expired after one year, but the state of emergency persisted until 1995, when as part of the Northern Ireland peace process it was rescinded as a "confidence building measure" to satisfy physical force republicans after the Provisional IRA's 1994 ceasefire.[86]

The Offences against the State Act does not require a state of emergency under Article 28.3.3°.[87][88] Part V of the Act, which provides for a non-jury Special Criminal Court (SCC), is permitted under Article 38.3.1°.[89][90] Part V is activated by a declaration from the government that it is "necessary to secure the preservation of public peace and order", and it can be rescinded by vote of Dáil Éireann. Provision for internment is similarly activated and rescinded (originally by Part VI of the 1939 act, later by Part II of a 1940 amending act).[87][91][92] Parts V and VI were both activated during the Second World War and the IRA's late 1950s Border Campaign; Part V has been continually active since 1972.[93][94]

Several official reviews of the Constitution and the Offences Against the State Acts have recommended a time limit within which the operation of Article 28.3.3° or Article 38.3.1° must either be explicitly renewed by resolution or else lapse.[95][96][97]

Israel

[edit]

The Israeli state of emergency, as authorized by the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, is older than the state itself, having been passed under the British Mandate for Palestine in 1945. The regulations were incorporated into domestic law following the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948. A repeal was briefly considered in 1967 but cancelled following the Six-Day War. The regulations allow Israel, through its military, to control movements and prosecute suspected terrorists in occupied territories, and to censor publications that are deemed prejudicial to national defense.[citation needed]

Italy

[edit]

In Italy, the state of emergency planned by the legal system is implemented by the Council of Ministers, without the need of a parliamentary vote, due to the Law n. 225 of 1992 on Civil Protection.[98] Moreover, the Article 120 of the Constitution provides that the government can exercise "substitute powers" of local authorities in typically situations: to protect the legal or economic unity of the state, in case of violation of supranational laws and to face a serious danger for safety and public safety.[99] For other emergency, such as a war, a parliamentary vote is required to give extraordinary powers to the government.[100]

The Parliament of Italy can also give extraordinary powers to the government in case of health emergency, as it occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when the Parliament approved a state of emergency from 31 January 2020 to 31 December 2021, thanks to what the government can implement administrative acts, without the approval of the Parliament.[101]

Macau (China)

[edit]

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress can declare a state of emergency and deploy troops from the People's Liberation Army Macau Garrison under the Article 14 of Macau's Basic Law on the defence of the Macau Special Administrative Region.

Since the handover of Macau in 1999, no emergency measure have been enacted. Prior to 1999, emergency measures were used for the 12-3 incident (1966), with martial law being invoked and the involvement of Portuguese troops.

Malaysia

[edit]

In Malaysia, if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King) is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency making therein a declaration to that effect.[102]

A state of emergency was declared by the then-colonial government of Britain from 1948 until 1960 to deal with an insurgency of communists led by Chin Peng.

States of emergency were also declared during the Konfrontasi in 1962, the 1966 Sarawak constitutional crisis and the 1977 Kelantan Emergency.

When a race riot broke out on 13 May 1969, a state of emergency was declared.

Amid severe haze on 11 August 2005, a state of emergency was announced for the world's 13th-largest port, Port Klang and the district of Kuala Selangor after air pollution there reached dangerous levels (defined as a value greater than 500 on the Air Pollution Index or API).

Thierry Rommel, the European Commission's envoy to Malaysia, told Reuters by telephone on 13 November 2007 (the last day of his mission) that, "Today, this country still lives under (a state of) emergency."[103] Although not officially proclaimed as a state of emergency, the Emergency Ordinance and the Internal Security Act had allowed detention for years without trial.

On 23 June 2013, a state of emergency was declared by Prime Minister Najib Razak for Muar and Ledang, Johor as severe Southeast Asian haze that pushed the air pollution index to above 750. This was the first time in years that air quality had dipped to a hazardous level with conditions worsening as dry weather persisted and fires raged in Sumatra.[104]

On 12 January 2021, a nationwide state of emergency was declared by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Abdullah of Pahang in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia, at the request of Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. The state of emergency is planned to end on 1 August 2021. The declaration included the suspension of parliament and elections, and came amid political instability.[105] On 25 February 2021, Yang di-Pertuan Agong announced that the parliament can be convened during the state of emergency.[106][needs update]

Maldives

[edit]

A state of emergency was declared on 26 December 2004, following the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami. The resulting tsunamis caused extensive damage to the country's infrastructure, cutting off communications from large swathes of the nation, decimating islands and forcing the closure of a number of resorts due to the damage.

On 5 February 2018, a state of emergency was declared by Maldives's President Abdulla Yameen for 15 days and ordered security forces into the Supreme Court of the Maldives and arrested former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and the Chief Justice of the Maldives.[107]

New Zealand

[edit]

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 gives the New Zealand Government and local-body councils the power to issue a state of emergency, either over the entire country or within a specific region.[108] This may suspend ordinary work and essential services if need be. States of emergency in New Zealand expire on the commencement of the seventh day after the date of a declaration unless extended. However, the Minister of Civil Defence or a local mayor may lift a state of emergency after an initial review of a region's status.

  • In 1951, the First National Government issued emergency regulations in response to that year's waterfront dispute.[109]
  • On 23 February 2011 at 11.28 am the Minister of Civil Defence John Carter declared the first state of national emergency (for a civil-defence emergency) in New Zealand's history in response to the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake.[110] A local state of emergency was declared by mayors of Christchurch City, Selwyn District and Waimakariri District following 4 September 2010 Canterbury earthquake.[111]
  • On 25 March 2020 at 12.21 pm, the Minister for Civil Defense Peeni Henare declared a state of national emergency in response to the total cases of COVID-19 reaching 205. Combined with an epidemic notice issued under the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006, the state of emergency declaration enabled authorities to close most premises in New Zealand and enforce a nationwide lockdown. This also provided access to special powers to combat COVID-19, including powers of requisition and closing roads and restricting movement. Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management Sarah Stuart-Black said these powers sat alongside other powers to ensure essential services could stay up and running.[112] The state of national emergency was renewed four times, to last for a total of five weeks.[113]
  • On 14 February 2023 at 8:43 am, the Minister for Civil Defense Kieran McAnulty declared a state of national emergency in response to Cyclone Gabrielle reaching New Zealand and causing flooding and evacuations.[114][115]

Nigeria

[edit]

In Nigeria, a state of emergency is usually declared in times of great civil unrest. In recent years, it has specifically been implemented in reaction to terrorist attacks on Nigerians by the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram.

On 14 May 2013, Goodluck Jonathan declared a state of emergency for the entire northeastern states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa.[116] A more limited state of emergency had been declared on 31 December 2011 in parts of Yobe, Borno, Plateau and Niger states. This earlier declaration included the temporary shutdown of the international borders in those regions.[117]

Pakistan

[edit]

In Pakistan, a state of emergency was declared five times in its history:

The first three were regarded as the imposition of direct martial law.

Philippines

[edit]

There are several situations that calls for various levels of government action in the Philippines. The constitution alludes to these:

These are not specified in the constitution, but were nevertheless declared at least once:

Portugal

[edit]
Letter from the Portuguese President, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, to the Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic, Eduardo Ferro Rodrigues, requesting Parliament for authorisation under the terms of the Constitution, for a declaration of the state of emergency in the context of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic

The current Constitution of Portugal empowers the President of the Republic[118] to declare a state of siege (Portuguese: estado de sítio) or a state of emergency (Portuguese: estado de emergência) in part or the entirety of the Portuguese territory, only in cases of actual or imminent aggression by foreign forces, serious threats to or disturbances of the democratic constitutional order, or public disasters.[119]

Such declarations allow the entities that exercise sovereignty from suspending the exercise of some of the constitutionally defined rights, freedoms and guarantees, so that the public authorities can take the appropriate and strictly necessary measures for the prompt restoration of constitutional normality; the Constitution, however, sets a temporal limit for these states of emergency (no more than fifteen days, even though renewal is possible) and forbids any suspension of the right to life, to personal integrity, to personal identity, to civil capacity and citizenship, the non-retroactivity of criminal law, the right to a fair trial, or the freedom of conscience and religion.[119] They also may not affect the constitutionally defined competences and mode of operation of the entities that exercise sovereignty. The Assembly of the Republic may not be dissolved while a state of siege or a state of emergency is in force,[120] nor can the Constitution itself be subject to amendment.[121]

Before declaring a state of siege or a state of emergency, the President is required to consult with the Government and request authorisation to do so from the Assembly of the Republic.[122]

During the Third Portuguese Republic, the only two times such states of exceptional suppression of constitutional provisions were declared were during the failed left-wing coup d'état of 25 November 1975 (state of siege, within the confines of the Lisbon Military Region),[123] and during the COVID-19 pandemic (state of emergency, in the entirety of the Portuguese territory).

Within the remit of the basic law of civil protection services (Portuguese: Lei de Bases da Protecção Civil), the prime minister can, through a Resolution of the Council of Ministers and without the need of parliamentary approval or presidential promulgation, decree a situation of calamity (Portuguese: situação de calamidade). Lesser exceptional statuses, the situation of contingency (Portuguese: situação de contingência) and the situation of alert (Portuguese: situação de alerta) in descending order of importance, can also be set in motion by other civil protection authorities or Mayors.[124] These three situations allow for some extraordinary measures and special restrictions, but not the suspension of constitutional rights and freedoms.

Poland

[edit]

In Poland, the institution of the state of emergency was absorbed by the institution of martial law in the years 1952–1983 in the constitutional regulations. According to the provisions of the Constitution of 1997 (Articles 228 et seq.), A state of emergency may be introduced by the president at the request of the Council of Ministers for a specified period of time, but not longer than 90 days, in part or throughout the territory of the country, if the security of the state, the security of citizens or public order has been threatened. The President may extend this state only once (for a period not longer than 60 days) with the consent of the Sejm. During the state of emergency and within 90 days from its end, the Constitution and electoral regulations may not be changed, and the Sejm may not be dissolved; there are also no national elections or referendums. In the event of the expiry of the term of office of the President, the Sejm and the Senate, or local self-government bodies, they are appropriately extended.

Romania

[edit]

In Romania, there are two types of states of emergency, each designed for a different type of situation.[citation needed]

  • State of alert (Stare de alertă in Romanian): Non-military, can be enforced by a prefect. Roadblocks are enforced. Any utilitarian vehicle or equipment can be temporarily used by the state, without any restriction. Evacuation is not mandatory, unless extreme circumstances apply. Only EMS, Police and firefighting personnel are required to intervene. This situation can be enforced in case of natural disasters or civil unrest.
  • State of emergency (stare de urgentă in Romanian): Can only be enforced by the President of Romania with approval from Parliament. The military becomes the upper form of control in the country (under the rule of the president).[citation needed] The civilian population is subject to strict regulations, imposed by the type of emergency.[citation needed] All private and public non-crucial activities are suspended.[citation needed] Essential services might be disrupted. This situation can be enforced in case of extreme circumstances, such as a war.
  • Special zone of public safety (Zonă specială de siguranță publică in Romanian): Administrative, can be enforced by local police. This implies installation of road check-points and higher numbers in police and gendarmes/ riot police presence, patrolling the area. There is also a ban that restricts the right to travel for people in the area; any vehicle and individual transiting the zone are subject to screening.[125][126]

The most well-known event in which the state of emergency has been enforced was because of 1977 Vrancea earthquake.[citation needed]

The last instance in which the special zone of public safety was enforced was on 8 December 2013, in Pungești, Vaslui following civil unrest in Pungești from Chevron's plans to begin exploring shale-gas in the village.[127] According to police officials, the special security zone will be maintained as long as there is conflict in the area that poses a threat to Chevron's operations.[125] This special security zone has faced domestic and international criticism for alleged human-rights abuses.

Russia

[edit]

Sierra Leone

[edit]

Sierra Leone declared, on 7 February 2019, a State of Emergency due to ongoing rape and sexual violence in the country.[128] On 24 March 2020, a 12-month state of emergency was declared by (Rtd) Brigadier Julius Madaa Bio due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[129]

Singapore

[edit]

Article 150(1) of the Constitution of Singapore [130] allows the President of Singapore to declare a state of emergency in the event of a security or economic threat and must notify Parliament as soon as practicable under Article 150(3). A state of emergency would last for six months under Article 150(6). With the repeal of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act in 2021, only the powers granted by the Constitution are allowed to be exercised in an event of an emergency.

Special Emergency Powers (1964-2021)

[edit]

When Singapore was in Malaysia, the Malaysian Federation declared a State of Emergency in September 1964. It conferred upon the Federal King special powers during a State of Emergency [131] such as creating offenses and prescribing penalties among others. When Singapore gained independence in 1965, that ordinance was enacted as the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act conferring those powers on the President. These powers were repealed effective the 1st day of March 2021.[132]

History of Emergency

[edit]

In response to the Malayan Communist Party (MCP)'s murder of three British planters in Perak on 16 June 1948, Sir Edward Gent, the British High Commissioner of Malaya declared a State of Emergency to the whole of Perak and Johore. This emergency was extended to the whole of Malaya on the 18th of June, and six days later, Singapore came under a State of Emergency. The emergency officially ended on 31 July 1960, 12 years since its declaration, and when Singapore was a self-governing state rather than a colony during which the emergency was imposed in the first place.[133]

The subsequent time Singapore experienced a State of Emergency was when it was declared in 1964, when race riots broke out in July and in September. This time, Singapore was a state in the Malaysian Federation. Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman declared a State of Emergency under the provisions of the Malaysian Constitution.[134] This was the period when Ordinance 30 of 1964 was enacted conferring upon the Federal King special powers. This ordinance would become known as the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act and would be adopted by Singapore when it gained independence. The Act would remain in force for close to 57 years, until 2021.

While the British and the Malaysian Federal authorities have declared a State of Emergency in Singapore, no Singaporean government, thus far, has declared a State of Emergency since the country's independence in 1965. This is due to the Singaporean government's reliance on the Internal Security Act of 1960 [135] and other targeted legislation to deal with security threats.

South Africa

[edit]

States of emergency in South Africa are governed by section 37 of the Constitution and by the State of Emergency Act, 1997. The president may declare a state of emergency only when "the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency" and if the ordinary laws and government powers are not sufficient to restore peace and order. The declaration is made by proclamation in the Government Gazette and may only apply from the time of publication, not retroactively. It can only continue for 21 days unless the National Assembly grants an extension, which may be for at most three months at a time. The High Courts have the power, subject to confirmation by the Constitutional Court, to determine the validity of the declaration of a state of emergency.[136]

During a state of emergency the President of South Africa has the power to make emergency regulations "necessary or expedient" to restore peace and order and end the emergency. This power can be delegated to other authorities. Emergency measures can violate the Bill of Rights, but only to a limited extent. Some rights are inviolable, including amongst others the rights to life and to human dignity; the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or religion; the prohibition of torture or inhumane punishment; and the right of accused people to a fair trial. Any violation of a constitutional right must be strictly required by the emergency. Emergency measures may not indemnify the government or individuals for illegal actions. They may impose criminal penalties, but not exceeding three years' imprisonment. They may not require military service beyond that required by the ordinary laws governing the defence force. An emergency measure may be disapproved by the National Assembly, in which case it lapses, and no emergency measure may interfere with the elections, powers or sittings of Parliament or the provincial legislatures. The courts have the power to determine the validity of any emergency measure.

The constitution places strict limits on any detention without trial during a state of emergency. A friend or family member of the detainee must be informed, and the name and place of detention must be published in the Government Gazette. The detainee must have access to a doctor and a legal representative. The detainee must be brought before a court within at most ten days, for the court to determine whether the detention is necessary, and if not released may demand repeated review every ten days. At the court review the detainee must be allowed legal representation and must be allowed to appear in person. The provisions on detention without trial do not apply to prisoners of war in an international conflict; instead they must be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and other international law.

Spain

[edit]

In Spain, there are three degrees of state of emergency (estado de emergencia in Spanish): alarma (alarm or alert), excepción (exception[al circumstance]) and sitio (siege). They are named by the constitution, which limits which rights may be suspended, but regulated by the "Ley Orgánica 4/1981" (Organic Law).

On 4 December 2010, the first state of alert was declared following the air traffic controllers strike.[137][138] It was the first time since the Spanish transition to democracy that a state of emergency was declared.[139] The second state of alert was declared on 14 March 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.[140] The third state of alert was declared before the end of October 2020 given the difficulties to control the spread of said pandemic.[141]

Sri Lanka

[edit]

In Sri Lanka, the president is able to proclaim emergency regulations under the Public Security Ordinance in the constitution in order to preserve public security and public order; suppression of mutiny, riot or civil commotion; or maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. These regulations last for one month unless confirmed otherwise by Parliament.[142]

Switzerland

[edit]

According to Art. 185 of the Swiss Federal Constitution The Federal Council (Bundesrat) can call up in their own competence military personnel of maximum 4000 militia for three weeks to safeguard inner or outer security (called Federal Intervention or Federal Execution, respectively). A larger number of soldiers or of a longer duration is subject to parliamentary decision. For deployments within Switzerland the principle of subsidiarity rules: as a first step, unrest has to be overcome with the aid of cantonal police units.

Syria

[edit]

An emergency prevailed in Syria from 1963, following the Ba'athist coup d'état, to 2011.[143] Originally predicated on the conflict with Israel, the emergency acted to centralize authority in the presidency and the national security apparatus while silencing public dissent. The emergency was terminated in response to protests that preceded the Syrian Civil War. Under the 2012 constitution, the president may pass an emergency decree with a 2/3 concurrence of his ministers, provided that he presents it to the People's Assembly for constitutional review.

Trinidad and Tobago

[edit]

Sections 7 though 12 of the Constitution[144] set out the legal basis for declaring that a state of emergency exists. The president, under the advice of the prime minister, may make a proclamation that a "state of public emergency" exists if:

  • "A public emergency has arisen as a result of the imminence of a state of war between Trinidad and Tobago and a foreign state,
  • A public emergency has arisen as a result of the occurrence of any earthquake, hurricane, flood, fire, outbreak of pestilence or of infectious disease, or other calamity whether similar to the foregoing or not,
  • Action has been taken, or is immediately threatened, by any person, of such a nature and on so extensive a scale, as to be likely to endanger the public safety or to deprive the community or any substantial portion of the community of supplies or services essential to life." (ss. 8 (2)).

Upon declaring that a state of emergency exists, the President may make regulations to deal with the situation at hand. The regulations can even infringe upon the rights enshrined within sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.) but only to such extent as such constitutional encroachments are "reasonably justifiable for the purpose of dealing with the situation that exists during that period." (ss. 7 (3)). Once the President has declared that a state of emergency exists, the initial duration of that proclamation is 15 days, unless revoked sooner. The state of emergency can then be extended for up to three months by a simple majority vote of the House of Representatives and can be extended by a further three months by a three-fifths majority vote of the House of Representatives and must also be passed in the Senate.

A state of emergency was declared in 1970 during the Black Power Revolution by then Prime Minister Eric Williams. During the attempted state coup by the Jamaat al Muslimeen against the NAR government of the then Prime Minister A. N. R. Robinson in 1990,[145][146] a state of emergency was declared during the coup attempt and for a period after the coup.

On 4 August 1995, a state of emergency was declared to remove the Speaker of the House Occah Seapaul by Prime Minister Patrick Manning during a constitutional crisis.[147] The government had attempted to remove the speaker via a no-confidence motion, which failed. The state of emergency was used to remove the speaker using the emergency powers granted.[148]

On 22 August 2011 at 8:00 pm, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar announced a state of emergency in an attempt to crack down on the trafficking of illegal drugs and firearms, in addition to gangs.[149] The decision of the President, George Maxwell Richards, to issue the proclamation for the state of emergency was debated in the country's Parliament as required by the Constitution on 2 September 2011 and passed by the required simple majority of the House of Representatives. On 4 September, the Parliament extended the state of emergency for a further three months. It ended in December 2011.

On 15 May 2021 at 2:50 pm, Prime Minister Keith Rowley declared a state of emergency following a mass surge in the number of deaths and COVID-19 infections, no hospital beds being available and a lack of COVID-19 vaccines in dealing with a rapid and deadly spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Trinidad and Tobago,[150][151][152] noted as being one of the worst in the world.[153][154] On 24 August, the Parliament extended the state of emergency for a further three months.[155]

On 30 December 2024, a state of emergency was declared after a spike in gang violence, which killed 6 people in the previous 2 days.[156][157][158]

Turkey

[edit]

Since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 the military conducted three coups d'état and announced martial law. Martial law between 1978 and 1983 was replaced by a state of emergency that lasted until November 2002. The latest state of emergency was declared by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on 20 July 2016 following a failed coup attempt on 15 July 2016 by a faction of the country's armed forces. It was lifted on 18 July 2018.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the United Kingdom, only the British Sovereign,[159] on the advice of the Privy Council, or a Minister of the Crown in exceptional circumstances, has the power to introduce emergency regulations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, in case of an emergency, broadly defined as war or attack by a foreign power, terrorism which poses a threat of serious damage to the security of the UK, or events which threaten serious damage to human welfare or the environment of a place in the UK. The duration of these regulations is limited to thirty days, but may be extended by Parliament. A state of emergency was last invoked in 1974 by Prime Minister Edward Heath in response to increasing industrial action.

The act grants wide-ranging powers to central and local government in the event of an emergency. It allows the modification of primary legislation by emergency regulation, with the exception of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

United States

[edit]

The United States Constitution implicitly provides some emergency powers in the article about the executive power:

  • Congress may authorize the government to call forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion.
  • Congress may authorize the government to suspend consideration of writs of habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
  • Felony charges may be brought without presentment or grand jury indictment in cases arising "in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."
  • A state government may engage in war without Congress's approval if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Aside from these, many provisions of law exist in various jurisdictions, which take effect only upon an executive declaration of emergency; some 500 federal laws take effect upon a presidential declaration of emergency. The National Emergencies Act regulates this process at the federal level. It requires the President to specifically identify the provisions activated and to renew the declaration annually so as to prevent an arbitrarily broad or open-ended emergency. Presidents have occasionally taken action justified as necessary or prudent because of a state of emergency, only to have the action struck down in court as unconstitutional.[160]

A state governor or local mayor may declare a state of emergency within their jurisdiction. This is common at the state level in response to natural disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency maintains a system of assets, personnel and training to respond to such incidents. For example, on 10 December 2015, Washington state Governor Jay Inslee declared a state of emergency due to flooding and landslides caused by heavy rains.[161]

The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows the government to freeze assets, limit trade and confiscate property in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States that originates substantially outside of it. As of 2015 more than twenty emergencies under the IEEPA remain active regarding various subjects, the oldest of which was declared in 1979 with regard to the government of Iran. Another ongoing national emergency, declared after the September 11 attacks, authorizes the president to retain or reactivate military personnel beyond their normal term of service.[162]

In 2020, it was common for states to enact a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[163]

Because the Defense Resources Act contain numerous Titles or individual national emergency laws, it provides an important framework. In American film and popular culture, American views on what to expect during national emergencies can include prominent Cold War television programs such as The Day After, which aired on ABC in November 1983.

Officials under President Ronald Reagan briefed Congress on the Act in 1983.[164] The briefing explained several emergency actions Congress might approve in a grave national crisis such as the nuclear war scare depicted in The Day After. Upon approval by Congress, the Act would have authorized the president to issue orders putting forth wage and price controls, censorship and commandeering of private property. The present legal status of these matters is not clear.

Presidential Emergency Action Documents reviews issues concerning national emergencies in the United States as well as legal and constitutional concerns.

In October 2025, officials in Los Angeles County announced a state of emergency due to the continuous federal crackdowns on immigrants, aiming to offer financial support to this population. Many immigrants have experienced delays in their rent payments as a result of these crackdowns and have been refused rent assistance along with other financial services. The Trump administration intensified its enforcement actions against immigrants in Los Angeles during the summer of 2025.[165][166]

Venezuela

[edit]

Examples

[edit]

Active in 2025

[edit]

Active in 2024

[edit]

Active in 2023

[edit]
  • On 10 November 2023, Icelandic authorities declared a state of emergency after a series of powerful earthquakes rocked the country's southwestern Reykjanes peninsula, signalling the increased likelihood of a volcanic eruption in the region. The village of Grindavík was ordered to evacuate due to the imminent volcanic eruption of the Fagradalsfjall volcano.
  • On 4 August 2023, Ethiopia's Council of ministers declared a state of emergency in the Amhara region after clashes between regional armed forces and the military.
  • On 7 February 2023, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared a three-month long state of emergency in 10 cities due to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake.
  • On 8 September 2023, United States President Joe Biden extended the state of emergency declared by George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks.[172]

Active in 2022

[edit]

Active in 2021

[edit]

Active in 2020

[edit]

Past states of emergency

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A state of emergency is a formal declaration by a authority enabling the temporary expansion of executive powers to address crises such as natural disasters, armed invasions, civil unrest, or pandemics, often involving the suspension of ordinary legal constraints and to facilitate rapid response and restoration of public order. These declarations, rooted in legal frameworks dating to ancient Roman practices of appointing dictators for limited terms, have evolved into modern constitutional provisions and statutes that specify triggers like imminent threats to life, property, or . Internationally, treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permit derogations from non-derogable rights during public emergencies threatening the life of the nation, provided they are officially proclaimed, non-discriminatory, and proportionate. While effective for coordinating resources and imposing measures like curfews or resource reallocations during genuine exigencies, states of emergency carry inherent risks of executive overreach, as prolonged invocations or pretextual uses have historically enabled power consolidation, bypassing legislative oversight and eroding rule-of-law safeguards. In the United States, for instance, the of 1976 has facilitated over 70 active declarations as of recent counts, many renewed indefinitely for purposes diverging from acute threats, underscoring tensions between crisis necessity and institutional incentives for perpetual authority.

Definition and Essential Criteria

A state of emergency constitutes a formal declaration by a enabling the temporary suspension or expansion of ordinary legal constraints to address an acute beyond routine administrative capacities. This mechanism activates when circumstances necessitate rapid, extraordinary measures to preserve public safety, constitutional order, or national integrity, such as widespread , armed conflict, or catastrophic natural events. Legally, it empowers entities like executives to deploy resources, impose restrictions on liberties, or reallocate powers that would otherwise require protracted legislative processes. Essential criteria for invoking a state of emergency demand an objectively verifiable of exceptional severity, typically one that endangers the "life of the nation" rather than localized or manageable disruptions. Under Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by over 170 states as of 2023, derogations from are confined to officially proclaimed public emergencies that are actual or imminently apprehensible, threatening national survival in a manner akin to wartime exigencies, excluding routine economic downturns or policy failures. The UN Committee, in General Comment No. 29 (), emphasizes that such situations must be exceptional, non-discriminatory in application, and strictly necessary, with measures limited to those proportionate to the and subject to periodic review for continuation. Domestically, criteria vary by but universally hinge on executive proclamation by a designated official, often the or government, with provisions for legislative ratification or termination to curb indefinite extensions. In the United States, the of 1976 permits presidential declaration without a codified threat threshold, requiring only specification of activated statutes and transmission to , where it lapses after one year absent renewal, though historical invocations have included non-existential issues like disputes. Common requisites across systems include demonstrable immediacy—such as imminent widespread damage, injury, or loss of life—and safeguards like non-derogation from core rights (e.g., prohibitions on or under ICCPR Article 4(2)). Failure to meet these, as in unsubstantiated or perpetual declarations, risks judicial invalidation or international scrutiny for violating good-faith obligations. International human rights law permits states parties to human rights treaties to derogate from certain during states of emergency, subject to strict conditions designed to balance security imperatives with protections against abuse. Under Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted in 1966 and entered into force in 1976, states may temporarily suspend obligations "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation" to the extent "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation," provided such measures are not inconsistent with other obligations. This provision applies only to officially proclaimed emergencies, emphasizing that the threat must be actual or imminent, exceptional, and temporary, as clarified by the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 29 in 2001. Derogations require prompt notification to the UN Secretary-General, detailing the measures taken and the reasons justifying them, with further notifications as the situation evolves. Certain core rights remain non-derogable even in emergencies, including the right to life (except in lawful acts of war), freedom from torture or cruel treatment, freedom from slavery, recognition as a person before the law, and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, as enumerated in ICCPR Article 4(2). The Siracusa Principles, formulated in 1984 by international jurists and non-governmental organizations to interpret ICCPR limitations and derogations, further stipulate that public emergencies must objectively threaten the organized life of the community, with measures proportional, non-discriminatory, and the least intrusive necessary; these principles, while not legally binding, have influenced judicial and supervisory body interpretations. Proportionality demands that derogations not exceed what is required to avert the threat, and states bear the burden of justification before international monitoring bodies like the Human Rights Committee. Similar frameworks exist in regional instruments. Article 15 of the (ECHR), adopted in 1950, allows derogations "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation" to the extent "strictly required," with notification to the Council of Europe's Secretary General; the has ruled that the emergency must surpass normal threats and necessitate measures beyond routine police powers, as in Lawless v. Ireland (1961), where 's invocation against the IRA was upheld but scrutinized for necessity. Non-derogable rights under the ECHR mirror those in the ICCPR, excluding freedoms like expression and assembly from suspension only if proportionate. Article 27 of the (1969) imposes analogous requirements, prohibiting derogations from rights like juridical personality and humane treatment. These provisions reflect a consensus that emergencies justify flexibility but mandate safeguards against indefinite or pretextual suspensions, though compliance varies, with some states notifying derogations sporadically—only 41 ICCPR states had ever notified by 2020 per UN records. Beyond human rights treaties, international humanitarian law intersects with emergency declarations during armed conflicts, where Common Article 3 of the (1949) imposes minimum protections on non-international conflicts without formal derogation, while full-scale wars trigger the full Conventions, overriding domestic emergency laws to the extent of incompatibility. , as reflected in the International Law Commission's Articles on (2001), recognizes necessity as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness in extreme cases, but only if the situation is unforeseen, no other means exist, and the state refrains from invoking it to prejudice other —conditions rarely met in pure domestic emergencies. Overall, these dimensions prioritize empirical threats to national survival over expansive executive discretion, with international oversight aimed at preventing erosion of rule-of-law norms.

Historical Development

Ancient and Early Modern Precedents

In the , the office of provided a formalized response to existential threats, nominated by consuls and ratified by the for crises such as invasions or internal , with a statutory limit of six months to prevent entrenchment. The wielded imperium maius, overriding other magistrates, commanding armies without collegial restraint, and issuing binding edicts exempt from popular appeal (provocatio), enabling rapid decision-making unhindered by routine assemblies or vetoes. This institution, originating around 501 BC with Lartius's appointment against Sabine and Auruncan incursions, was invoked over 200 times by the mid-Republic, predominantly for short-term campaigns like Fabius Maximus Verrucosus's defense against in 217 BC, after which dictators typically resigned upon resolution, underscoring its design as a temporary expedient rather than permanent rule. Complementing the dictatorship, the senatus consultum ultimum—the Senate's "ultimate decree"—authorized consuls to employ any measures to safeguard the state (res publica) from perceived harm, effectively suspending standard legal norms in less cataclysmic but urgent disturbances. First decreed in 121 BC against tribune Gaius Sempronius Gracchus and his ally Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, amid agrarian reforms and mob violence that threatened senatorial order, it instructed magistrates to act decisively, often resulting in extrajudicial killings without trial, as Opimius's forces executed over 3,000 opponents. Employed nine times between 121 and 63 BC, including against Saturninus in 100 BC and Catiline's conspiracy in 63 BC, the decree's vagueness invited partisan abuse in the Republic's final century, yet it initially functioned to neutralize factional disruptions without full dictatorial elevation. During the in , royal proclamations of extended military jurisdiction over civilians in zones of rebellion or imminent invasion, supplanting and jury trials with summary proceedings to expedite suppression. Henry VIII invoked this prerogative in October 1536 amid of Grace, a northern uprising of 30,000-40,000 against monastic dissolutions and Protestant shifts, dispatching the to enforce oaths of allegiance under martial rule, which facilitated over 200 executions, including leader Robert Aske in 1537, without civil court delays. Tudor expansions of this medieval-derived tool, justified by precedents allowing crown responses to "actual rebellion," prioritized swift deterrence over procedural equity, particularly when local juries risked acquittals, as analyzed in contemporary legal debates leading to the in 1628.

20th and 21st Century Evolution

The marked a transition from emergency declarations during global conflicts to structured constitutional mechanisms designed to balance crisis response with safeguards against abuse. prompted widespread invocations of extraordinary powers, such as U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's use of the to suppress dissent amid wartime mobilization. Similarly, during , President proclaimed a national emergency on September 8, 1939, followed by another on May 27, 1941, to prepare for potential involvement before . These measures expanded executive authority over economic and military resources but highlighted risks of overreach, as seen in the interwar where Article 48 enabled over 250 emergency decrees by President , eroding democratic norms and facilitating Adolf Hitler's consolidation of power in 1933. Post-World War II reactions to totalitarian regimes' exploitation of unchecked powers led to codified frameworks in domestic and . Nine out of ten national constitutions incorporated explicit emergency provisions by the late , often with time limits and judicial oversight to prevent indefinite extensions. Internationally, the (1950) under Article 15 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 1966, entered into force 1976) under Article 4 formalized derogations from non-derogable rights during threats to the "life of the nation," requiring proportionality, non-discrimination, and notification to treaty bodies. In the United States, the of September 14, 1976, terminated prior indefinite emergencies and mandated annual presidential renewals with congressional veto power via , aiming to restore legislative checks after decades of accumulation. Despite these reforms, abuses persisted, underscoring the tension between necessity and entrenchment. India's national emergency declared on June 25, 1975, by President on Indira Gandhi's advice—citing "internal disturbance"—suspended , imposed press , and enabled forced sterilizations, lasting 21 months until March 21, 1977, and prompting the 44th Amendment in 1978 to raise invocation thresholds. France's 1958 Constitution Article 16 granted the president exceptional powers during crises, invoked during the but later scrutinized for potential overreach. Germany's (1949) imposed strict parliamentary and judicial controls on emergencies to avert Weimar-era repetition, reflecting broader European caution. In the , states of emergency evolved to address asymmetric threats like and pandemics, often extending durations amid debates over proportionality. Following the , 2001, attacks, U.S. President declared a national emergency on September 14, 2001, activating over 150 statutory powers for , renewed annually for over two decades. France enacted a state of emergency after the , deploying enhanced police measures and later codifying some into permanent law. The from 2020 prompted declarations in over 100 countries, enabling lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and economic aid but raising concerns over prolonged restrictions and civil liberty erosions in nations with weaker checks. By 2025, trends showed increased reliance on emergencies for non-traditional crises, including economic stabilization post-2008 , though empirical data on efficacy varied, with some analyses indicating marginal GDP impacts from terrorism-related declarations versus substantial disruptions from health measures.

Purposes and Empirical Justifications

National Security and Civil Order Threats

States of emergency are invoked to counter threats, such as coordinated terrorist assaults that exceed routine policing capabilities and endanger the state's . On November 13, 2015, following Islamist terrorist attacks in that killed 130 civilians and wounded 413 others using automatic weapons and suicide bombings at multiple sites including the Bataclan concert hall, French President declared a nationwide state of emergency under the provisions of Law No. 55-385 of April 3, 1955. This enabled temporary border closures, warrantless searches, and preventive detentions to disrupt potential follow-on operations by ISIS-affiliated networks, addressing the immediate causal risk of escalated jihadist violence amid intelligence indicating broader plots. The empirical basis for such declarations lies in the scale of disruption: the Paris attacks demonstrated how small, ideologically driven cells could inflict mass casualties, overwhelming fragmented responses and necessitating centralized executive authority to coordinate intelligence, military support, and public restrictions. Similar invocations occurred post-9/11 in the United States, where President George W. Bush's national emergency declaration under the facilitated asset freezes and sanctions against terrorist financiers, yielding over $200 million in blocked funds from entities linked to by 2002, thereby constraining operational capacities. These measures prioritize causal interruption of threat vectors over standard judicial processes, justified by the verifiable acceleration of response times in high-lethality scenarios. For civil order threats, emergencies address cascading breakdowns from riots or insurrections that destroy and endanger populations, as seen in the 2020 U.S. unrest following George Floyd's death on May 25, 2020. Governors in 23 states and the District of Columbia activated units under emergency powers amid widespread , , and assaults causing an estimated $1-2 billion in insured damages across 140 cities. Deployments of over 43,000 Guard personnel enforced curfews and protected critical sites, correlating with de-escalation: in , where initial chaos saw 617 fires and police overwhelmed, Guard intervention stabilized operations within days, enabling arrests of 1,500 rioters and restoration of basic governance. Such actions empirically mitigate contagion effects, where unchecked disorder spreads via amplification, by imposing temporal controls that standard policing cannot sustain amid resource exhaustion.

Responses to Natural Disasters and Health Crises

States of emergency declarations for facilitate the rapid mobilization of resources, personnel, and federal assistance to mitigate immediate threats and support recovery efforts that exceed local capacities. In the United States, under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974, governors issue state-level emergencies, often leading to presidential major disaster declarations that activate (FEMA) coordination, funding, and deployment of units for search-and-rescue operations, debris removal, and temporary housing. From 1953 to 2023, FEMA approved over 2,000 major disaster declarations, with the majority addressing weather-related events such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, enabling the distribution of billions in aid annually. These powers justify bypassing standard and bureaucratic delays, as evidenced by post-event analyses showing reduced response times; for instance, after the in , which caused $20-40 billion in damage, the declaration allowed swift allocation of $12 billion in federal relief, supporting repairs and preventing secondary crises like prolonged . Empirical assessments of these declarations in highlight their role in enhancing operational efficiency and limiting casualties through centralized authority. Studies on indicate that powers correlate with faster aid delivery, with one analysis of U.S. hurricane responses finding that declarations reduced average recovery timelines by 20-30% compared to non-declared events by streamlining inter-agency collaboration and waiving regulatory hurdles for emergency purchases. In the case of striking on September 20, 2017, the major disaster declaration unlocked $28 billion in federal funds, facilitating the restoration of power to 95% of the island within 11 months despite initial grid collapse affecting 3.4 million residents, though logistical challenges underscored limits in remote areas. Such applications demonstrate causal links between expanded executive powers and tangible outcomes like preserved lives and economic stabilization, as quantified by FEMA's post-disaster evaluations tracking metrics such as lives saved via evacuations and prevented property losses. For health crises, states of emergency enable governments to enforce quarantines, requisition medical supplies, and reallocate budgets toward surge capacity in overwhelmed systems, particularly during pandemics. The COVID-19 outbreak prompted widespread declarations; in the U.S., President Donald Trump invoked a national emergency on March 13, 2020, under the National Emergencies Act and Public Health Service Act, which activated the Defense Production Act to prioritize production of ventilators and personal protective equipment (PPE), resulting in over 200 million N95 masks delivered by April 2020. Globally, over 100 countries declared emergencies by mid-2020, allowing measures like border closures and hospital expansions. These powers addressed acute shortages, with U.S. declarations correlating to a tripling of ICU bed capacity in hotspots from March to June 2020. However, empirical justifications for emergencies are more contested than for , with data showing mixed outcomes on non-pharmaceutical interventions enabled by such powers. While declarations facilitated rapid development and distribution—e.g., under the U.S. emergency produced 300 million doses by early 2021—rigorous analyses, including a quasi-experimental study of U.S. orders, found no detectable reductions in mortality or cases but imposed economic costs estimated at 2-4% GDP loss. In contexts like the 2014-2016 outbreak in , emergency declarations under WHO frameworks enabled international aid surges that contained spread, reducing projected deaths from 100,000 to 28,600 through and isolation. Overall, these powers provide causal mechanisms for scaling responses in high-uncertainty scenarios, though effectiveness hinges on evidence-based implementation rather than indefinite extension, as prolonged measures risk absent ongoing threats.

Economic Stabilization Measures

Governments have invoked states of emergency to implement rapid economic stabilization measures during acute financial crises, such as banking panics or sovereign debt defaults, where conventional legislative processes risk exacerbating collapse through delayed intervention. These declarations typically authorize executive actions like temporary bank closures, capital controls, emergency fiscal reallocations, or currency interventions to restore liquidity, curb panic withdrawals, and prevent broader . Empirical cases demonstrate mixed outcomes, with short-term stabilization often achieved but long-term recovery dependent on underlying policy reforms rather than emergency powers alone. In the United States during the , President proclaimed a nationwide on March 6, 1933, invoking emergency powers under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 to halt bank runs that had closed over 9,000 institutions since 1930. This measure froze withdrawals, allowing federal inspections to identify solvent banks; the subsequent Emergency Banking Relief Act, passed by on March 9, 1933, facilitated their reopening with federal guarantees. By March 15, 1933, over 75% of banks had resumed operations, and public deposits surged by $1.2 billion in the following weeks, marking a pivotal restoration of confidence that averted total financial meltdown. Argentina's 2001 crisis exemplified emergency use amid hyper-recessionary conditions, with GDP contracting 4.4% that year and default on $95 billion in debt. On December 19, 2001, President declared a state of emergency in response to widespread riots and looting triggered by the bank freeze limiting withdrawals to $250 weekly, aiming to deploy security forces for order while enabling economic controls. The declaration facilitated short-term measures like export withholdings and utility rate freezes but failed to prevent de la Rúa's resignation two days later; subsequent and default under interim governments spurred a 9% GDP rebound in 2003, though at the cost of 23% and persistent instability. Sri Lanka's 2022 economic collapse prompted a state of emergency declaration on May 6, 2022, following in April and exceeding 54%, with acute shortages of fuel and essentials fueling protests. The measure empowered the for aid distribution, , and import prioritization, temporarily mitigating supply disruptions amid foreign reserves below $50 million. While it contained immediate chaos, the crisis persisted, leading to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa's resignation in July 2022 and an IMF requiring ; emergency powers provided logistical stabilization but underscored limits without structural debt resolution. In , President has repeatedly decreed economic emergencies since 2016 to address peaking at 1.7 million percent in 2018 and GDP contraction of over 60% from 2013-2019, authorizing off-budget spending, tax suspensions, and investor incentives bypassing assembly oversight. A 2025 decree extended such powers for 60 days to counter sanctions and boost growth, yet cumulative effects have entrenched shortages and of 7.7 million people without reversing decline, illustrating risks of indefinite extensions prioritizing regime continuity over causal fixes like fiscal discipline.

Powers Conferred and Restrictive Mechanisms

Expansion of Executive

Declarations of a state of emergency typically concentrate in the executive branch by suspending or overriding standard legislative and judicial constraints, enabling rapid decision-making in response to existential threats such as , insurrection, or widespread disorder. This expansion manifests through activation of dormant statutory provisions that grant the executive control over critical sectors, including military deployment, economic regulation, and restrictions, often without prior congressional or parliamentary approval. In the United States, the of 1976 (NEA) codifies this process, permitting the president to declare a national emergency via , which unlocks approximately 136 special powers embedded in over 100 statutes. These include authorities to seize , shut down domestic transportation systems, regulate communications infrastructure, and invoke the (IEEPA) for sanctions or asset freezes. Only 13 of these provisions require an explicit congressional determination of an emergency beforehand, allowing unilateral executive activation in most cases. Historical precedents illustrate the scope of such expansions; during , President Franklin D. Roosevelt's emergency declarations enabled implementation of rationing programs, wage and , and rent stabilization, fundamentally reshaping through executive fiat. Similarly, post-1976 declarations under the NEA have grown from 3 active emergencies in 1980 to over 40 by 2025, with rationales broadening beyond traditional military threats to include and border security, thereby sustaining enhanced executive leverage. Internationally, analogous mechanisms exist; for instance, France's post-2015 terrorist attacks state of emergency, extended six times until 2017, empowered prefects to conduct warrantless searches and impose house arrests, bypassing judicial warrants and expanding administrative policing authority by orders of magnitude—over 4,000 measures implemented with minimal oversight. Such provisions, while crisis-oriented, inherently risk entrenching executive dominance absent robust termination protocols, as evidenced by the U.S. system's annual renewals without mandatory congressional review beyond expedited termination votes.

Legislative and Judicial Checks

Legislative checks on emergency declarations typically involve requirements for parliamentary or congressional approval, time-limited durations, and mechanisms for termination or non-renewal. In the United States, the National Emergencies Act of 1976 mandates that presidential emergency declarations expire after one year unless renewed, and Congress retains authority to terminate them via joint resolution, though the 1983 Supreme Court ruling in INS v. Chadha invalidated one-house vetoes, necessitating bicameral action and presidential signature or override. At the state level, oversight varies: 35 states require gubernatorial declarations to obtain legislative ratification within specified periods, such as 30 days, while others impose renewal caps, like no more than three extensions without further approval. These provisions aim to prevent indefinite executive dominance, though empirical data shows infrequent invocation; for instance, Congress has terminated only two of over 70 national emergencies declared since 1976. In parliamentary systems, legislatures often exercise direct control, as emergencies may require explicit authorization or periodic re-approval to extend beyond initial phases, reflecting constitutional designs that subordinate executive action to representative bodies. to secure such approval can invalidate measures, as seen in jurisdictions where courts have struck down extensions lacking legislative , underscoring the causal link between unchecked durations and potential overreach. Judicial checks emphasize review for constitutional compliance, rejecting claims of inherent executive emergency powers absent statutory delegation and assessing actions for necessity, proportionality, and adherence to enumerated limits. The U.S. Constitution, for example, permits no general suspension of provisions during emergencies except in cases of rebellion or invasion, with courts enforcing this by invalidating exercises, as in historical precedents limiting presidential authority without congressional backing. Internationally, judiciaries apply similar scrutiny, evaluating whether declarations meet predefined criteria like imminent threat and duration reasonableness, often deferring minimally to executive to preserve . Rigorous review mitigates abuse risks, evidenced by rulings curbing financial regulators' emergency invocations lacking clear statutory bounds, promoting accountability through evidentiary demands on causal justifications for restrictions. Despite occasional in acute crises, doctrines like non-deferential interpretation ensure emergencies do not erode baseline rights, countering arguments for blanket deference that could enable partisan or pretextual uses.

Documented Benefits and Effective Applications

Restoration of Stability in Acute Crises

Declarations of states of emergency have facilitated the restoration of stability in acute crises by enabling swift executive actions, such as deploying additional , imposing curfews, and conducting warrantless searches, which overwhelm disruptive elements and deter further violence through overwhelming presence and enforcement. In scenarios of civil unrest or , where local authorities are outmatched, these measures provide the necessary escalation to reestablish public order, as evidenced by reduced incident rates following implementation. Empirical outcomes demonstrate that such interventions correlate with rapid , though long-term resolution of root causes requires separate efforts. During the , sparked by a on July 23, violence escalated with over 2,000 fires, 43 deaths, and widespread looting, overwhelming local police and units. President authorized federal troops on July 24 and deployed the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions starting July 25, totaling about 8,000 soldiers who patrolled streets, enforced curfews, and protected firefighters, leading to order restoration by July 28. This intervention, under the Insurrection Act akin to emergency powers, halted the chaos that had persisted for days, preventing further casualties and estimated at $40-45 million. Similarly, in the following the verdict on April 29, Governor declared a state of emergency, mobilizing 6,000 troops, but initial delays allowed 63 deaths and $1 billion in damage. President federalized the Guard and sent 4,000 federal troops, including Marines, by May 2, whose visible deterrence and formations suppressed and , restoring calm by May 4. Military assessments noted that the presence shifted dynamics from mob impunity to enforced compliance, underscoring the efficacy of escalated authority in quelling urban disorder. In Canada's of 1970, the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) kidnapped a diplomat on October 5 and murdered Labor Minister on October 10, threatening broader . Prime Minister invoked the on October 16, suspending and authorizing mass arrests of 497 suspects, which dismantled FLQ cells and led to the hostages' negotiated releases without further killings. This decisive action ended the immediate threat, stabilizing the province within weeks and averting potential civil war, as subsequent FLQ activities diminished significantly.

Quantitative Assessments of Positive Outcomes

In , the declaration of a on March 27, 2022, amid surging violence enabled aggressive security measures, including warrantless arrests and military deployment, resulting in a rate decline from 53.1 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2021 to 1.9 per 100,000 in 2024. Annual s fell from 1,147 in 2021 to 496 in 2022 and 114 in 2024, with over 861 murder-free days recorded by March 2025. Government data links this 96% reduction to the emergency regime's facilitation of over 80,000 detentions targeting structures.
YearHomicidesRate per 100,000
20211,14753.1
2022496~18.9
20241141.9
In , repeated states of emergency in gang-affected areas since 2010 correlated with rate drops from peaks above 60 per 100,000 to around 40 per 100,000 by the mid-2020s, supported by meta-analyses of interventions including curfews and joint police-military operations that disrupted activities. These measures contributed to national reductions bucking regional trends, with 2025 data showing continued declines amid sustained emergency policing. For , U.S. presidential declarations under the Stafford Act unlock mitigation funding that empirically lowers future flood and storm damages; counties with prior aid exposure showed reduced losses in subsequent events, per econometric models controlling for exposure and resilience factors. Such declarations expedite , correlating with shorter recovery timelines and lower secondary economic impacts compared to undeclared events of similar scale. In emergencies with associated restrictions, U.S. city data from initial shutdowns (often under emergency powers) documented sharp drops in non-domestic , with reductions exceeding 50% in some categories like aggravated assaults, attributed to mobility curbs and heightened enforcement. These outcomes, while not isolating declaration fully, highlight measurable order restoration amid acute crises.

Risks of Overreach and Counterarguments

Instances of Prolonged or Abusive Declarations

In , President declared a on March 27, 2022, in response to gang violence, suspending constitutional such as , , and protection from arbitrary arrest. This measure has been extended monthly by the over 30 times as of late 2024, resulting in the detention of more than 80,000 individuals, many without evidence of gang affiliation. documented cases of arbitrary arrests, in detention facilities, and deaths in custody, with over 250 fatalities reported among detainees by mid-2024, often attributed to overcrowding and inadequate medical care. reported systematic violations, including forced confessions and denial of legal representation, arguing that the prolongation has institutionalized mass incarceration without judicial oversight. While rates fell from 18 per 100,000 in 2021 to 2.4 per 100,000 in 2023, critics contend the emergency's indefinite extension erodes democratic norms, enabling unchecked executive power. Following the failed coup attempt on July 15, 2016, Turkey's government under President imposed a state of emergency, which was renewed seven times by until July 18, 2018, spanning nearly two years. This allowed decree-laws bypassing legislative approval, leading to the dismissal of over 130,000 public employees, including 4,000 judges and prosecutors, and the closure of media outlets and civil society organizations. A report highlighted widespread arbitrary detentions exceeding 50,000, enforced disappearances, and torture allegations against suspected coup plotters, particularly those linked to the Gülen movement. noted that emergency measures facilitated purges extending beyond security threats, suppressing dissent and consolidating executive control, with limited accountability for abuses. The U.S. State Department corroborated patterns of degrading treatment and politicized prosecutions during this period. In , after the November 13, 2015, terrorist attacks in that killed 130 people, President François enacted a state of emergency on November 14, which parliament extended six times until its formal end on November 1, 2017, lasting almost two years. The regime permitted warrantless searches, house arrests without , and dissolution of groups deemed threats, resulting in over 4,000 administrative searches and 700 house confinements by 2016. criticized its abuse for targeting activists, such as environmental protesters at COP21, with minimal links, and for embedding repressive powers into permanent anti-terror laws post-emergency. Reports indicated disproportionate impacts on Muslim communities, including mosque closures and identity checks, fostering a de facto normalization of exceptional measures without proportional threat reduction evidence. Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro administration declared a state of emergency in January 2016 amid economic collapse and protests, renewing it annually for over eight years through 2024, granting decree powers that sidelined the opposition-controlled . This enabled military deployments for civilian control, media censorship, and arbitrary detentions, with documenting torture and enforced disappearances of political opponents. The U.S. State Department reported systematic abuses by security forces, including extrajudicial killings exceeding 7,000 between 2018 and 2023, often under emergency justifications for suppressing dissent. Prolongation correlated with electoral manipulations, as seen in the 2018 presidential vote, where facilitated opposition disqualifications and rally bans.

Debates on Necessity Versus Civil Liberties Erosion

The invocation of states of emergency often sparks contention between imperatives for rapid governmental action to avert catastrophe and the imperative to safeguard fundamental such as , assembly, and expression. Proponents argue that in acute threats like terrorist attacks or pandemics, temporary suspensions enable decisive measures that prevent greater harm, citing empirical data from delayed responses that exacerbated casualties. For instance, following the , 2001, attacks, the , enacted on October 26, 2001, expanded surveillance capabilities, which supporters claimed thwarted numerous plots by facilitating intelligence sharing. Critics, including the , contend that such expansions erode privacy rights through provisions like warrantless under Section 215, leading to bulk on millions of Americans without individualized suspicion. In crises, the debate intensified during the , where emergency declarations in over 100 countries authorized lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine requirements to curb transmission rates that peaked at over 1 million daily cases globally by January 2022. scholars emphasize that these measures demonstrably reduced mortality, with models estimating 1.1 million U.S. lives saved by non-pharmaceutical interventions through May 2021. However, opponents highlight disproportionate erosions, including economic fallout with 22 million U.S. jobs lost in spring 2020 and declines evidenced by a 25% rise in anxiety and depression prevalence. Legal challenges, such as U.S. Supreme Court rulings striking down moratoria and certain gathering restrictions, underscored judicial skepticism toward indefinite extensions lacking strict proportionality. Historical precedents reveal patterns of abuse where necessity justifications outlast threats, fostering authoritarian tendencies. Post-9/11, the U.S. authorized at Guantanamo Bay, holding over 780 individuals by 2003, many without charges, prompting international condemnation for violating . In Europe, France's 2015 state of emergency after the Paris attacks, which killed 130 on November 13, permitted warrantless searches and house arrests, detaining 4,000 suspects but yielding few convictions, as critiqued by groups for normalizing surveillance. Scholarly analyses advocate embedded safeguards, such as sunset clauses and legislative oversight, to mitigate risks, noting that unchecked powers correlate with democratic backsliding in 20% of cases across 100 countries since 1970. Empirical assessments reveal trade-offs: while emergencies restore order in 85% of documented acute crises, prolonged declarations—averaging 18 months beyond initial threats—amplify liberty erosions without commensurate benefits, as seen in Hungary's 2020 COVID measures indefinitely extended, curtailing media and . Balancing requires causal evaluation of threats' severity against interventions' efficacy, with first-principles scrutiny favoring minimal, time-bound restrictions verifiable by independent data to prevent into routine governance.

Comparative Jurisdictional Frameworks

The employs a fragmented legal framework for declaring states of at the federal level, primarily governed by the (NEA) of 1976, which requires presidential proclamations to activate over 130 statutory authorities scattered across dozens of laws, including , military deployments, and resource reallocations. The NEA was enacted to impose on prior unchecked declarations dating back to , terminating four pre-existing emergencies and mandating annual renewals, though it lacks a precise definition of a "national emergency," allowing broad executive discretion for threats like foreign aggression, economic instability, or . Declarations under the NEA occur via executive proclamation, transmitted to and published in the , unlocking powers such as those under the (IEEPA) for asset freezes and trade restrictions, often used for sanctions against adversaries like or . As of September 2025, presidents have invoked the NEA 90 times since its passage, with approximately 46 IEEPA-based emergencies ongoing, many renewed annually for decades to sustain objectives rather than acute crises. Complementary statutes include the Stafford Act of 1988, which authorizes presidential declarations of "major disasters" or "emergencies" typically at a governor's request, enabling (FEMA) coordination for natural calamities like hurricanes, with over 2,000 such activations since 1950 but focused on localized aid rather than nationwide authority expansion. The permits unilateral military deployment to quell domestic insurrections or enforce federal law when states cannot, bypassing restrictions on routine domestic troop use, as invoked historically during the . Congressional checks under the NEA include a joint resolution to terminate an emergency, subject to presidential , though successful terminations are rare—none since 1983—due to partisan divisions and the veto override threshold of two-thirds majorities in both chambers. exists but is constrained, with courts deferring to executive interpretations of emergency necessity, as seen in challenges to border wall funding reallocations under a 2019 declaration. States maintain independent emergency powers under their constitutions, often for or disasters, but federal declarations can preempt or supplement them, highlighting a federalist tension where national actions, like the COVID-19 emergency under Section 319 of the (ended May 2023), override state measures without uniform consent. This system, while providing rapid response capabilities, has enabled prolonged emergencies—such as the post-9/11 declaration renewed since September 14, 2001—for ongoing policy enforcement, prompting critiques of eroded temporal limits despite the NEA's intent for temporary authority.

European Democracies

European democracies maintain varied constitutional and statutory frameworks for states of emergency, designed to enable swift executive action in crises like armed threats, emergencies, or civil unrest while incorporating safeguards such as parliamentary approval, fixed durations, and to mitigate risks of overreach. These mechanisms reflect historical lessons, including post-World War II aversion to unchecked authority in and France's experience with colonial-era laws repurposed for modern threats. Unlike more unitary models, many rely on graded responses—ranging from states of alarm to full —prioritizing proportionality over blanket powers. In , the 1955 Law on the State of Emergency permits administrative measures like house arrests, searches without warrants, and assembly bans to counter serious disturbances or calamities, declared by decree with parliamentary ratification within 15 days. Following the November 13, 2015, Paris terrorist attacks that killed 130 people, President François invoked it, extending the regime six times for a total duration of nearly two years until its lifting on , 2017. This prolongation drew criticism for over 160,000 identity checks and limited terrorism-related arrests, raising concerns about normalized exceptionalism, though proponents cited enhanced security amid ongoing threats. Constitutionally, Article 16 grants the President exceptional powers if republican institutions fail, but it has been invoked only once, in 1961 during the , underscoring restraint. For the COVID-19 pandemic, a dedicated "sanitary state of emergency" was enacted via Law No. 2020-290 in March 2020, extended until June 2021, bypassing broader constitutional clauses. Germany's eschews general emergency clauses due to Nazi-era abuses, instead providing specific provisions: Article 80a allows "legislative emergency" for budgetary impasses, while Articles 115a–115l outline a "state of defense" against external aggression, requiring and Bundesrat involvement. No full emergency was declared for ; instead, the Infection Protection Act was amended in March 2020 to centralize federal coordination, emphasizing federalism and judicial oversight via the , which struck down disproportionate lockdowns in some states. This restrictive approach prioritizes rule-of-law continuity, with empirical data showing effective crisis management without suspending fundamental rights. Italy lacks a comprehensive constitutional emergency framework, relying on statutory tools like Legislative Decree 1/2018 for civil protection and prime ministerial decrees (DPCMs) for rapid response. A national state of emergency was declared on , 2020, for , enabling six-month extensions and procurement flexibilities, but faced scrutiny for bypassing parliamentary debate on DPCMs, leading to Constitutional Court challenges on proportionality. Spain's 1978 Constitution (Article 116) delineates three escalating states—alarm (15 days, extendable), exception (indefinite but rights-suspending), and siege (war-like)—requiring congressional authorization. The state of alarm was invoked March 14, 2020, for , extended six times until May 9, 2021, facilitating lockdowns that contained early surges but sparked debates on over-centralization versus regional autonomy. The , unbound by a codified constitution, employs the , which defines emergencies broadly (e.g., , , disease) and empowers ministers to issue temporary regulations amendable by within seven days, prohibiting retroactive laws or rights derogations under the Human Rights Act. Not invoked for —instead, the provided targeted powers like detention for infection risks—the Act's "triple lock" (ministerial order, senior judge consultation, parliamentary approval) ensures scrutiny, as seen in non-use during events like the riots to avoid executive overreach. Across these nations, statutory preferences over constitutional emergencies during recent crises reflect a trend toward tailored, reversible measures, though extensions in and highlight tensions between efficacy and liberty erosion, with data indicating mixed outcomes: reduced attacks in France post-2015 but persistent rights concerns.

Selected Non-Western Examples

In the Malayan Emergency, British colonial authorities declared a state of emergency on June 16, 1948, in response to communist led by the , following the murder of three European plantation managers on June 17. The declaration enabled military operations, including the Briggs Plan of 1950, which resettled over 500,000 rural Chinese into protected villages to deny insurgents support, contributing to the eventual defeat of the by 1960. This approach demonstrated effective through emergency powers, though it involved significant population displacement and restrictions on . India's national Emergency, proclaimed by Prime Minister on June 25, 1975, under Article 352 of the Constitution citing "internal disturbance," followed an ruling invalidating her election due to electoral malpractices. Lasting until March 21, 1977, it suspended , allowed of over 100,000 individuals, and imposed press , while the government conducted forced sterilizations targeting 6.2 million people, primarily the poor, as part of population control efforts. The period entrenched one-party rule temporarily but ended with Gandhi's electoral defeat, highlighting risks of executive overreach under provisions despite the absence of acute military threats. Following the failed military coup attempt on July 15, 2016, which killed at least 290 people, Turkey's government under President declared a state of emergency on July 20, 2016, pursuant to Article 119 of the . Extended seven times over two years until July 18, 2018, it facilitated the dismissal of over 130,000 public employees, including judges and teachers, and the arrest of tens of thousands suspected of coup links or Gülenist affiliations, enabling with limited parliamentary oversight. While aimed at restoring order, the measures drew international criticism for enabling widespread purges and eroding , with documenting over 77,000 prosecutions under emergency decrees. In the , President declared on September 23, 1972, via Proclamation 1081, invoking threats from communist insurgents and Muslim separatists amid alleged plots against his regime. Formally lifted in 1981 but with powers retained, it suspended the , dissolved Congress, and led to the detention of around 70,000 people, alongside documented extrajudicial killings and by . consolidated Marcos's authoritarian control for 14 years until the 1986 , illustrating how emergency measures can transition into prolonged dictatorship when unchecked by institutions.

Notable Declarations and Case Studies

Persistent National Emergencies

In the United States, national emergencies declared pursuant to the (NEA) of 1976 frequently endure for extended periods due to mandatory annual renewals by the president, absent congressional termination. As of June 2025, presidents have invoked the NEA to declare 90 such emergencies since its enactment, with approximately 48 to 49 remaining active after routine renewals. These declarations primarily activate authorities under statutes like the (IEEPA) to impose sanctions or restrict transactions related to foreign threats, rather than addressing acute domestic crises. The longest continuously active national emergency originated on November 14, 1979, when President invoked IEEPA in response to the , blocking Iranian government property and prohibiting certain transfers. This declaration has been renewed annually by every subsequent president for over 45 years, evolving to encompass broader sanctions against Iran's nuclear program, terrorism sponsorship, and abuses, despite the original resolving in 1981. Similarly, the emergency concerning , declared by President on March 6, 2003, to target corruption and undemocratic practices under Robert Mugabe's regime, persists as of 2025 with annual extensions to maintain asset freezes and travel bans. Another example is the November 23, 1994, emergency regarding , initially addressing political instability and flows, which has been renewed for three decades to support ongoing sanctions and export controls. This pattern of persistence reflects bipartisan practice, with presidents from both parties extending prior declarations— renewed 7, extended 22 during his tenure, and issued 9 new ones while renewing others before their 2021 expiration. Empirical data indicate that over 80% of active emergencies as of 2019 involved objectives, such as countering narcotics trafficking (e.g., the 1995 declaration on Colombian cartels) or weapons proliferation (e.g., 1997 emergency), enabling executive actions like asset seizures without annual legislative reauthorization beyond the NEA's one-year sunset unless renewed. Critics, including legal scholars at the , contend this mechanism erodes checks and balances by allowing indefinite powers without proportional threats, as many emergencies outlast their precipitating events by decades. However, proponents argue renewals ensure continuity in addressing enduring geopolitical risks, such as sanctions regimes that have demonstrably constrained adversarial economies, with U.S. data showing over $1 trillion in blocked assets globally under IEEPA since 1977. Beyond the U.S., persistent emergencies are rarer but occur in jurisdictions with flexible extension provisions. In the , the state of emergency declared under the 1987 Constitution for the 2017 siege against Islamist militants lasted over five years until 2022, justified by ongoing security threats despite the city's recapture within months. France's 2015-2017 state of emergency following the Paris attacks, extended 12 times, enabled mass house arrests and mosque closures but was criticized by for disproportionate measures yielding limited terrorism prosecutions relative to rights infringements. These cases illustrate how initial acute declarations can institutionalize expanded police powers, often renewed amid vague "public safety" rationales, though empirical reviews, such as France's post-emergency data showing no sustained drop in attacks, question their marginal efficacy.

Pandemic and Disaster Responses

In response to the , over 180 countries and territories invoked states of or equivalent measures during the first half of 2020 to enact restrictions, including quarantines, travel bans, and economic shutdowns, often bypassing standard legislative processes for speed. , President declared a national on March 13, 2020, pursuant to the , which unlocked approximately $50 billion in federal funding for testing and hospital capacity while empowering states to enforce lockdowns; this declaration remained in effect until April 10, 2023. The concurrent proclaimed by the Department of Health and Human Services on January 31, 2020, and extended multiple times, facilitated distribution and expansions but ended on May 11, 2023, after which certain flexibilities like continuous enrollment ceased, affecting coverage for millions. Empirical analyses of these powers indicate they enabled but yielded mixed results on outcomes; for example, a cross-national study found democracies under emergency rule implemented stricter controls yet achieved higher mortality compared to autocracies, attributing differences to enforcement variances rather than stringency alone. Internationally, declarations varied by regime; enacted a state of on March 23, 2020, authorizing curfews and business closures until lifted in July 2020 and briefly reinstated in 2021, while the imposed the first nationwide on March 16, 2020, under powers that included military-enforced quarantines. These measures correlated with short-term infection suppression in some cases, but longitudinal data highlight trade-offs, including excess non-COVID deaths from delayed care and economic contraction exceeding 3% of global GDP in 2020, with limited evidence of net mortality reduction from prolonged restrictions after initial waves. Critics, drawing from post-hoc reviews, argue that emergency extensions risked democratic erosion without proportional benefits, as unbound executive actions in unchecked systems amplified policy errors like over-reliance on modeling projections that overestimated unchecked spread. For natural disasters, states of emergency facilitate prepositioning of aid, suspension of regulations, and federal-military intervention. In the United States, President proclaimed a state of emergency for on August 27, 2005, ahead of Hurricane Katrina's landfall, enabling FEMA to deploy resources and waive rules; this preceded a major declaration on August 29, which mobilized over 1,000 and 100,000 personnel but faced delays in urban search-and-rescue, contributing to approximately 1,800 deaths. The response exposed coordination failures between federal, state, and local levels, prompting the Post-Katrina Reform Act of 2006, which centralized FEMA authority and mandated pre- recovery planning. Internationally, similar invocations occurred, such as Australia's national emergency declaration on January 5, 2020, for bushfires that scorched 18 million hectares and killed 33 people, allowing defense force deployment for evacuation and fire suppression. Effectiveness in s hinges on rapid activation—empirical reviews show declarations reduce response times by 20-50% when paired with clear chains of command, though prolonged uses risk resource fatigue without addressing underlying vulnerabilities like decay.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.