Is the COVID-19 pandemic truly a pivotal moment in contemporary governance? This question has sparked multifaceted responses and spurred diverse debates and perspectives. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who ardently argue that this pandemic represents an exceedingly rare and profoundly impactful historical juncture, specifically within the domain of law and governance. In contrast, a counterpoint in this debate contends that the pandemic, rather than introducing an entirely new era, has primarily functioned as an amplifier and extension of pre-existing governing paradigms. Additionally, there is a notable contention that the pandemic has invigorated and revitalized social movements with a central focus on challenging established state structures.

La pandémie de COVID-19 représente-t-elle véritablement un moment charnière pour la gouvernance contemporaine? Cette question suscite de multiples réponses de même qu’une grande variété de débats et de perspectives. D’un côté se trouvent ceux qui soutiennent ardemment que cette pandémie constitue un événement historique des plus rares, aux répercussions profondes, notamment dans le domaine du droit et de la gouvernance. En revanche, d’autres prétendent que la pandémie, plutôt que de marquer le début d’une ère nouvelle, a principalement amplifié et prolongé les paradigmes préexistants de la gouvernance. Par ailleurs, d’aucuns affirment que la pandémie a revigoré et revitalisé les mouvements sociaux axés sur la remise en question des structures étatiques établies.

Paradigms of governance are defined in part by paradigms of contestation—stockpiles of culturally legible tactics for contesting power. This article analyzes the growing use of hard-block and mutual aid tactics in Metulia (sometimes called Victoria, B.C.) as exemplars that suggest liberal paradigms of contestation may be becoming less rigid. Drawing on Robert Cover and Charles Tilly, I argue that the present conjuncture is not, as many analyses suggest, merely a tipping point between one paradigm and the next. Rather, it is a creative moment of experimentation and indeterminacy defined by multiple crises, multiple emergences, and their unpredictable interactions.

This article reflects on the global uprisings in support of Black life during the early pandemic. The focus is on what the protests reveal about Black resistance to the nation-building project of Canada. Protests during this period are understood here to have included taking to the streets, practicing care, and calling for abolition. Drawing on critical race theory and Black Studies, especially Black feminism, the author claims these forms of protest condemned Black dispossession under Canadian laws, while they simultaneously exceeded Canada’s jurisdiction. In other words, the protests can be understood ambivalently, as occurring under and responding to, but not being of, domination. They refashioned the self and the collective, expressing transient freedom from domination and partial redress, even as settler colonial laws would continue to suppress Black and other subaltern peoples. The article navigates such insights through works by Dionne Brand, Saidiya Hartman, and Katherine McKittrick, among others.

Power, while fundamental to sociality, might be exercised with haphazard ferocity or more judiciously in legally constrained ways. Such constraint requires us first to understand how ruling paradigms work, and the effects of their powers, before entertaining suitable forms of legal limitation. Transposing Kuhn’s famous concept, this paper examines a ruling paradigm of biopolitical sovereignty at the Cape of Good Hope through two examples: the 1891 census’ racialized categorizations of the “population”; and a racialized segregation responding to the 1901 bubonic plague. Prefiguring apartheid, both examples indicate how colonial laws authorized discretionary biopowers and yet exempted themselves from monitoring how officials demarcated and governed racialized population groups. The paper touches on the growing maladroitness of positivist ideas about a sovereign “rule of law” in regulating arbitrary biopolitical forces. It concludes by briefly indicating the promise of legal pluralism and Indigenous legalities to check capricious biopowers while pursuing legitimate life-affirming forces.

Mining has been at the forefront of coloniality for hundreds of years in Brazil, representing one of the main threats to the integrity and health of Indigenous lands. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution recognized Indigenous peoples’ rights to the lands they occupy, and their natural resources, according to their traditions, uses, beliefs, and practices. Constitutional provisions, however, have not impeded governments and lawmakers from actively enabling extractive activities in Indigenous territories and their surroundings. Recently, the Bolsonaro government proposed a package of laws and policies to legalize mineral exploitation on Indigenous lands, using the economic uncertainties generated by the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification. However, this action must be explained through the paradigms (or philosophical frameworks) of the extractive economy and coloniality of power, operationalized by necropolitics. The article’s main argument is that the Constitution requires the government to engage in practices of decoloniality that express Indigenous legal traditions. Even though a newly elected government has been revoking many of Bolsonaro’s proposals, the paradigms of the extractive economy and the coloniality of power have a profound, structural influence on the Brazilian legal and political systems and must be challenged by a revival of decolonial ways of thinking and acting.

Cet article porte sur les effets et les contraintes posés par la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les mécanismes de la gouvernance dans le système fédéral canadien. Pour ce faire, nous empruntons un cadre analytique bien spécifique, que nous faisons découler expressément des réflexions de la Cour suprême du Canada dans son Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec. Nous nous intéressons ainsi aux quatre principes sous-jacents à la Constitution canadienne identifiés par la Cour – soit le fédéralisme, la démocratie, le constitutionnalisme et la primauté du droit, de même que la protection des minorités – et à leur respect (ou non-respect) en temps de crise. Nous posons la question suivante : dans quelle mesure l’esprit de ces quatre principes constitutionnels fondamentaux a-t-il été respecté par les acteurs clés du système de gouvernance au Canada alors qu’ils étaient confrontés à la pandémie de COVID-19?

Is the COVID-19 pandemic a critical juncture? An emerging social scientific scholarship on the COVID-19 pandemic has set out to study its effects on a range of social, political, and economic phenomena. Some of this scholarship theorizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is one of those rarest and most impactful moments in time, what historical institutionalists would call a “critical juncture”. This article tests a COVID-19 critical juncture hypothesis by conducting a theory-infirming case study of recent multilingual developments in the United States. Process tracing of federal and state multilingual trajectories reveal that two of the hypothesis’ observable implications are absent: there is no evidence of radical institutional change and ostensibly “new” multilingual pathways were in fact established prior to the pandemic. In light of this evidence, the article concludes by discussing alternative understandings of COVID-19’s effects and this might mean for the study of the pandemic moving forward.

Questions concerning border closures during pandemics often focus on international borders or rights-based considerations. Closures of internal borders in federal countries, such as Canada, raise independent concerns regarding who can close internal borders when. Those questions are not exhausted by rights-based considerations and cannot be resolved using brute empirical measures. They instead implicate the nature and ends of federalism. This text uses the case of internal border restrictions in Canada during COVID-19 to explore whether the kinds of closures that took place there can be justified on federalism grounds. It argues that the case for provinces being able to unilaterally enact interprovincial border closures in federal countries, as observed in Canada during COVID-19, do not withstand scrutiny. It attends to possible justifications for federalism to demonstrate that the best arguments for federalism do not support provincial control over borders that justify provinces possessing, let alone exercising, unilateral authority to close interprovincial borders to persons residing in other provinces.