Balancing Necessity, Legitimacy, and Liberty: A Normative Evaluative Framework for Public Health Emergency Powers

Emergencies disrupt ordinary life and compel governments to act swiftly, often by setting aside rules that typically guide public decision-making. In public health crises, this creates a fundamental tension between the need for strong executive powers and the law’s role in limiting authority and protecting individuals from abuse. Climate change, widening inequalities, zoonotic spillovers, and increased global mobility indicate that emergency powers will be invoked more frequently. While such exceptional measures may be necessary to protect the public, they often restrict individual liberties and raise concerns regarding accountability, transparency, and proportionality. Drawing on the theories of Carl Schmitt, Jürgen Habermas, and Lon Fuller, the authors propose an analytical framework grounded in jurisprudence and global public health governance standards to assess the legitimacy of public health emergency laws across jurisdictions.