In this paper, I argue that rediscovering the role of responsibility vis-à-vis political judgment in constitutional ordering is pivotal to the constitutionalization of emergency powers amidst the normalization of the state of exception. I first identify two features of the liberal answer to the question of emergency powers: conceptually, it is premised on the normative duality of normalcy and exception; institutionally, it pivots on the identification of institutional sovereignty that judges the state of exception. I then explain why this paradigm falters with the blurring of normalcy and exception. Drawing on the role of ‘theatricality’ in Hannah Arendt’s political theory, I suggest that making the public ‘see’ the role of judgment in the current undeclared emergency regime underpin the re-constitutionalization of emergency powers. Recast in constitutional mindset, the judiciary is expected to act as the institutional catalyst for forming the public judgment on the ongoing state of emergency.
21 July 2019
Exceptions
'From Institutional Sovereignty to Constitutional Mindset: Rethinking the Domestication of the State of Exception in the Age of Normalization' by Ming-Sung Kuo in Richard Albert and Yaniv Roznai (eds), Constitutionalism Under Extreme Conditions: Law, Emergency, Exception (Springer, 2019) comments