THE ARCHITECTURE OF LIMITATION: DOGMATIC AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HUMAN RIGHTS RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPERATIVE

Abstract

The conflict between emergency public health measures and fundamental human rights poses a critical challenge to legal dogmatics and constitutional governance. Dynamic public health crises frequently trigger far-reaching state restrictions—such as restrictions on movement, compulsory medical measures, and digital surveillance—that risk transforming temporary emergency measures into permanent governance structures. This paper addresses the problematic blurring of formal derogations and ordinary limitation clauses, which may undermine rule-of-law standards and effective judicial oversight. Combining legal dogmatics with comparative analysis of international and regional human rights frameworks (ICCPR, ECHR, and ACHR) and relevant judicial practice, the study systematically examines the multi-tiered architecture governing limitations on human rights. Theoretically, it develops a refined normative model for assessing the principles of proportionality and necessity, with particular reference to the Siracusa Principles in the context of public health emergencies. The analysis identifies a pattern of initial judicial deference to executive authorities that may weaken ordinary constitutional safeguards. The principal outcome of the study is a standardised evidentiary framework designed to ensure strict temporal limits, continuous judicial review, and proportionality testing of legal measures adopted during public health emergencies. These findings may assist constitutional courts, international adjudicative bodies, and legislative drafters in aligning public health measures with binding human rights obligations while preserving democratic legitimacy.