Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-z8dxg Total loading time: 0.237 Render date: 2021-09-26T11:02:34.138Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Health Crisis Measures and Standards for Fair Decision-Making: A Normative and Empirical-Based Account of the Interplay Between Science, Politics and Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2021

Patricia POPELIER
Affiliation:
Full Professor, Law and Government, University of Antwerp, Belgium; email: patricia.popelier@uantwerpen.be.
Bjorn KLEIZEN
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Carolyn DECLERCK
Affiliation:
Full Professor, Faculty of Economic Science, University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Monika GLAVINA
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral researcher, GOVTRUST Centre of Excellence, Research Group Politics and Public Governance (Faculty of Social Sciences) and Research Group Government and Law (Faculty of Law), University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Wouter VAN DOOREN
Affiliation:
Professor, Politics and Public Governance, University of Antwerp, Belgium.

Abstract

This paper examines, in the light of the COVID-19 crisis, the room for judicial oversight of health crisis measures based on the public’s expectations of how governments should act in the interplay with experts. The paper explains how trust theory and procedural rationality review help to address concerns related to legitimacy and expertise. The paper argues that courts should distinguish between two stages. In the initial stage, fear as a driver for government support based on expertise justifies that the proportionality test is limited to the question of whether measures were based on virologist expert advice. In the next stage, people expect the government to take expert-informed decisions, but also require that the government takes into account societal needs. Procedural rationality review in this stage demands that courts examine whether the decision was based on an informed balance of rights and interests.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper is an output of the GOVTRUST Centre of Excellence and a project funded by the University of Antwerp Research Council (BOF COVID-19 project).

References

1 A Spadaro, “COVID-19: testing the limits of human rights” (2020) 11 European Journal of Risk Regulation 317.

2 T Ginsburg and M Versteeg, “Binding the unbound executive: checks and balances in times of pandemic” (2020) available at SSRN 3608974.

3 For France, see Liberté Libertés Chéries, “Liberté, Libertés Chéries: Covid-19: Le Président de La Section Du Contentieux En Chevalier Blanc” (Liberté, Libertés chéries, 12 April 2020) <https://libertescheries.blogspot.com/2020/04/covid-19-le-president-de-la-section-du.html> (last accessed 15 February 2021); P Cassia, “Le Conseil d’Etat et l’état d’urgence Sanitaire: Bas Les Masques!” Club de Mediapart (15 February 2021) <https://blogs.mediapart.fr/paul-cassia/blog/100420/le-conseil-d-etat-et-l-etat-d-urgence-sanitaire-bas-les-masques> (last accessed 15 February 2021); S Platon, “Reinventing the wheel… and rolling over fundamental freedoms? The Covid-19 epidemic in France and the ‘State of Health Emergency’” (2020) 8 Theory and Practice of Legislation 293. For Belgium, see the opinion piece by twenty-five constitutionalists, “Haal het parlement uit quarantaine en maak een coronawet” De Standaard (2 November 2020) <https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20201102_93300225> (last accessed 15 February 2021); “Carte Blanche: «Sortez Le Parlement de La Quarantaine!»” Le Soir Plus (2 November 2020) <https://plus.lesoir.be/335482/article/2020-11-02/carte-blanche-sortez-le-parlement-de-la-quarantaine> (last accessed 15 February 2021).

4 Spadaro, supra, note 1; J Petrov, “The COVID-19 emergency in the age of executive aggrandizement: what role for legislative and judicial checks?” (2020) 8 Theory and Practice of Legislation 71.

5 A Alemanno, “Taming COVID-19 by regulation: an opportunity for self-reflection” (2020) 11 European Journal of Risk Regulation 187.

6 Coined by AM Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (1nd ed., New Haven, CT, Yale University Press 1962).

7 C Donnelly, “Participation and expertise: judicial attitudes in comparative perspective”, in S Rose-Ackerman and P Lindseth (eds.), Comparative Administrative Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar 2010) p 357; C Harlow and R Rawlings, Law and Administration (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2009) p 311; T Prosser, “Regulation and legitimacy”, in J Jowell and D Oliver (eds.), The Changing Constitution (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2011) pp 241, 250.

8 LE Mejía, “Judicial review of regulatory decisions: decoding the contents of appeals against agencies in Spain and the United Kingdom” (2020) Regulation & Governance doi: 10.1111/rego.12302.

9 I Bar-Siman-Tov, “Covid-19 meets politics: the novel coronavirus as a novel challenge for legislatures” (2020) 8 Theory and Practice of Legislation 11; E Griglio, “Parliamentary oversight under the Covid-19 emergency: striving against executive dominance” (2020) 8 Theory and Practice of Legislation 49.

10 Alemanno, supra, note 5, 191.

11 EA Posner and A Vermeule, Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts (Oxford, Oxford University Press on Demand 2007) p 5.

12 Bar-Siman-Tov, supra, note 9.

13 LR Barroso, “Countermajoritarian, representative, and enlightened: the roles of constitutional courts in democracies” (2019) 67 American Journal of Comparative Law 109; A Mazmanyan, “Majoritarianism, deliberation and accountability as institutional instincts of constitutional courts” in P Popelier, A Mazmanyan and W Vandenbruwaene (eds.), The Role of Constitutional Courts in Multilevel Governance (Cambridge, Intersentia 2013).

14 W Mishler and RS Sheehan, “The Supreme Court as a countermajoritarian institution? The impact of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions” (1993) 87 American Political Science Review 87; W Mishler and RS Sheehan, “Public opinion, the attitudinal model, and Supreme Court decision making: a micro-analytic perspective” (1996) 58 Journal of Politics 169; CJ Casillas, PK Enns and PC Wohlfarth, “How public opinion constrains the US Supreme Court” (2011) 55 American Journal of Political Science 74.

15 G Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2004); JL Gibson and GA Caldeira, “The legitimacy of transnational legal institutions: compliance, support, and the European Court of Justice” (1995) 39 American Journal of Political Science 459; CJ Carrubba, M Gabel and C Hankla, “Judicial behavior under political constraints: evidence from the European Court of Justice” (2008) 102 American Political Science Review 435; AS Sweet and TL Brunell, “The European Court of Justice, state noncompliance, and the politics of override” (2012) 106 American Political Science Review 204; O Larsson and D Naurin, “Judicial independence and political uncertainty: how the risk of override affects the Court of Justice of the EU” (2016) 70 International Organization 377.

16 Mazmanyan, supra, note 13, 177.

17 RA Brody and CR Shapiro, “Policy failure and public support: the Iran–Contra affair and public assessment of President Reagan” (1989) 11 Political Behavior 353; JR Lee, “Rallying around the flag: foreign policy events and presidential popularity” (1977) 7 Presidential Studies Quarterly 252; JE Mueller, “Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson” (1970) 64 American Political Science Review 18; SL Parker, “Towards an understanding of ‘rally’ effects: public opinion in the Persian Gulf War” (1995) 59 Public Opinion Quarterly 526.

18 AJ Perrin and SJ Smolek, “Who trusts? Race, gender, and the September 11 rally effect among young adults” (2009) 38 Social Science Research 134; B Barnett and L Roselle, “Patriotism in the news: ‘rally round the flag’” (2008) 2 Electronic News 10.

19 P Vasilopoulos, GE Marcus and M Foucault, “Emotional responses to the Charlie Hebdo attacks: addressing the authoritarianism puzzle” (2018) 39 Political Psychology 557.

20 PT Dinesen and MM Jæger, “The effect of terror on institutional trust: new evidence from the 3/11 Madrid terrorist attack” (2013) 34 Political Psychology 917.

21 T Sherlock, “Russian society and foreign policy: mass and elite orientations after Crimea” (2020) 67 Problems of Post-Communism 1; A Kazun, “Framing sanctions in the Russian media: the rally effect and Putin’s enduring popularity” (2016) 24 Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 327; A Kazun, “Rally-around-the-flag and the media: case of economic sanctions in Russia” (2016) 9 National Research University Higher School of Economics.

22 D Devine et al, “Trust and the coronavirus pandemic: what are the consequences of and for trust? An early review of the literature” (2020) Political Studies Review doi: 10.1177/1478929920948684; M Baekgaard et al, “Rallying around the flag in times of COVID-19: societal lockdown and trust in democratic institutions” (2020) 3 Journal of Behavioral Public Administration doi: 10.30636/jbpa.32.172; P Esaiasson et al, “How the coronavirus crisis affects citizen trust in institutions and in unknown others: evidence from ‘the Swedish experiment’” (2020) European Journal of Political Research doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12419; D Schraff, “Political trust during the Covid-19 pandemic: rally around the flag or lockdown effects?” (2020) European Journal of Political Research doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12425.

23 RC Mayer, JH Davis and FD Schoorman, “An organizational model of organizational trust” (1995) 20 Academy of Management Review 709. These are features of the Mayer et al’s ABI model, where competence refers to the expectations that the other party has the competence to successfully complete its tasks; benevolence refers to the expectation that the other party cares about the trustor’s interests and needs; and integrity refers to the expectation that the other party will adhere to principles that are deemed as good and acceptable by the trustor.

24 P Esaiasson and P Öhberg, “The moment you decide, you divide: how politicians assess procedural fairness” (2020) 59 European Journal of Political Research 714.

25 RE Jordan, P Adab and KK Cheng, “Covid-19: risk factors for severe disease and death” (2020) 368 BMJ m1198.

26 GOVTRUST Centre of Excellence, University of Antwerp, “Research note on trust in COVID-19 government policies” (2020) <https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/research-groups/govtrust/blog/updated-research-note-trust/> (last accessed 8 October 2020); F Amat et al, “Pandemics meet democracy. Experimental evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in Spain” (2020) SocArXiv doi: 10.31235/osf.io/dkusw.

27 SR Weaver et al, “Worldviews and trust of sources for health information on electronic nicotine delivery systems: effects on risk perceptions and use” (2017) 3 SSM – Population Health 787; A Osman et al, “Information to improve public perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) tobacco regulatory role” (2018) 15 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 753; A Martin et al, “Enlisting the support of trusted sources to tackle policy problems: the case of antimicrobial resistance” (2019) 14 PLoS ONE e0212993; RM Bratspies, “Regulatory trust” (2009) 51 Arizona Law Review 575.

28 F Six, S de Vadder, M Glavina and K Verhoest, “How the effect of trust and other factors on rule compliance changes over time during the COVID-19 crisis”. Paper presented at the online EGPA conference, 4 September 2020; GOVTRUST Centre of Excellence, University of Antwerp, supra, note 26.

29 Amat et al, supra, note 26; Six et al, supra, note 28.

30 See, apart from standalone papers, the many monographs, edited volumes and special issues, J Gerards and E Brems, Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2017); LM Huijbers, Process-based Fundamental Rights Review: Practice, Concept, and Theory (Cambridge, Intersentia 2019); R Ismer and K Meßerschmidt, “Evidence-based judicial review of legislation: some introductory remarks” (2016) 4 Theory and Practice of Legislation 91; S Rose-Ackerman, S Egidy and J Fowkes, Due Process of Lawmaking (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2015).

31 P Popelier and C Van de Heyning, “Subsidiarity post-Brighton: procedural rationality as answer?” (2017) 30 Leiden Journal of International Law 5.

32 E Mak, “Judicial review of regulatory instruments: the least imperfect alternative?” (2012) 6 Legisprudence 301.

33 R Bal et al, “Practicing corona – towards a research agenda of health policies” (2020) 124 Health Policy 671.

34 W Van Dooren and M Noordegraaf, “Staging science: authoritativeness and fragility of models and measurement in the COVID-19 Crisis” (2020) 80 Public Administration Review 610.

35 For epidemiological data, see Sciensano, “COVID-19 – Epidemiologisch Bulletin van 14 July 2020” (2020) <https://covid-19.sciensano.be/sites/default/files/Covid19/COVID-19_Daily%20report_20200714%20-%20NL.pdf> (last accessed 18 August 2020).

36 P Popelier, “COVID-19 legislation in Belgium at the crossroads of a political and a health crisis” (2020) 8 Theory and Practice of Legislation 131.

37 Source: Sciensano: The Belgium-based institute for health, “Covid-19 monitoring” <https://epistat.wiv-isp.be/covid/> (last accessed 30 September 2020).

38 GOVTRUST Centre of Excellence, University of Antwerp, supra, note 26.

39 CELEVAL, “Celeval Advice 64” (2020) <https://d34j62pglfm3rr.cloudfront.net/celeval/64_20200726_Celeval-adviezen_NL-FR_Sch%C3%A9masSciensano.pdf> (last accessed 15 February 2021).

40 CoS, Bou-Oudi, No. 248.541, 9 October 2020. Not included are the cases where the individual enforcement decisions were challenged without criticising the underlying ministerial decree.

41 Since CoS, bvba Brasserie Flandria No. 248.780, 28 October 2020.

42 CoS, Schoenaerts, No. 248.162, 20 August 2020.

43 CoS, Stihl and Fedagril, No. 247.452, 27 April 2020.

44 Since CoS, The Masters, No. 248.131, 10 August 2020.

45 CoS, BV The Masters, No. 248.131, 10 August 2020; BV Harman, No. 248.132, 10 August 2020.

46 CoS, Schoenaerts, Nos 248.161 and 248.162, 20 August 2020; No. 248.818, 30 October 2020.

47 CoS, Suenens, No. 247.674, 28 May 2020.

48 The study, part of a wider BOF COVID-19 project, is approved by the Social Science Ethics Commission of the University of Antwerp.

49 N Garoupa and PC Magalhães, “Public trust in the European legal systems: independence, accountability and awareness” (2021) 44 West European Politics 690, 694.

50 S Grimmelikhuijsen and E Knies, “Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations” (2017) 83 International Review of Administrative Sciences 583.

51 JGL Lee et al, “Raising the legal age of tobacco sales: policy support and trust in government, 2014–2015, US” (2016) 51 American Journal of Preventive Medicine 910; A Forteza and C Noboa, “Perceptions of institutional quality and justification of tax evasion” (2019) 30 Constitutional Political Economy 367.

52 RA Huber, ML Wicki and T Bernauer, “Public support for environmental policy depends on beliefs concerning effectiveness, intrusiveness, and fairness” (2020) 29 Environmental Politics 649.

53 The exact wording of the vignettes can be obtained from the authors.

54 Grimmelikhuijsen and Knies, supra, note 49.

55 SE Taylor et al, “Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight” (2000) 107 Psychological Review 411; L Tomova et al, “Acute stress alters neural patterns of value representation for others” (2020) 209 NeuroImage 116497; L Tomova et al, “Is stress affecting our ability to tune into others? Evidence for gender differences in the effects of stress on self–other distinction” (2014) 43 Psychoneuroendocrinology 95.

56 Response categories for news interest varied from daily to less than once per week. Because the responses were strongly right-skewed towards the daily category, the choice was made to recode the variable into daily versus less than daily.

57 But see supra, note 55.

58 While ordinary least squares estimation with robust standard errors yielded the same results, it does not take into account the ordinal nature of the dependent variable. We therefore present ordered logistic results here, with ordinary least squares results being available upon request.

59 Using exploratory factor analyses with oblique promax(3) rotation (as factors are likely to be correlated). Factor loadings were used to generate regression-based indices.

60 “Vanaf Zaterdag Mondmaskers Verplicht in Alle Winkels, Biosco…” Het Nieuwsblad (9 July 2020) <https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20200709_97177091> (last accessed 15 February 2021).

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Health Crisis Measures and Standards for Fair Decision-Making: A Normative and Empirical-Based Account of the Interplay Between Science, Politics and Courts
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Health Crisis Measures and Standards for Fair Decision-Making: A Normative and Empirical-Based Account of the Interplay Between Science, Politics and Courts
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Health Crisis Measures and Standards for Fair Decision-Making: A Normative and Empirical-Based Account of the Interplay Between Science, Politics and Courts
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *