Given the requirements of article 4 and the triple test that must be satisfied for such limitations to be permissible, why then and in what circumstances do states invoke article 4 limitations? Legally, as evidenced previously, no emergency or crisis is required for states to employ article 4. However, in practice it would appear logical that States Parties will utilise article 4 when faced with a situation that they deem different from the norm – challenging for the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. It is also true, however, that the question of whether the nature of the ‘emergency’ or crisis should or does make a difference to how article 4 is applied is not one which has been considered in any depth. In examining how article 4 has been applied previously, until the advent of the financial crisis and austerity measures in 2008, article 4 had been rarely invoked by states or indeed interpreted by the CESCR. More recently, article 4 limitations have been discussed in the context of the COVID-19 global pandemic, but it is argued that each of these ‘crises’ or ‘emergencies’ raise different and specific challenges for limitations of ESCRs. Moreover, should a state of emergency or crisis make any difference to how article 4 is applied, given the ICESCR does not provide for any specific emergency regime.