ABSTRACT
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic presents challenges to global and local human rights paradigms. Both the epidemic itself and the measures to contain it affect the enjoyment of internationally protected human rights. Furthermore, populism and authoritarianism traditionally thrive on crisis. So much so that the construction or exasperation of crises through securitizing language is a cornerstone of the populist rhetorical style that is central to authoritarian legitimacy building. Crises can provide legitimacy to extraordinary politics, which consistently have proved to be the antithesis to human rights compliance. Regimes may rely on declarations of emergencies or less formal means to revoke constitutional and human rights-based safeguards that constrain the executive. There is, however, another way.
This chapter maps out human rights-compatible policy and legislative responses to the COVID-19-crisis, contrasting them with the rhetoric and policies perpetuated by authoritarians and populist leaders around the world. The dichotomy illustrates what human rights-based approaches to crises look like (as opposed responses with little regard for fundamental rights) and suggests how future scholarship on populism and authoritarianism might contribute to differentiating the two approaches.
