What are the legal grounds for their introduction? Are there any constitutional restrictions? Have any of the states been introduced in your country recently?
It certainly is not the best measure or response.
But can it be applied? Yes a state of emergency can be declared even when only a smaller part of a population is threatened - lets say there's a flood in one area.
With COVID-19 it can be said to be similar as we know beforehand that not everyone will be of severe risk, rather a fraction of the population. Now the CFR value have been changed back and forth in the debate but lets round it off and say 1% of the population is at risk - then a state of emergency can be applied.
No my country of residence (Lapland/Northlands but inside the national border of Sweden) have not used any emergency measures. Public buildings, restaurants and several public facilities was closed in a 'lockdown light' but that's as far as anything went. In Sweden even restaurants remained open.
In India, the nationwide lockdown was imposed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DM Act). the legal basis of the DM Act, is Entry 23, Concurrent List of the Constitution “Social security and social insurance”. Entry 29, Concurrent List “Prevention of the extension from one State to another of infectious or contagious diseases or pests affecting men, animals or plants,”.
It is a wise response from Government in a financially challenged healthcare system. Although it possibly did not contain or stop the infection, it delayed the inevitable and avoided a panic situation
I don't think so.The situation present ed by COVID_19 requires many countries worldwide to take extra ordinary measures to protect health and wellbeing of population even in apublic emergency because the disaster of COVID_19 is unexpected one.
The goal of declaring a state of emergency (or disaster) by elected political leaders is to allow an increased state or federal response to whatever crisis has occurred. This increased response often includes additional personal, equipment, and financial resources. It results in opening up emergency operation centers (EOC) that can that can help to coordinate an appropriate response. This is especially important during a dynamic crisis that is constantly changing and shifting.
The COVID pandemic is like a hurricane response with many dynamic features that keep evolving over time and lasting for more than just 1-2 days. The next major hurdle for many locals will be deliver and administration of vaccine. But in others it maybe a need for additional ventilators. At any one time the specific need in each states (province) maybe different, so each state and local government needs its own EOC.
i think different countries have adopted different measures , state of emergency one of these measures . i found below link shows example on that
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-state-of-disaster-and-what-powers-does-it-confer-143807
Many national constitutions and international human rights treaties contain clauses that allow governments to temporarily suspend the right to liberty, freedom of association, and freedom of movement in times of crisis. They can invoke special powers that would normally be considered violations of freedom. For example, the Spanish government has declared a six-month state of emergency and ordered a nationwide curfew, imposing limits on people's movements in an effort to contain the coronavirus. The state of emergency also allows regional governments in Spain to establish total or partial blockades and limits public and private meetings.
The answer to your question is going to vary considerably based on the legal frameworks in place in each and every country. Australia has applied a range of underpinning concepts when dealing with emergencies, including All Hazards, Comprehensive and Prepared Community. Each of these is applied within the Australian legislative framework which separates the role of Government to that of the agencies. The Australian overarching framework is described in this publication (the link can be shared openly) https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/handbook-australian-emerency-management-arrangements/ In my State (South Australia) our arrangements are such that the definition of an emergency has for some years expressly including epidemic and pandemic. The arrangements for command and control are the same for fire, flood and disease. With Pandemic, our Health department are responsible for command, and all other agencies, including police, have a legislated role to support health in achieving the outcomes that are expected of them. Further, in our state the Coordinator that has the overall say, is the Commissioner of Police, who, as the State Coordinator, is responsible to ensure that all agencies of government are actively supporting health in an ongoing manner, while at the same time ensuring that appropriate information is provided to the Government. An example of this working has been the use of a fire based Incident Management Team which was deployed to health to support their initial incident management as the outbreak grew. This has led to my state having, in the overall scheme of things, a very low impact from this disease.
Probably, each state adopts different measures, in accordance with its own constitutional rules. In Italy, the Constitution provides for some limitations to constitutional rights by law (also) in the event of health emergencies (eg Art. 16 and Art. 32 of the Constitution). However, the Italian government also uses the so-called DPCM (decree of the President of the Council of Ministers), which has no legal value, and its use could be contrary to the Constitution
