Research On The Restriction Of Citizens’ Basic Rights In Emergency

The outbreak of the COVID-19 at the end of 2019 not only caused serious harm to citizens’ lives and health,but also brought human society into an "exceptional state",which is called an "emergency state" in law.In the face of such an emergency,countries have adopted different response measures under different governance models,making the effectiveness of epidemic prevention and control within and outside the region show a major difference.Although my country’s local governments made mistakes in the early stages of the epidemic and failed to effectively monitor and control the outbreak of the COVID-19 in a timely manner,when the central government intervened,it resolutely adopted a series of measures such as mobilizing materials and extensive social mobilization across the country to save the people.life.Among all epidemic prevention and control measures,compulsory isolation and treatment of patients with new coronary pneumonia and close contacts is an important means to protect public health and life safety,but the implementation of this method must follow certain limits.In this epidemic,“returning home is prohibited.A large number of excessive epidemic prevention phenomena,such as "personnel entering","reprimanded when playing cards at home",and "compulsory isolation without wearing a mask",constitute the epitome of "hard core prevention and control" and violate the basic rights of citizens.From a legal perspective,there are still problems in the prevention and control of the epidemic that the virus is not controlled in time before being included in the legal infectious disease,measures such as restrictions on personal freedom lack clear authorization,and freedom of travel such as cross-regional travel is completely prohibited.It is true that in a state of emergency,for the orderly operation of the national order,citizens are required to surrender a certain degree of freedom,but no matter at any time,the restrictions on the basic rights of citizens must comply with the principle of legal reservation and proportionality,even if the state has the basic rights of citizens.The duty of protection must not abuse public power and excessively restrict citizens’ rights and freedoms in the name of "rule of law." It should be noted that in the prevention and control of the epidemic,no matter what kind of policy is implemented in the name of a crisis,it will not disappear with the disappearance of the crisis.No matter which country you are in,the so-called "emergency policy" often turns into a "daily policy" in the end.Therefore,in order to respond to the risky society represented by the epidemic,it is necessary to strengthen risk prevention,follow the legitimacy basis for restricting the basic rights of citizens in the state of emergency,and adjust the institutional path to guarantee the basic rights of citizens in the state of emergency.Legally restrict the personal freedom of citizens,reasonably balance the degree of restriction on rights,pay more attention to the role of the constitution in national governance,and build consensus on the constitution.In an uncertain social life,integration into the constitutional value obtains a relatively stable social expectation.Seek a balance between the necessary power granted to the state by the law and rethinking this power to better respond to the risky society of increasing complexity.