Skip Navigation

International Journal of Constitutional Law 2006 4(2):213-243; doi:10.1093/icon/mol003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scheppele, K. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

North American emergencies: The use of emergency powers in Canada and the United States

Kim Lane Scheppele*

* Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Public Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the University Center for Human Values; Director, Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University; Faculty fellow, University of Pennsylvania Law School. I would like to thank both Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School for providing moral and material support for this research. I am grateful to Kent Roach, who has been unstintingly generous in teaching me about Canadian antiterrorism law, and to the participants in two wonderful comparative constitutional law conferences at the University of Toronto in fall 2004. I am always, as ever, indebted to Serguei Oushakine for more than I can say. Email: kimlane{at}princeton.edu

Although the United States and Canada have had quite different constitutional frameworks, their uses of emergency powers through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were very similar. In the nineteenth century, national troops were used to put down local rebellions in both countries, often at the request of local governors. With World War I, however, both moved to a statute-based system of regulating emergencies. In Canada, the War Powers Act provided broad delegations of power from the parliament to the executive. In the U.S., delegations were also broad, but accomplished through a series of smaller statutes. These frameworks lasted until abuses of emergency powers were exposed in both countries in the 1970s. And there the parallel history ended. Canada adopted a comprehensive constitutional revision that brought all emergency powers within constitutional understandings. The U.S., on the other hand, continued its use of statutory patches to regulate the relationship between the executive and legislature in times of crisis. As a result, the reactions of the two countries to the events of 9/11 were quite different. Canada responded with a moderate use of exceptional powers, while the US plunged into more extreme uses of emergency powers.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.