We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The relationship between terrorist activities and states of emergency has never been explored in a cross-country perspective. This chapter is a first step to change that. Given that a terror act has been committed, what are the factors that lead governments to declare a state of emergency – or refrain from declaring it? And given that a state of emergency has been declared, what are the effects thereof? In this chapter, two world regions are analyzed: seventy-nine countries having Western-style constitutions and the member states of the Organization of Islamic Countries. We find that more terrorist incidents increase the likelihood of a state of emergency. Interestingly, emergencies are less likely to be declared in election years, supposedly because governments believe them to be unpopular. Once a state of emergency is declared, it generally leads to substantially more government repression. Finally, countries already under a state of emergency are more likely to suffer from additional terror attacks, challenging the effectiveness of states of emergency.
In this chapter, we ask two questions: (1) Does the constitutionalization of emergency provisions help governments to cope with disasters and other extraordinary events? (2) What particular parts of emergency constitutions fare best? We find that the more advantages emergency constitutions confer to the executive, the higher the number of people killed as a consequence of a natural disaster, controlling for its severity. As this is an unexpected result, we discuss a number of potential explanations, the most plausible being that governments use natural disasters as a pretext to enhance their power. Furthermore, the easier it is to call a state of emergency, the larger the negative effects on basic human rights. Interestingly, presidential democracies are better able to cope with natural disasters than parliamentary ones in terms of lives saved, whereas autocracies do significantly worse in the sense that empowerment rights seriously suffer in the aftermath of a disaster.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.