Travel Restrictions and Border Security Measures on the Canada-U.S. Border During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Does Law Matter in a Crisis?

Limited travel restrictions and border controls may be justified on a short-term emergency basis in the early stages of an outbreak of infectious disease even though such measures, if applied broadly, may not conform to the principles of ethical public health practices and almost certainly infringe on constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. Although the broad travel restrictions and border controls on the Canada-U.S. border raise a number of novel legal and public policy issues in terms of their necessity, efficacy, and constitutionality, a tradition of judicial deference in cases involving public health measures during a pandemic suggests that the courts may uphold the travel restrictions and border control measures as a necessary and reasonable limit on constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022.

Interpreting the state–citizen nexus in contemporary Nordic legal and social citizenship: the case of divergence in restriction on freedom of movement as a mitigation policy in the COVID-19 pandemic

The aim of this article was to use an interpretivist approach to analyse the state–citizen nexus in general and the conflict between civil and social rights imposing restrictions on people's freedom of movement during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Nordic countries: Sweden (restrictions were voluntary and relied on nudging and individual implementation), Norway (restrictions of movement were for everyone and was enforced by authorities), and Finland (restrictions of movement were for the capital region and was enforced by authorities). Sweden focused more on upholding the civil rights vis-à-vis social rights whereas in Norway and Finland social rights have trumped civil rights in the face of the pandemic. Thus, the analysis suggests that the Nordic countries cannot be understood as monoliths in all respects. The article thereby contributes to a greater understanding of how the Nordic governments prioritise civil and social rights differently when they are forced to choose.

Respecting older people's rights and freedoms during a health crisis

The major restrictions on rights and freedoms imposed by the management of the COVID-19 crisis have caused significant psychological, and sometimes physical, suffering for older people with decreased independence living in collective housing. Without calling into question the decisions made by these housing establishments, which for the most part were motivated by a desire and need to protect their residents, the aim of this contribution is to question the processes that led—and still lead—to decisions restricting freedom, the proportionality of which may be questioned. In fact, those managing such establishments have had to make decisions in an ambiguous legal and social context, marked by the proliferation of non-decisive guidelines and recommendations (soft law acts), which has led to practical difficulties in the implementation of health standards within the establishments and has had a considerable impact on residents' individual freedoms. Some of these restrictions could be described as forms of abuse. © 2022 Fondation Nationale de Gerontologie. All rights reserved. Les restrictions majeures de droits et libertés imposées par la gestion de la crise épidémique de Covid-19 ont engendré des souffrances psychiques et parfois physiques importantes pour les personnes âgées vivant en établissement d'hébergement pour personnes dépendantes. Sans remettre en cause les décisions des établissements qui, pour une large majorité, ont été motivées par la volonté et la nécessité de protéger leurs résidents, l'objectif de cette contribution vise à interroger les processus qui ont conduit – et conduisent encore – à des décisions restrictives de liberté dont la proportionnalité peut être discutée. En effet, les directions d'établissement ont dû prendre des décisions dans un contexte juridique et social ambigu, marqué par le foisonnement d'orientations et de recommandations non décisoires (actes de droit souple), ce qui a engendré des difficultés pratiques dans la mise en œuvre des normes sanitaires au sein des établissements et a eu un impact considérable sur l'exercice des libertés individuelles des résidents dont certaines restrictions pourraient être qualifiées de forme de maltraitance. © 2022 Fondation Nationale de Gerontologie. All rights reserved.

Design of service robot control system for epidemic prevention and control

In view of the fact that Covid-19 is highly contagious, which poses great threat and inconvenience to people's production and life, a multifunctional robot control system with single-chip microcomputer as the control core is designed, aiming at the problems of centralized isolation points in communities, complicated situation and difficult management. Firstly, Gmapping algorithm is used to realize the robot's autonomous positioning and avoidance. Secondly, a three-degree-of-freedom robot arm is designed to disinfect any indoor space. Finally, Gmapping algorithm is used to recognize and measure the temperature of human face. Through the simulation experiment, this method can improve the efficiency of searching the shortest path and carry out disinfection work while reducing human contact, improving public safety and has practical value. © 2023 IEEE.

Compulsory vaccination in Brazil: a bioethical reflection on the measure / Vacinação compulsória no Brasil: uma reflexão bioética sobre a medida

O presente artigo teve como objetivo discutir a compulsoriedade da aplicação vacinal no Brasil à luz dos princípios bioéticos. Para tanto, analisaram-se os desdobramentos históricos do manuseio dos imunizantes no país e identificaram-se as interferências dos princípios propostos pela bioética no tocante à aplicação segura e eficaz de vacinas. Reforçando-se a notoriedade da temática no cenário atual, debateram-se, ainda, as novas perspectivas que a pandemia de covid-19 propiciou no que concerne à vacinação compulsória. Por último, examinou-se o papel do Estado quanto ao equilíbrio a ser encontrado na busca pela consolidação dos direitos sanitários inerentes ao corpo social e os deveres das entidades públicas, por via do Programa Nacional de Imunizações, na garantia da exímia aplicação da Constituição Cidadã de 1988. A pesquisa teve abordagem qualitativa, construída a partir de revisão bibliográfica de cunho integrativo. Concluiu-se pelo caráter elementar das campanhas de vacinação obrigatória, sobretudo em cenários de incerteza populacional quanto à segurança dos imunizantes, em que o papel dos entes governamentais é enfatizado pela necessária conservação da saúde pública.

This article aimed to discuss the compulsory application of vaccines in Brazil in the light of bioethical principles. Historical developments related to the handling of immunizers in the country were analyzed and interferences of the principles proposed by bioethics regarding the safe and effective application of the vaccine were identified. Also, reinforcing the notoriety of the theme in the current scenario, a debate was presented about the new perspectives that the Covid-19 pandemic provided with regard to compulsory vaccination. Finally, the role of the State was examined regarding the balance to be found in the search for the consolidation of the health rights inherent to the social body and the duties of public entities, through the National Immunization Program, in guaranteeing the excellent application of the Citizen Constitution of 1988. The research has a qualitative approach built from a bibliographic review with an integrative nature. As a conclusion, this study reveals the elementary nature of mandatory vaccination campaigns, especially in scenarios of population uncertainty regarding the safety of immunizers in which the role of government entities is emphasized by the necessary conservation of public health.

The digital revolution and religious fact in the context of lockdowns linked to the coronavirus

The acceleration of the transformations brought about by digital technology is profoundly disrupting society and the established economic models. This chapter analyzes the impact of lockdown on the spiritual lives of believers and the innovative contribution of digital tools for the maintenance and renewal of religious practices within communities, subject to strong restrictions of individual and collective freedoms imposed by the public authorities. Religion is the set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and practices that define the relationship of human beings with the sacred or a deity. The concept of confinement in the religious sphere has been closely linked to the history of religious practices since the beginning. In Europe, during the Spanish flu epidemic in 1918-1919, when the mechanisms of contagion were already well known, France severely restricted religious services. The tools most used during the Covid-19 lockdown were ultimately quite similar in both the professional and private spheres. © ISTE Ltd 2022.

The governance shock doctrine: Civic space in the pandemic

MotivationEmergencies heighten societies' need to be governed. Accordingly, the COVID‐19 pandemic put systems of public governance under severe pressure across the globe. Civic freedoms were widely curtailed for public health reasons. Scarce resources needed to be allocated swiftly, with little opportunity for debate.PurposeIn settings characterized by authoritarianism, violent conflict, and restricted civic space, relations between governments, civil society, and citizens at best tend to be fragile and fraught even in "normal” times. What happens when these settings are rocked by a profound shock such as the onset of a global pandemic?Methods and approachThis article is based on research on civic space and civic action shortly after the onset of the pandemic in three such settings—Mozambique, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Civil society advocates in each country tracked and interpreted events in real time, debated their responses, supplemented their own knowledge through key informant interviews, and compared experiences across countries.FindingsI argue that the three governments' responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic constitute a "governance shock doctrine,” based on the premise that shocks bring responses from the powerful that advance certain agendas. This patterned phenomenon, visible across the three countries, consists of "securitization” of the public health emergency, suppression of dissent, extension and centralization of executive powers, curtailment of press freedoms, and tightened regulation of civic space, including online space. Civic activism navigated or combated these attacks in various ways.Policy implicationsMeasures adopted in emergency situations tend to persist, threatening to lock civil society into living with pandemic‐era restrictions. Preventing this should be a global priority, and especially important where authoritarianism already looms. An energetic mobilization among national and international actors to reassert and protect civic space is needed if the erosion of civil liberties and normalization of autocratic governance wrought by the political‐military apparatus in so many countries during the COVID‐19 pandemic is not to become permanent, and if the inspired and progressive innovations in organic civic activism over the 2020–2021 crisis period are to survive and flourish.

La covid-19 y el espacio Schengen. Hacia un nuevo modelo de interdependencia europeo

Determinados elementos diferenciales de la arquitectura política-institucional interna de la Unión Europea (UE) y su propia naturaleza jurídica condicionan y determinan su comportamiento y la eficacia de sus decisiones, convirtiendo a esta organización internacional sui generis en un actor internacional de primer nivel. Esta condición ha hecho que, en el marco de las Relaciones Internacionales y, en concreto, tras la pandemia, deba estudiarse de manera diferenciada su impacto sobre conceptos de las Relaciones Internacionales como la interdependencia. Todas las restricciones a la movilidad durante la pandemia se adoptaron a nivel nacional, sin ser acordadas ni coordinadas previamente a nivel de las instituciones de la UE. En el marco institucional, la Comisión Europea se limitó a adoptar un conjunto de medidas de derecho indicativo o softlaw destinadas a coordinar las medidas nacionales y a subrayar la importancia de la no discriminación y la proporcionalidad en su aplicación que, en muchos casos, no se respetó. La UE es una entidad compleja y dividida que implica a muchos actores -sociales, regionales, Estados miembros, instituciones supranacionales- y por tanto los modelos que adopta en situaciones de crisis repercuten no solo en los Estados miembros, sino que muestra la importancia de la complejidad en la era de la globalización. Un estudio de estos modelos, en cierta medida, nos facilita la posibilidad de establecer patrones que, a pesar de la complejidad de la sociedad (internacional) y las relaciones internacionales, nos permitirían ofrecer múltiples canales que faciliten la colaboración global en la solución de fenómenos específicos. La presente propuesta pretende contribuir a esclarecer esos patrones y consecuentemente establecer nuevas líneas de desarrollo en la investigación sobre el concepto de la interdependencia tras la pandemia ocasionada por la covid-19 en el espacio Schengen. Este nuevo marco de interpretación de la interdependencia contribuirá a la comprensión de algunos aspectos actuales de las Relaciones Internacionales contemporáneas. Así, la interdependencia que se genera en uno u otro modelo de convivencia entre estados determina en última instancia la respuesta de estos a mutaciones tan excepcionales como la generada por la covid-19 en 2020 y su impacto en lo que siempre se ha considerado uno de los logros más notables de la integración europea, el mercado único.Alternate :This research starts from the situation generated by the pandemic in 2022 in the Schengen area. Paradoxically, a few days before the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Schengen area, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of Coronavirus, a global pandemic which forced the closure of most European borders. What seemed to be a guaranteed right, freedom of movement, was suspended in order to control the pandemic. The decisions taken by states unilaterally generated complex derivations in the framework of complex interdependence within which the European Union operates. National measures, far from guaranteeing the four fundamental freedoms, highlighted the discrepancies and lack of integration in this area. The temporary restrictions on free movement indirectly signified the proclamation that public health and those freedoms cannot coexist in critical situations, eliminating any pretense of EU leadership. Transnational relations, which on the one hand led to the increasing interconnectedness of societies, on the other hand also resulted in the restriction of states' foreign policy spaces for action. This has led to the emergence of international governance, a model that has a strong influence on the development and functioning of the EU. Most EU Member States reacted quickly to the risk of the exponential spread of the coronavirus and adopted stringent preventive measures that culminated in unprecedented restrictions on the free movement of persons within the EU, with important consequences for the functioning of the internal market. The narrative of Europe as a ma ket power emerges as an alternative. The normative approach to European identity assumes that the very nature of the EU as a market predisposes it to use its economic capabilities as a foreign policy tool. Thus, an approach that emphasizes this fact will be analytically more appropriate than an approach based on the normative identity of the Union. This points to the gestation of a new form of global governance and the design of new mechanisms for cooperation between states in the framework of interdependence and could be seen as a starting point for the debate on whether interfering in the internal market with restrictions and prohibitions on mobility was a reasonable alternative for member states to take, considering other competing interests. That is, whether the situation generated by the pandemic justified the degree of interference with free movement within the EU. The European system of governance, the most developed in contemporary international relations, showed many weaknesses and even a regression during the pandemic;that is, to a pre-eminently intergovernmental process, led by the most powerful EU countries. The EU's international cooperation systems, mechanisms and instruments must lay the foundations for a new agenda adapted to the reality of a post-Covid multipolar and interdependent world. This article is organized in three parts. The first part focuses on situating the concept of interdependence in both traditional and contemporary International Relations. This interdependence is generated for different reasons, each of which specifically defines the model to be followed by states in their transnational relations. The progressive redistribution of global power towards multipolarity and the deepening of interdependence between states have given rise to a transition towards interpolarity in which cooperation/integration, multilateralism and the role of the great powers or polarity occupy a prominent place. This is due to the increase in the number, quality and nature of the different interconnections that, at the international level, take place between different types of actors. Once the concept of interdependence has been placed in a global framework, the impact of this phenomenon on the Schengen area will be studied as an element common to all Member States, but for which different solutions were offered. The temporary suspension of the Schengen area affected the four fundamental freedoms and, although some were affected more than others, there is no doubt about its impact on European systems. This impact, far from being gauged by the European Union as an organization, was managed unilaterally by the states that persisted in their isolationist attitude, reinforcing the scarce integration that the Schengen area has always experienced but which was necessary in this context. The difference in scope and rigidity of national travel restrictions and bans resulted in a spectrum of diverse and sometimes inconsistent restrictions across the Union. As an example, most entry bans to national territories contained exceptions for domestic nationals and residents: some provided exceptions for nationals, residents, and persons confirmed negative for Covid-19, whereas others offered exceptions to nationals, residents, and persons entering the national territory for valid reasons. The second part of our research focuses on a qualitative analysis of the restrictions in the Schengen area and whether the interdependence experienced in this area and its lack of integration favour or harm the EU's behaviour on the international stage. Member States justified all travel restrictions -including entry and exit bans to and from national territories- on public health grounds. In this sense, the removal of multilevel governance elements in different EU policy areas elevated issues originally from the European framework to the international level without considering their long-term impact. Thus, some EU covid-19 measures, such as the severe restrictions on free movement that affected refugee and asylum rights during the pandemic s owed that the terms of solidarity underpinning the framework for the implementation of refugee and asylum rights in the EU, which does not go beyond the national level, are not commensurate with the real need for concrete solutions in this area. The human rights implications of all these border closures are alarming and put at serious risk vulnerable populations that should be protected by these national and international legal obligations. With regards to the internal aspect, the Schengen area is a space where interdependence between states is clearly visible in such obvious and important areas as global trade in goods and services, capital transfers, and information connectivity, thanks to the Internet and social networks. For example, we see that during the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a direct link between, for example, the suspension of the Schengen area, the health systems of the Member States, and the health systems of the EU Member States.

Emotions, governmental trust and support for the restriction of civil liberties during the covid‐19 pandemic

The Covid‐19 pandemic brought unprecedented governmental restrictions to personal and political freedoms. This article investigates individual‐level differences in mass support for the restriction of civil liberties during the first wave of the Covid‐19 pandemic. Employing theories of affect and decision making, it assesses the extent to which different emotional reactions toward the pandemic influenced attitudes toward mobile phone surveillance and the implementation of curfews. We test our hypotheses in five advanced European democracies using panel data which allow us to identify the role of emotions in support for restrictive policies controlling for individual heterogeneity. The results suggest that experiencing fear about Covid‐19 had a strong positive impact on supporting these measures, while hope and anger only played a minimal role. Importantly, the findings indicate that emotions moderate the impact of trust toward the government, a key variable for supporting the restriction of civil liberties during the pandemic. Specifically, experiencing fear was associated with higher acceptance of civil liberty restrictions. Further, experiencing fear substantially decreased the effect of trust in the government, rendering those who lack trust toward the government more supportive of civil liberty restrictions. These findings help us understand the psychological mechanisms that leads citizens to swiftly decide to sacrifice their civil liberties in the light of threat. Further, they offer empirical support for the causal role of affect in political decision‐making.

A dichotomy between democracy and personal freedom on the spread of COVID-19

PurposeThe authors analyze the effects of political freedom and personal freedom on the spread of COVID-19 in a cross-country study. The authors also investigate how income inequality, urbanization and previous experience with a similar respiratory epidemic/pandemic, such as SARS and MERS, affect the spread of COVID-19.Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ data from 102 countries to examine the relationship of countries' economic and sociopolitical factors, such as political freedom and personal freedom and their COVID-19 infection cases per million population at 120 days, 150 days and 180 days after the reported 10th infection case. The authors also include the log term of real GDP per capita to control for counties' economic development and regional dummies to control for regional-specific effects.FindingsResults of this study show that personal freedom, rather than democracy, has a significant positive effect on countries' COVID-19 infection cases. On the contrary, democracy has a negative impact on the infection rate. The authors also find that socioeconomic factors such as higher income inequality and urbanization rate adversely affect the COVID-19 infection cases. A larger older population is associated with fewer infection cases, holding everything else equal. Previous experiences with the coronavirus crisis affect countries only at the 120 days mark. Real GDP per capita has no significant effect.Originality/valueThe main contribution of this paper is to jointly explore personal freedom, which implies a social framework with more emphasis on self-value and self-realization and political freedom, that is, democracy. The authors show that it is personal freedom, rather than democracy, that contributes to higher COVID-19 infection cases. Democracy, on the other hand, reduces the number of infection cases.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-12-2021-0769

Who Loves Lockdowns? Public Service Motivation, Bureaucratic Personality, and Support for COVID-19 Containment Policy

Policies adopted to curb the spread of COVID-19 impose limits on individual freedom and although some citizens have consistently supported containment policy, others have resisted. Beyond political orientation, however, little research has explored the attitudinal basis of support for stringent virus containment policy. We argue that individuals with high levels of public service motivation (PSM) will more readily accept the sacrifices entailed by containment policy and thereby express stronger support for it. Second, we argue that the positive relationship between PSM and containment policy support is both mediated by trust in government and moderated by bureaucratic personality, the latter denoting a favorable orientation towards rules in general. Using a country-wide sample of 568 South Korean citizens collected in the fall of 2021, we estimate a conditional process model of support for COVID-19 policy stringency. We find that PSM has both a direct and indirect relationship with support via trust in government and that the indirect effect is moderated by bureaucratic personality, though not in the expected direction. We also report the results of a post hoc analysis which suggests interesting differences in how individuals evaluate rules that limit individual versus organizational freedom.

Digital Juneteenth: Territorializing the Freedom Colony Diaspora

After Juneteenth, formerly enslaved African Americans in Texas founded hundreds of historic Black settlements known as freedom colonies. Later, freedom colonies' populations dispersed, physical traces disappeared, and memories of locations vanished as descendants passed away. In the absence of buildings and legally recognized borders, intangible heritage—stories, ephemeral traditions—define a sense of place. Betraying the perception that these places have disappeared, founders' descendants express commitments to freedom colonies by returning periodically to plan commemorative events, rehabilitate historic structures, and steward cemeteries. The Texas Freedom Colonies Project (The TXFC Project), a team of faculty and student researchers, documents settlements while supporting descendant communities' historic preservation aims. By making diasporic publics legible and increasing the visibility of communities' settlement patterns and remaining extant features, The TXFC Project elevates stakeholders' concerns in urban planning domains. In 2020, COVID-19's social distancing requirements challenged diasporic descendants' efforts to foster social cohesion. Consequently, The TXFC Project hosted a Facebook Live "talk show,” leveraging social media platforms to amplify freedom colony descendants' work. The team analyzed event transcripts revealing cultural adaptations to socially restrictive conditions during Juneteenth commemorations and indicating that virtual storytelling helped territorialize widely dispersed, unbounded places for stakeholders facing natural and human-made disruptions.

Health, Religiosity and Hatred: A Study of the Impacts of COVID-19 on World Jewry.

This exploratory study examines the likely causes of the alarming global rise of antisemitism during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning with an appraisal of today's world Jewry, this exploratory study highlights the main social, health, and religious impacts COVID-19 has had on Jews worldwide and goes on to highlight how various Jewish communities managed and adjusted to COVID-19 public health restrictions. From this contextual backdrop, an assessment of how and why antisemitism has surged during the pandemic is presented, along with a review of what efforts are being taken to curtail this rise in hatred toward Jews. A central aim of this study is to underline the point that until meaningful, broad, and international steps are taken to curb online hate, the historic antisemitic tropes and myths suggesting Jews are the cause of disease will undoubtedly evolve and surge (especially across social media) during future pandemics and times of global crisis and unrest.

The Anti-Restrictions Movement and the Populist Counterpublics in Denmark

Despite less restrictive governmental Covid-19 measures than in other European countries, Denmark also witnessed the rise of mobilisations against vaccine measures and corona-related restrictions. While most protests did not assemble many participants, nor garnered much media attention, the anti-restrictions scene consists of a vast and diverse array of activists and organisations united in the call for less governmental intervention in the freedoms of the citizens, as also witnessed elsewhere across the globe. We conceptualise the anti-restrictions groups as 'populist counterpublics', since the counterdiscourses emerging from the Covid-19 measures deepen the antagonist divide between the ordinary people and the elites. We focus on three of the most prominent groups: Men in Black (MIB), the Freedom Movement's Joint Council (FBF), and Earth Freedom Knowledge 21 (JFK21). By analysing arenas and frames, we show how the Danish anti-restrictions movement uses the diagnostic frames of totalitarian government and global complot to blame the Danish government and international elites, and the prognostic frames of power and rights to the people and individual freedom as solutions to the articulated problems. Although these groups employed similar frames and enemy constructions, they failed in promoting internal alliances and in shaping a new and accepted idea of who makes up 'the people', leading to a limited level of public support for their cause.

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in times of Humanitarian Crisis: Reflecting on the Interlink between International Legal Norms and South Africa's rights-based approaches

This provides a discursive perspective regarding the protection and realisation of constitutionally entrenched human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially under circumstances that can best be described as humanitarian crisis. At the centre of attention, the article argues that the Covid-19 pandemic ascertained that human rights and human freedoms are awfully volatile. Further that state functionaries ought to always guard against households and individual deprivations. The emergence of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) posed major threats to global wellbeing. South Africa's government deployed the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 to declare a national state of disaster, which amongst others, resulted in what is now termed as ‘hard national lockdown', which itself brought about abrupt loss of enjoyment or limitation of various constitutionally entrenched fundamental rights and freedoms. Hence, law was used to temporarily deprive citizens of certain rights, while also curbing freedoms, to the extent that it would be justified as necessary to arrest the spread of the disease. In this article, I employ the theory of socialisation process of human rights norms as propounded by Thomas Risse and Kathryn Sikkink, to highlight pitfalls of South Africa's rights-based normative framework. It is asserted that while the post-1994 dispensation embedded a rich human rights culture, there is still an overwhelming mismatch between normative legal frameworks and socio-economic and political realities besieging the poor. I argue that the Covid-19 and the subsequent national lockdown exposed the how majority of citizens are vulnerable to poverty, deprivations and insecure livelihoods.

Principle of Freedom to Decide of own Person, Threat to National Security and Safety

In light of the major danger generated by SARSCOV-2 infection, both the internal and international legal order is conditioned and substantialized by the observance of the general principles of law recognized by the international society. A major problem was the need to limit the individual freedom of citizens in order to protect other fundamental rights, for example, the right to life, to quality medical care. Most of the time, these coercive measures were severely contested and a great controversy arose: „respect for individual freedom by accepting refusal of vaccination represents or not a threat to national safety and security?”

THE RULE OF LAW CRISIS AND SELF-INCURRED IMMATURITY

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged countries around the world to preserve public health which entailed limitations of human rights. We have seen around the world that these limitations were adopted in way that was not in accordance with the proportionality principle, which led to misuse of the state of emergency in general and the interventionism of unseen proportions. The goal of this paper is to present how Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a country in transition, faced the COVID-19 pandemic and give an overview of the events that represent human rights and freedoms violations and abuses associated with the state of emergency.

THE GUARDA NACIONAL REPUBLICANA 4S PATH: A STRATEGIC APPROACH FOCUSING ON HUMAN LIFE

The pandemic caused by the SARS-COV-2 virus not only accentuated the responsibility of the Security Forces to protect human life but also challenged the ability to manage change that, in a highly demanding environment, lacks integrated approaches that would enhance the collective and cooperative effort to share a common commitment. The Portuguese Guarda Nacional Republicana has guided its action according to the 4S strategic path, based on security, safety, social and support pillars, and on integrated strategic planning that, achieved by joint, preventive, educational awareness-raising and intervention actions, and by current proximity patrolling, have enabled obtaining social support and protecting military personnel lives and citizens lives. These tools simultaneously improve operational synergies enhanced by close cooperation and collaboration relations with several partners, doing justice to the premise that together we are capable and thus preventing anyone from falling behind.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN TIMES OF COVID-19: CHILLING EFFECT IN HUNGARY AND SERBIA

New technologies have opened several risks to safety of journalists. More importantly, in the state of emergency caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, journalists and media actors have shifted their activities online more than ever, which also made them more prone to digital threats and attacks. In some regimes there are even organized intimidation campaigns against political opponents causing chilling effect and self-censorship, and jeopardizing freedom of expression in general. Hungary as a member of the European Union since 2004 and Serbia as a leading candidate to join the EU are two countries where the problems and concerns about media freedom is growing every day. The fear from the unknown during the international pandemic gave opportunity to some governments to hide their real political agendas and cover their desire for the 'good-old-fashioned' censorship. The number of countries where some kind of censorship could be found is growing every day. The authors will show two country-case-studies from Hungary and Serbia, where the leaders and the political situations are very similar and could show a (good or bad) example to other countries that would like to follow the illiberal views on media issues.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE TIME OF COVID-19

We've seen that living in a pandemic time is not easy at all. We had to stop our everyday lives, change the way we worked before, stay physically, but not socially distant to others, to postpone traveling for better times. Also, measures taken by states around the world, to slow the spread of the coronavirus, have shown that guaranteeing human rights and civil liberties during these times are and will be a challenge. The ongoing health crisis asked for extensive lockdowns, becoming also an economic and social crisis. It opened even deeper economic and social differences, affecting vulnerable social groups differently. States should use maximum action to save lives and slow the spread of the coronavirus, but should also minimize the negative consequences.