ABSTRACT
The chapter discusses how the constitutional provisions concerning states of emergency have been introduced, interpreted, and applied in Poland. It discusses the scope and application of sub-constitutional provisions concerning such emergencies. The chapter unpacks details of emergencies on three levels (historical, doctrinal, and practical) to sketch the growing discrepancy between the model and current practices. The core argument is that constitutional regulation was omitted by the authorities due to the rigid and rigorous content, as well as due to partisan political choices (made under the rule-of-law crisis in Poland). Thus, the practice does not follow the model. The following case studies support this argument. The first covers historical cases of particular emergencies introduced on statutory grounds only, which did not necessarily follow the model. The government became less willing to use its constitutional powers for the different types of catastrophes (i.e., floods, droughts, and crisis management). The second relates to COVID-19, when the public authorities decided not to introduce a constitutional emergency state. The government did not want to be suspected of illiberal aspirations to the extent that it did not want to use constitutional power to declare a state of emergency when it was necessary to do so.
