June 30, 2026
Dear Readers,
One of the recurring questions at the heart of ISSE’s work is what happens after exceptional powers are invoked. Much of the scholarship on states of exception understandably focuses on how emergencies begin, how extraordinary authorities expand, and how democratic guardrails can weaken during periods of crisis. Equally important, however, are the questions that follow: How do constitutional systems restore ordinary governance? What mechanisms promote accountability? Which institutions regain public trust, and which emerge from emergency with expanded authority?
This month’s issue explores those questions from several perspectives. We begin with South Korea’s continuing effort to hold senior officials accountable following the failed December 2024 martial law declaration, a reminder that the invocation of emergency powers may itself become the subject of constitutional and criminal review. We also examine Taiwan’s decades-long democratic transition after thirty-eight years of martial law, alongside new research arguing that democratic institutions themselves should be understood as strategic security assets rather than obstacles to effective crisis management.
The issue also considers how exceptional authority can evolve within different branches of government and different institutional settings. Recent scholarship explores the Supreme Court’s role in shaping constitutional power through its emergency docket, the continuing debate over the scope of presidential emergency authority under the Insurrection Act, the constitutional foundations of the unitary executive, the legacy of India’s 1975 Emergency, and the use of internet shutdowns as contemporary tools of exceptional governance. Across these diverse cases runs a common theme: emergency powers leave institutional legacies long after the immediate crisis has passed.
Taken together, these materials reinforce an idea that understanding states of exception requires more than examining how extraordinary powers are acquired, but also requires studying how constitutional systems preserve accountability, rebuild institutional trust, and ensure that emergency governance remains genuinely exceptional rather than becoming an enduring feature of democratic life.
Ed Bogan
Founder, Institute for the Study of States of Exception
ISSE Announcements
Upcoming ISSE Office Hours (tentatively planned for 11:00 Eastern; July 16, 2026): July’s “Office Hours” discussion topic will be shared soon.
Global Events
A curated selection of recent developments involving emergency powers and constitutional governance.
South Korea Sentences Former Justice Minister for 25 Years, Continuing Accountability Effort Following Failed December 2024 Martial Law Declaration (Lee Seung-ku, The Korea Herald; June 2026). Former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his role in former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s failed December 2024 martial law declaration, marking another significant step in South Korea’s effort to hold senior officials accountable for the misuse of emergency powers. The case highlights how constitutional democracies can use judicial processes to reinforce democratic accountability, restore constitutional order, and deter future abuses of extraordinary authority.
Russian Occupation Authorities Declare State of Emergency in Crimea (ISSE; June 2026). Russian-installed authorities in occupied Crimea have declared a regional state of emergency following sustained Ukrainian strikes on energy infrastructure and military logistics. ISSE examines the declaration through the lens of international humanitarian law, exploring how emergency powers operate under military occupation and why this case differs fundamentally from emergencies declared by sovereign governments.
Venezuela Declares Nationwide State of Emergency Following Devastating Earthquakes (ISSE; June 2026). On June 24, 2026, Venezuela declared a nationwide state of emergency following the most destructive earthquakes to strike the country in more than a century. ISSE identifies the legal authorities invoked, the distinction between disaster-related and governance emergencies, and why even well-justified emergency powers should remain proportionate, transparent, and temporary.
Bolivia Declares 90-Day State of Emergency Amid Nationwide Protests (ISSE; June 2026). On June 20, 2026, Bolivia declared a 90-day nationwide state of emergency after weeks of protests and road blockades disrupted fuel supplies, transportation, and access to essential services. We look at the legal authorities exercised, the role of legislative oversight, and what the declaration reveals about how democratic governments use emergency powers during periods of prolonged political and economic crisis.
Additional Resources
Selected commentary and analysis relevant to the evolving law of emergency powers.
Presidential Discretion and the Insurrection Act (George Croner; Lawfare; June 16, 2026). In this Lawfare essay, George Croner examines recent court decisions addressing presidential authority to federalize the National Guard and considers what those rulings may mean for future invocations of the Insurrection Act, arguing that courts retain a critical role in reviewing whether presidents have satisfied the statutory conditions necessary to exercise extraordinary domestic emergency powers. The article explores how judicial oversight can serve as an important safeguard against the expansion and normalization of exceptional executive authority within ordinary constitutional governance.
Post-War Security Sector Reform in Taiwan (Wei-chin Lee; DCAF - Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance; 2026). Following nearly thirty-eight years of martial law, Taiwan undertook a decades-long process of reforming its security institutions while continuing to confront significant external security threats. This study demonstrates how constitutional systems can restore democratic oversight, civilian control, and institutional accountability after prolonged periods of exceptional governance, offering an important perspective on the long-term process of democratic recovery from emergency rule.
Democracy as a Security Asset - European Evidence Review (Katharina Merkel; Westminster Foundation for Democracy; May 2026). Drawing on more than three decades of comparative evidence, this report argues that democratic governance strengthens national security by reinforcing institutional resilience, public trust, accountability, and effective crisis response, challenging the assumption that security requires weaker democratic constraints. The report provides an evidence-based framework for understanding how constitutional guardrails and democratic oversight contribute to long-term security while helping prevent the normalization of extraordinary executive authority.
Academic Literature
Recent scholarship examining the theory and practice of emergency governance.
The Supreme Court's (Self-Defeating) Supremacy (Stephen Vladeck; The Supreme Court Review; October 27, 2025). In this provocative essay, Stephen Vladeck argues that a defining feature of the Roberts Court’s emergency docket jurisprudence has been an effort to preserve and reinforce the Supreme Court’s institutional supremacy, often at the expense of lower courts and Congress while enabling expansive exercises of executive authority. The article raises broader questions about whether exceptional authority can become concentrated within judicial institutions as well as executive ones, and how the normalization of extraordinary power across multiple branches of government may affect democratic accountability, institutional legitimacy, and the constitutional balance of power.
We Condemn, Therefore We Recreate Modi's India and the Shadow of the Emergency 1975 (Shruti Gokhale; Journal of Extreme Anthropology; June 1, 2026). Shruti Gokhale conceptualizes nostalgia as a political technology rooted in the condemned and traumatic legacy of India's 1975 Emergency. She argues that the BJP's public condemnation of the Emergency paradoxically reproduces its governing logics, allowing the unresolved violence of the past to persist as an active force shaping contemporary governance.
Interring the Unitary Executive (Christine Kexel Chabot; Notre Dame Law Review; November 16, 2022). The President’s power to remove and control subordinate executive officers has sparked a constitutional debate that began in 1789 and rages on today. Leading originalists claim that the Constitution created a “unitary executive” President whose plenary removal power affords her “exclusive control” over subordinates’ exercise of executive power. Text assigning the President a removal power and exclusive control appears nowhere in the Constitution, however, and unitary scholars have instead relied on select historical understandings and negative inferences drawn from a supposed lack of independent regulatory structures at the Founding. The comprehensive historical record introduced by this article lays this debate to rest.
Digital Rights and the State of Exception. Internet Shutdowns from the Perspective of Just Securitization Theory (Johannes Thumfart; Journal of Global Security Studies; January 10, 2024). Using cross national cases, Johannes Thumfart discusses internet shutdowns (ISs) within the Just Securitization Theory (JST). Thumfart denies the legitimacy of the vast majority of ISs, while sketching four exception scenarios of ISs justification.
Managing conflict through civic participation: Taiwan’s civic-embedded diplomacy and the transformation of authority after martial law (Yung Lin; The Pacific Review; June 17, 2026). Yung Lin argues that Taiwan's civic-embedded public diplomacy (CEPD) offers a distinct post-authoritarian model of conflict resolution in East Asia. The article shows how CEPD strengthens domestic legitimacy while managing identity-based conflict through the normalization of Taiwan's international visibility.
About ISSE
The Institute for the Study of States of Exception tracks and analyzes the use and misuse of emergency powers around the world, providing research and analysis on how exceptional authority shapes modern governance.
Very timely, given the recent 6-3 decisions of the Roberts Majority, as well as its use of the Shadow Docket.