Judicial Review of Pandemic Emergency Powers Across Constitutional Systems

Abstract

Background: Policy attention to emergency powers has increased, yet there is limited empirical clarity on how institutional arrangements influence judicial review and implementation quality.

Objective: The study evaluated institutional variation in approaches to emergency powers, with particular attention to accountability, administrative capacity, and judicial review.

Methods: We coded 108 statutes, regulations, policies, contracts, guidance documents, administrative records, or public disclosures using a predefined framework. Legal clarity, transparency, safeguards, oversight, and implementation requirements were assessed in two stages, with independent review used to resolve coding differences.

Results: The document review found formal emergency powers requirements in 65% of sources, but detailed implementation or oversight provisions in just 45%. In 18% of cases, transparency or review mechanisms were missing or incomplete. Instruments with broader operational detail were associated with clearer responsibility and fewer implementation gaps.

Conclusion: For emergency powers, the main practical lesson is that formal requirements do not by themselves produce consistent implementation. This means that public-law controls should be supported by clear institutional responsibility, transparent procedures, and workable review arrangements.

Study design: comparative doctrinal-empirical coding study.

Publication history: Originally published in print on 15 June 2021, Volume 1, Article 2. Online abstract record added on 16 September 2026. Full-text PDF will be added when the digital galley is ready.