Reflecting on order no. 38/2022 of the CGARS (19 February 2022), this paper offers some considerations on the relationship between exceptionality and the pandemic, suggesting the need to move from a law of emergency to a law of risk. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed both the interdependence of modern society and the structural weaknesses of the Italian institutional system, exposing the different capacities of territorial administrations to respond to exceptional events. The author focuses on two critical issues: the relationship between emergency and risk, observing how some administrations reacted only through extraordinary derogating measures, while others (such as the Veneto Region) found within the ordinary system the tools to address the crisis; and the conflict between science and law, in which scientific uncertainty has clashed with the demand for absolute certainty, calling into question the proportionality of the measures adopted, including vaccination. The paper argues that a "law of risk" approach, grounded in the principle of responsibility (also towards future generations), would allow the "normalisation" of unusual events through procedural flexibility, appropriateness of decisions, and consideration of systemic effects. In this perspective, proportionality cannot be measured solely through the precautionary paradigm, but must take into account the broader impact of decisions on individual health, collective health, organisational resources and social sustainability.
Riflettendo sull’ordinanza n. 38/2022 del CGARS, 19 febbraio 2022 Eccezionalità e pandemia. Spunti per una riflessione sul possibile ruolo di un diritto del rischio
GIANI L
2022-01-01
Abstract
Reflecting on order no. 38/2022 of the CGARS (19 February 2022), this paper offers some considerations on the relationship between exceptionality and the pandemic, suggesting the need to move from a law of emergency to a law of risk. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed both the interdependence of modern society and the structural weaknesses of the Italian institutional system, exposing the different capacities of territorial administrations to respond to exceptional events. The author focuses on two critical issues: the relationship between emergency and risk, observing how some administrations reacted only through extraordinary derogating measures, while others (such as the Veneto Region) found within the ordinary system the tools to address the crisis; and the conflict between science and law, in which scientific uncertainty has clashed with the demand for absolute certainty, calling into question the proportionality of the measures adopted, including vaccination. The paper argues that a "law of risk" approach, grounded in the principle of responsibility (also towards future generations), would allow the "normalisation" of unusual events through procedural flexibility, appropriateness of decisions, and consideration of systemic effects. In this perspective, proportionality cannot be measured solely through the precautionary paradigm, but must take into account the broader impact of decisions on individual health, collective health, organisational resources and social sustainability.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
N.A.-Speciale-1.22-Obbligo-Vaccinale-Giani.pdf
accesso aperto
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
139 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
139 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
