Abstract
Due to its borderless nature, COVID-19 has been a matter of common European interest since its very first detection on the continent. Yet this pandemic outbreak has largely been handled as an essentially national matter. Member States adopted their own different, uncoordinated and at times competing national responses according to their distinctive risk analysis frameworks, with little regard1 for the scientific and management advice provided by the European Union (EU), notably its dedicated legal framework for action on cross-border health threats.2 To justify such an outcome as the inevitable consequence of the EU’s limited competence in public health is a well-rehearsed yet largely inaccurate argument3 that calls for closer scrutiny.
Highlights
Due to its borderless nature, COVID-19 has been a matter of common European interest since its very first detection on the continent
Member States adopted their own different, uncoordinated and at times competing national responses according to their distinctive risk analysis frameworks, with little regard[1] for the scientific and management advice provided by the European Union (EU), notably its dedicated legal framework for action on cross-border health threats.[2]
This article makes a first attempt at unpacking how such fragmented, uncoordinated but converging national responses to COVID-19 came into being under the EU legal order
Summary
Due to its borderless nature, COVID-19 has been a matter of common European interest since its very first detection on the continent. This pandemic outbreak has largely been handled as an essentially national matter. Member States adopted their own different, uncoordinated and at times competing national responses according to their distinctive risk analysis frameworks, with little regard[1] for the scientific and management advice provided by the European Union (EU), notably its dedicated legal framework for action on cross-border health threats.[2] To justify such an outcome as the inevitable consequence of the EU’s limited competence in public health is a well-rehearsed yet largely inaccurate argument[3] that calls for closer scrutiny. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 11 (2020), pp. 307–316 doi:10.1017/err.2020.44
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
