Adapting the Constitutional Order to a Regime of Normalized Emergency: A Comparative Legal Study

Contemporary constitutional orders increasingly function under conditions of persistent structural emergency caused by pandemics, armed conflicts, terrorist threats, and climate disasters. Unlike the classical model of a temporary departure from the normal legal order, emergency measures today are becoming institutionalized and are being transformed into an element of everyday governance, thereby threatening the very core of constitutional legitimacy. Under these conditions, a fundamental contradiction arises: on the one hand, the state must possess the capacity to respond to crises flexibly and promptly; on the other hand, any adaptation must not undermine the principles of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and respect for inalienable human rights. The aim of this study is to identify the constitutional and legal conditions under which adaptation to permanent emergency remains legitimate and does not turn into systemic erosion of the constitutional order. To achieve this aim, the study employs a set of methods: comparative legal analysis of judicial practice in Colombia, South Korea, India, the European Court of Human Rights, and the United States; a normative and doctrinal approach; and institutional and functional analysis. The study identifies three key components of the normative core of the constitution that may not be legitimately restricted even under an officially declared state of emergency: absolute human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and the protection of human dignity; institutional guarantees of democratic constitutionalism, including judicial independence, separation of powers, and electoral legitimacy; and the principle of the rule of law, including the predictability of legal regulation, equality before the law, and mandatory judicial review. On the basis of these components, the article formulates operationalizable criteria for distinguishing legitimate adaptation from constitutional erosion. As a constructive result, it proposes a model of constitutional resilience through institutionalized flexibility. This model does not imply a rejection of adaptation; rather, it requires that adaptation be placed within a strict procedural framework: the automatic expiration of emergency measures after a specified period, or sunset clauses; mandatory reasoned renewal of emergency powers by parliament; public assessment of the impact on human rights; and an enhanced proactive role for constitutional courts. Particular importance is attached to the international legal standards of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which establish insurmountable limits on any derogations from rights.

1. Agamben G. State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005. 104 p.

2. Scheuerman W. E. Survey Article: Emergency Powers and the Rule of Law after 9/11. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2006;14(1):61-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00256.x

3. Gross O., Ní Aoláin F. Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. 485 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493997

4. Scheppele K. L. Autocratic Legalism. University of Chicago Law Review. 2018;85(2):545-583.

5. Dyzenhaus D., Diamond A. The Resilient Constitution. In: Linares Cantillo A. (Ed.). Constitutionalism: Old Dilemmas, New Insights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. P. 277–309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192896759.003.0014

6. Leani L. COVID-19, Scarce Health Resources Allocation and Standard View of Disability: On the Colombian Constitutional Court’s Judgement T-237 of 2023. Medical Law International. 2025;25(3):259-271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332251362388

7. Tushnet M. Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2008. 312 p.

8. Alekseev S. S. General Theory of Law. Vol. 1. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ.; 1981. 359 p. (In Russ.)

9. Starostin S. A. State of Emergency. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2019. 119 p. (In Russ.)

10. Scheuerman W. E. Emergency Powers. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2006;2:257-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.061206.074644

11. Varlamova N. V. COVID-19 Pandemic as a Challenge to Constitutional Legal Order. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2020;6:17-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2020-6-17-30 (In Russ.)

12. Babbar M., Agrawal S., Hossain D., Husain M. M. Adoption of Digital Technologies amidst COVID-19 and Privacy Breach in India and Bangladesh. Policy Design and Practice. 2023;6(1):103-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2022.2162255

13. Ramachandran A., Sarbadhikari S. N. Digital Health for the Post-COVID-19 Pandemic in India: Emerging Technologies for Healthcare. In: 2021 8th International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom). New Delhi, 2021. P. 244–249.

14. Maslovskay T. S. The Material Core of the Constitution: The Legal Regime. Proceedings of Francisk Scorina Gomel State University. 2022;5:140-145. (In Russ.)

15. Lebedev V. M. Guarantees of Judicial Independence in the Russian Federation: Concept, History of Formation and Current State. Journal of Russian Law. 2019;11:5-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12737/jrl.2019.11.1 (In Russ.)

16. Ackerman B. The Emergency Constitution. Yale Law Journal. 2004;113(5):1029-1091.

17. Modjeska J. The Privilege of the Writ: The Supreme Court and Post-9/11 Detainee Habeas Corpus Entitlement. SSRN. 2010. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1672941 (accessed 23.10.2025).

18. Ranchordás S. Constitutional Sunsets and Experimental Legislation: A Comparative Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publ.; 2014. 256 p.

19. Gangur P. A Framework for Conditional Sunset Clauses. Review of European and Comparative Law. 2025;61(2):179-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.18369

20. Fiero A. Protecting Health through Courts; Structural Judgments. UNISANTA Law and Social Science. 2025;14(1):6-11.

21. Yamin A. E., Parra-Vera O. Judicial Protection of the Right to Health in Colombia: From Social Demands to Individual Claims to Public Debates. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review. 2010;33(2):101-129.

22. Nesmeyanova S. E. Experience and Prospects for the Development of Constitutional Control: Domestic and Foreign Practice. European and Asian Law Review. 2024;7(1):24-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34076/27821668_202 4_7_1_24 (In Russ.)

23. Yashina M. S. Categories of “Abolition” and “Derogation” of Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms in the Constitutional Doctrine of Modern Russia. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Economics. Management. Law. 2020;20(1):97-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18500/1994-2540-2020-20-1-97-107 (In Russ.)

24. Teodoro J. D., Doorn N., Kwakkel J., Comes T. Flexibility for Intergenerational Justice in Climate Resilience Decision-Making: An Application on Sea-Level Rise in the Netherlands. Sustainability Science. 2023;18:1355-1365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01233-9