Freedom Rights as a Danger to the Legal Order?
The aims of state interference in fundamental rights and freedoms are typically made in the interest of public safety, the protection of public order, health or morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. With laws turning increasingly illiberal in many parts of the world, we witness a widening of justifications of interference in rights. What are the newly defined and undefined justifications of interference in rights, and how are they changing legal definitions of public safety and public order? It remains unclear whether restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms on grounds of public safety that pursue general preventive aims are actually capable to justify interferences without requiring proof for the necessity of the restriction as specific, reliable and non-discriminatory measure in every single case.
Starting from German police law to EU and ECtHR jurisprudence, there is an evidenced shift from general to specific executive authorization, from concrete to general, abstract threats to public safety, and from objective to (explicitly) subjective criteria in law.
My aim is to reveal the new chiffres for public safety and public order (neutrality, vivre ensemble, integration, "open communication") and revisit the security vs liberty debate by adding an equality dimension to the discussion.