Ukryj
Pokaż wszystkie
Wyślij tekst przez e-mail Pandemia COVID-19 jako możliwość trwałego ograniczenia praw obywatelskich
Streszczenie w języku polskim
Pandemia COVID-19 wywołała daleko idące skutki, które są widoczne przede wszystkim w funkcjonowaniu służby zdrowia, organizacji życia społecznego i stanie gospodarki narodowej. Warto zwrócić uwagę także na konsekwencje prawne i polityczne, które są mniej oczywiste i odczuwalne dla przeciętnych obywateli. Jedną z najważniejszych jest zmiana ustawodawstwa, która pociąga za sobą ograniczenie wolności i praw obywatelskich. Niniejszy artykuł jest empirycznym dowodem na to, jak polskie ustawodawstwo ogranicza prawa podstawowe. Władze w walce z pandemią nie korzystają z rozwiązań, które znajdują się w Konstytucji RP, lecz sięgają po pozakonstytucyjną formę tzw. specustaw. Omawiając to zagadnienie, autorzy odwołują się do amerykańskiego ustawodawstwa i polityki, gdzie znamiennym przykładem jest Patriot Act, który można interpretować jako pretekst do ograniczania swobód obywatelskich w imię walki z terroryzmem. Jak stwierdzono, takie sytuacje nadzwyczajne jak obecna pandemia czy zagrożenie terroryzmem są wykorzystywane do trwałego i znaczącego ograniczania praw obywatelskich.
Słowa kluczowe
Pełny tekst:
PDF (English)Bibliografia
LITERATURE
Ackerman B., Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism, New Haven 2006.
Alexander L.A., Constitutionalism, [in:] The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, eds. M.P. Golding, W.A. Edmundson, Oxford 2008.
Alexy R., La doble naturaleza del derecho, Madrid 2016.
Barbera A., Le basi filosofiche del costituzionalismo, Bari–Roma 2019.
Bauman Z., Liquid Modernity, Cambridge 2000.
Bingham T, The Rule of Law, London 2011.
Bloch-Wehba H., Process Without Procedure: National Security Letters and First Amendment Rights, “Suffolk University Law Review” 2016, vol. 39(3).
Chemerinsky E., Post 9/11 Civil Rights: Are Americans Sacrificing Freedom for Security?, “Denver University Law Review” 2004, vol. 81(4).
Chmielnicki P., Dybała A., Stachura M., Activity Rules of Economic Man in Society as the Source of Legal Norms, Warsaw 2010.
Constitutionalism: Philosophical Foundations, ed. L.A. Alexander, Cambridge 2001.
Devins N., Fisher L., The Democratic Constitution, Oxford 2004.
Dippel H., Modern Constitutionalism: An Introduction to a History in the Need of Writing, “Legal History Review” 2005, vol. 73.
Dobrzeniecki K., Prawo wobec sytuacji nadzwyczajnej. Między legalizmem a koniecznością, Toruń 2018.
Dyzenhaus D., The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency, Cambridge 2009.
Elliot J., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 4: Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Washington 1836.
Fromm E., Escape from Freedom, New York 2013.
Fuller L.L., The Morality of Law, New Haven–London 1969.
Gheciu A., Securing Civilization? The EU, NATO, and OSCE in the Post-9/11 World, Oxford 2008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217229.001.0001.
Gross O., “Once more unto the Breach”: The Systemic Failure of Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to Entrenched Emergencies, “Yale Journal of International Law” 1998, vol. 23(2).
Gross O., Ni Aoláin F., Law in Times of Crisis, Cambridge 2006, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493997.
Hart H.L.A, The Concept of Law, Oxford 1961.
Heller Á., Wykłady i seminaria lubelskie, Lublin 2006.
Konstytucja RP, vol. 2: Komentarz do art. 87–243, ed. M. Safjan, Warszawa 2016.
Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Komentarz, ed. P. Tuleja, Warszawa 2019.
Krygier M., Four Puzzles about the Rule of Law: Why, what, where? And who cares?, “Sant’Anna Legal Studies” 2015, vol. 5.
Lacey N., Populism and the Rule of Law, “Annual Review of Law and Social Science” 2019, vol. 15, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042919.
Laidler P., How Republicans and Democrats Strengthen Secret Surveillance in the United States, “Political Preferences” 2019, vol. 25, DOI: https://doi.org/10.31261/polpre.2019.25.5-20.
Lazar N.C., State of Emergency in Liberal Democracies, Cambridge 2009, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596704.
Likert R., A technique for the measurement of attitudes, “Archives of Psychology” 1932, vol. 140.
Magnusson R., Chapter 11: Public Health Emergencies, [in:] Advancing the Right to Health: The Vital Role of Law, Geneva 2017.
Nieland A.E., National Security Letters and the Amended Patriot Act, “Cornell Law Review” 2007, vol. 92(6).
Palombella G., The Rule of Law as Institutional Ideal, “Comparative Sociology” 2010, vol. 9(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12535202814315.
Pino G., Il costituzionalismo dei diritti. Struttura e limiti del costituzionalismo contemporaneo, Bologna 2017.
Radbruch G., Gesetzliches. Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht, “Süddeutsche Juristen-Zaitung” 1946, vol. 1.
Rybkowski R., Dyskurs strachu. Jak się nie bać współczesnych mediów?, “Horyzonty Wychowania” 2011, vol. 10(19).
Salam R., The Relationship Between States of Emergency, Politics and The Rule of Law, “Canterbury Law Review” 2017, vol. 23.
Solove D.J., The First Amendment as Criminal Procedure, “New York University Law Review” 2007, vol. 82.
The Paradox of Constitutionalism. Constituent Power and Constitutional Form, eds. M. Loughlin, N. Walker, Oxford 2007.
Weinstein B., Legal Responses and Countermeasures to National Security Letters, “Washington University Journal of Law & Policy” 2015, vol. 47.
Wyden R., Guthrie C., Dickas J., Perkins A., Law and Policy Efforts to Balance Security, Privacy and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 America, “Stanford Law and Policy Review” 2006, vol. 17(329).
Zaliwski Ł., „Specustawy” w prawodawstwie polskim – zjawisko incydentalne czy stałe?, “Zeszyty Naukowe PWSZ im. Witelona w Legnicy” 2018, vol. 27(2).
Zitter J.M., Annotation, Constitutionality of National Security Letters Issued Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 2709, (2008), 25 A.L.R. FED. 2d 547.
ONLINE SOURCES
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/text/20010920-8.html [access: 6.03.2021].
Foucault M., Benvenuto S., Agamben G., Coronavirus and Philosophers, “European Journal of Psychoanalysis” 2020, www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers [access: 6.03.2021].
Government bill on interest subsidies for bank loans to provide financial liquidity to business affected by COVID-19 and on amendments to certain other acts (Print no. 382 and 382-A), 2020, www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm9.nsf/PrzebiegProc.xsp?nr=382 [access: 6.03.2021].
Johns Hopkins University Medicine. Coronavirus Resource Center, COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html [access: 2.06.2021].
Leigh Cowan A., Hartford Libraries Watch as U.S. Makes Demands, 2.09.2005, www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/nyregion/hartford-libraries-watch-as-us-makes-demands.html [access: 6.03.2021].
Pandemic severity index, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic_severity_index [access: 6.03.2021].
Statement of MP Katarzyna Lubnauer, record of the session of the Health Committee of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland (no. 13) of 2 March 2020, www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm9.nsf/biuletyn.xsp?skrnr=ZDR-13 [access: 6.03.2021].
Svensson S., Disinformation kills: The Covid-19 infodemic, 29.04.2020, https://observatoryihr.org/blog/disinformation-kills-the-covid-19-infodemic [access: 6.03.2021].
United Nations Department of Global Communications, UN working to ensure vulnerable groups not left behind in COVID-19 response, www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-working-ensure-vulnerable-groups-not-left-behind-covid-19 [access: 6.03.2021].
OTHERS
Administration’s Draft Anti-Terrorism Act, Serial no. 39, 2001, Washington 2001.
Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation – Centennial Edition – Interim, S. Doc. 112-9, August 26, 2017.
House of Representatives Report 95-1383 (1986).
In re National Security Letter 930 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
LEGAL ACTS
Act of 10 April 2003 on specific rules for preparing and implementing investment in public roads (Journal of Laws 2003, no. 80, item 721).
Act of 2 March 2020 on specific solutions related to the prevention, countering, and combating COVID-19, other infectious diseases, and crises caused by them (Journal of Laws 2020, item 374).
Act of 31 March 2020 amending the Act on the system of development of institutions (Journal of Laws 2020, item 569).
Act of 6 April 2020 on specific rules for holding general elections for the presidency of the Republic of Poland that were scheduled for 2020 (Journal of Laws 2020, item 827).
Act of 19 June 2020 on interest subsidies on bank loans granted to business persons affected by COVID-19, and on simplification of proceedings to approve an arrangement because of the occurrence of COVID-19 (Journal of Laws 2020, item 1086).
Alien Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596.
Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997 (Journal of Laws 1997, no. 78, item 483, as amended).
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848.
Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-630, 92 Stat. 3641.
Smith Act of 1940, Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-23, 129 Stat. 269.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA Patriot Act) of 2001, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272.
USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020, H.R.6172 – 116th Congress.
USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Publ. L. 109-177, 120 Stat. 192.
CASE LAW
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).
Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Doe v. Gonzales, 386 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D. Conn. 2005).
Doe v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006).
Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2484 (2014).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 956 (2012).
United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 288 (6th Cir. 2010).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.4.77-109
Data publikacji: 2021-10-13 00:45:23
Data złożenia artykułu: 2021-03-22 10:24:56
Statystyki
Wskaźniki
Odwołania zewnętrzne
- Brak odwołań zewnętrznych
Prawa autorskie (c) 2021 Paweł Chmielnicki, Dobrochna Minich, Radosław Rybkowski, Michał Stachura, Konrad Szocik
Powyższa praca jest udostępniana na lcencji Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.