International approaches to constitutional and legal regulation of human rights restrictions during Martial Law

Abstract

This article examines international practices in the constitutional and legal regulation of human rights restrictions during emergency and martial law across various European countries. An analysis of foreign constitutions reveals that most of them allow for the limitation of individual and citizen rights under these extraordinary conditions. The scope of these restrictions is generally similar for both martial law and states of emergency. Through a comparative analysis, the study identifies different constitutional approaches to defining the extent of human and civil rights restrictions under special legal regimes. Four main trends emerge: constitutions that explicitly list rights and freedoms that cannot be restricted (or suspended) during emergencies and martial law; constitutions that provide an exhaustive list of rights and freedoms that may be restricted during such periods to safeguard human rights, democratic order, public security, public welfare, and morality; constitutions that combine both approaches; and constitutions that grant state authorities the power to restrict personal rights and freedoms under special legal regimes for national security purposes without specifying the particular rights that may or may not be restricted. Typically, the specific rights subject to restriction are defined by subordinate regulatory legal acts issued by state authorities.