The Impact of the State of Emergency on Civil and Political Rights and Freedoms A Comparative Study of Iraqi and Egyptian Law

Abstract

This study examines the impact of declaring a state of emergency on citizens’ rights and freedoms in Iraq and Egypt. It proceeds from the premise that an emergency regime neither suspends the constitution nor overrides the principle of legality, but permits temporary measures required to confront a serious threat. The study focuses on the rights most susceptible to restrictions, including personal liberty, freedom of movement, residence and travel, the inviolability of the home, and the privacy of correspondence and communications, as well as freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of the press and media, freedom of assembly and demonstration, and freedom to form political parties and associations. It adopts a comparative analytical approach, examining the constitutional and legislative frameworks of both countries in relation to international standards, particularly necessity, proportionality and the temporary nature of emergency measures. The comparison shows that the Iraqi framework provides significant constitutional safeguards for declaring a state of emergency, while requiring a comprehensive legislative framework. The Egyptian framework, by contrast, contains more detailed legislation alongside broader provisions governing certain exceptional powers. The study concludes that effective protection depends on sustained parliamentary and judicial oversight and on lifting restrictions as soon as the grounds justifying them cease to exist.