The Law and Human Rights in Nigeria’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
While measures followed existing public health advisories, they have raised significant legal, constitutional, human rights, and legitimacy issues.

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.

South Africa’s response has mostly respected the rule of law. It remains to be seen whether it comes out on the right or wrong side of human rights.

In Wisconsin, pushback against stay-at-home orders culminated in the state Supreme Court’s decision on May 13 to reverse the state’s “Safer at Home” policy.

This post is the second analysis of key themes that have emerged from the digital symposium “Global Responses to COVID-19: Rights, Democracy, and the Law.”

The selections below offer an array of perspectives on how the U.S. response to the pandemic has affected rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

The Mexican Health System is too fragile to face COVID-19 due to the corruption and lack of investment of former administrations.

The government’s interventionist response raises many questions with respect to the rule of law and human rights, which we explore in this blog.

Beyond specific violations of rights, it is important to note that the executive used the COVID-19 crisis to limit the work of other branches of government.
