Concerns Mount About Rule of Law in Argentina During COVID-19
Growing problems are driven by one overarching institutional factor: a constitutionally unsustainable procedure for decision-making.

Growing problems are driven by one overarching institutional factor: a constitutionally unsustainable procedure for decision-making.
Here we are: almost 130,000 deaths, a Ministry of Health populated by military men, and a president who dismisses the pandemic as a “little flu.”
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues apace in Chile, a test of the country’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law looms close.
The greatest take-away may be the role of the law in reflecting and shaping the moral and structural foundations of our democracies.
Policy wise, the measures are similar to those of other European countries. But the legal basis for these restrictions has proven extremely controversial.
South Korea has been hailed for its swift and thorough response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But the response has come at a cost, affecting privacy and rights.
The Argentinian response to COVID-19 has concentrated power in the hands of the Executive, restricted fundamental rights, and militarized public space.
While measures followed existing public health advisories, they have raised significant legal, constitutional, human rights, and legitimacy issues.
Tensions between welfarisms that enable and those that suffocate are evident in Ireland’s move to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Strict, early measures did not lead to better control of the disease, in comparison to other countries in the region.