Historical use of emergency powers in Finland
1. Winter War (1939–1940): Use of Emergency Powers During Wartime
Context:
In 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Finland, beginning the Winter War.
The Finnish government invoked extensive wartime emergency powers to defend the country.
Legal Basis:
At that time, the legal basis for emergency powers came from wartime decrees and laws passed under the 1919 Constitution, allowing the President and Government broad executive powers during war.
Measures Taken:
Censorship of media and communications.
Conscription and forced labor services.
Control over food distribution, price regulation, and rationing.
Suspension of certain civil liberties, including the right to assemble and freedom of expression.
Impact and Legacy:
Set a precedent for how Finland balances civil rights with national security.
Influenced the later drafting of the 1991 Emergency Powers Act.
2. Continuation War and Post-War Period (1941–1944, Post-1944): Prolonged Emergency Conditions
Context:
The Continuation War (1941–1944) saw Finland allied with Germany against the Soviet Union.
Post-war occupation terms included significant internal political restructuring.
Emergency Powers Use:
State of emergency remained in effect well after the end of the war.
The government retained powers over economic life, including wage and price controls, property requisition, and control of foreign trade.
Legal Controversy:
Critics argued that the prolonged use of emergency powers after peace had been signed was unconstitutional.
However, the need to comply with Allied Control Commission directives provided political justification.
Significance:
Reinforced the understanding that emergency powers should be time-bound and proportionate.
Helped shape post-war constitutional reforms.
3. Lapua Movement and the Protection of the Republic Act (1930s)
Context:
The Lapua Movement was a radical right-wing nationalist movement seeking to eliminate left-wing political influence in Finland.
In response to political violence and attempted coups, emergency measures were considered and passed.
Legal Measures:
The Protection of the Republic Act (1932) allowed the government to ban extremist organizations.
Temporary emergency powers were granted to suppress anti-democratic activity.
Case Law:
Several constitutional complaints were filed to the Supreme Court of Finland and the Parliamentary Ombudsman regarding freedom of association and due process.
The legality of banning political organizations without trial was hotly debated.
Significance:
Tested the balance between democratic freedoms and state security.
Demonstrated the parliamentary control over emergency legislation in a democracy.
4. 1990s Economic Crisis: Consideration of Emergency Powers
Context:
Finland faced a severe banking and economic crisis in the early 1990s, with unemployment rising over 17%, and the collapse of major banks.
Legal Background:
The Emergency Powers Act of 1991 was passed during this time to replace outdated war-era legislation.
Although emergency powers were not officially invoked, the act was ready to be activated if the situation worsened.
Notable Features of the Act:
Clearly defines "exceptional circumstances."
Requires Parliamentary oversight and constitutional limits.
Cannot suspend core constitutional rights (e.g., right to life, prohibition of torture).
Significance:
Introduced a modern framework for handling crises without undermining democracy.
Showed restraint in the use of emergency powers, despite serious national threats.
5. COVID-19 Pandemic (2020–2021): Formal Invocation of the Emergency Powers Act
Context:
In March 2020, Finland declared a state of emergency due to the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Legal Actions:
For the first time under the modern 1991 Act, the Finnish government formally invoked emergency powers under the Emergency Powers Act (Valmiuslaki).
Measures Taken:
Closure of schools and universities.
Restrictions on movement, including internal travel bans.
Procurement powers to ensure medical supply chains.
Military involvement in logistical operations.
Changes in healthcare worker shifts and working conditions.
Legal and Constitutional Oversight:
The Constitutional Law Committee (Perustuslakivaliokunta) of the Finnish Parliament played a central oversight role, reviewing all government actions taken under the Act.
Some government decisions (such as proposed curfews) were blocked or modified by the Committee for being disproportionate or unjustified.
Key Case Example:
Decision on Movement Restrictions in Uusimaa Region (2020):
Government restricted travel into and out of the Uusimaa region (including Helsinki).
The Constitutional Committee initially allowed the restriction due to the severity of the outbreak.
However, judicial and political criticism emerged regarding proportionality and clarity of enforcement.
Impact:
Validated the Emergency Powers Act’s effectiveness in real-world crisis.
Strengthened parliamentary and legal checks on executive power.
6. Case: Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) Decision on COVID-19 Business Closures
Context:
Several private business owners challenged decisions to close down restaurants and nightclubs during COVID-19 under emergency regulations.
Case Outcome:
The Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (Korkein hallinto-oikeus) upheld the temporary closures as justified under public health grounds, noting the exceptional circumstances.
Legal Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that:
The state had followed due process.
Emergency powers were lawfully invoked.
Measures were limited in scope and time, satisfying constitutional criteria.
Significance:
First modern test of judicial review of Emergency Powers Act regulations.
Affirmed that courts can check misuse even during a state of emergency.
Conclusion
Emergency powers in Finland have been historically reserved for truly exceptional circumstances, and their use has been narrowly tailored, time-limited, and subject to democratic oversight.
| Case / Period | Type of Emergency | Powers Used | Legal Oversight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winter War (1939–40) | War | Media censorship, conscription, rationing | Executive-led with wartime decrees |
| Lapua Movement (1930s) | Political unrest | Organization bans, surveillance | Parliamentary control |
| 1990s Economic Crisis | Economic | No formal powers used | Legal preparation only |
| COVID-19 Pandemic (2020) | Health emergency | School closures, travel bans | Parliamentary & judicial review |
| Uusimaa Travel Ban Case | Health emergency | Movement restrictions | Constitution Committee review |
| KHO Business Closure Case | Health emergency | Forced closures | Judicial approval (KHO) |
Finland's approach shows a consistent respect for constitutional boundaries, civil liberties, and rule of law, even under stress. The Constitutional Law Committee and judiciary have been active in ensuring emergency powers are not abused.
RELATED Blog
0 comments