ABSTRACT
This chapter attempts to design a standard constitutional model governing the core issues concerning the proclamation, continuance and termination of emergency powers with a view to reducing the scope of their abuse. Recent scholarly debate on emergency powers has been dominated by theorists belonging to two competing models, the extra-legal model and the legal model. The democratic formalist model is based on the assumption that it is possible to effectively govern emergencies by enumerating ex ante provisions in the constitution, while the liberal common lawyers are of the opinion that the common law contains the resources for effectively constraining the exercise of emergency powers. Carl Schmitt was a harsh critic of liberal democracy and attempted to demonstrate the impossibility of emergency powers being effectively contained by constitutional norms. The liberal common law model is premised on traditional common law position, namely that the judiciary is the best institution for upholding the values and principles associated with human dignity and freedom.
