Emergency law

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As emergency law ( French droit de nécessité , Italian Diritto di necessità ) government in Switzerland measures are called, which are not taken within the framework of normal democratic competences. In a democratic constitutional state, government action is generally only permitted on the basis of a law . The democratically elected, representative parliament is responsible for legislation , in Switzerland subject to the referendum right of the people . These democratic processes take time. However, there are situations in which urgent measures must be taken immediately to avert serious disruptions to public order and security. Emergency law serves to preserve the state's ability to act in such situations.

However, the term “emergency law” does not appear in written Swiss law. This leads to an “ambiguity” or “blurring of the concept of emergency law”.

The use of the term for extra-constitutional - i.e. unwritten - emergency law in the narrower sense, as it was last used in the Second World War ( power of attorney regime ) , is undisputedly appropriate .

In common parlance, the term is mainly used for constitutional emergency law , ie for the government's emergency ordinance law, which has a constitutional basis, but no legal basis. This use of the term is partially criticized by the doctrine of constitutional law, because it blurs the fundamental difference between the extra-constitutional emergency law, with which the parliament grants the government extensive powers, and the emergency ordinance law of the government, which may only apply under restrictive conditions for short periods of time.

The Federal Council's emergency ordinance law «applies in the event of serious disruptions to public order and security and is therefore an emergency instrument that is intended to ensure the state's ability to act if the legal instruments available are insufficient. (…) The procedure of ordinary and / or urgent legislation cannot (…) be awaited ».

The legislation for reasons of urgency is sometimes referred to as "emergency law", but this is incorrect. This right of urgency also results in a temporary deviation from the normal democratic order of competencies; But it is not only used to cope with emergencies and is ordinary law.

Urgent financial decisions are also used outside of actual emergencies. Because emergency ordinances of the Federal Council can in certain situations only be implemented together with such financial decisions, it is justified to present them here in this context.

Constitutional emergency ordinance law of the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly

Legal basis

According to Art. 185 Para. 3 of the Federal Constitution (BV), the Federal Council can “issue ordinances or orders directly based on this article in order to counteract serious disruptions to public order or internal or external security that have occurred or are imminent. Such ordinances are to be limited in time. " “Directly based on this article” means that these ordinances and orders, unlike in the normal case, do not have to have a basis in a law. Ordinances are general, abstract legal provisions (see definition in Art. 22 Para. 4 Parliament Act); Disposals are orders in a specific individual case.

The Federal Council ordinances mentioned are known as emergency ordinances . They or corresponding orders are only permitted if they serve the defined purpose. According to practice and doctrine, the following cumulative requirements must be met:

  • A fundamental legal interest is affected.
  • It is important to avert a serious and immediate danger to this legal interest.
  • There is an urgency in terms of time.
  • There is no suitable legal basis for averting danger and it is not possible to create a legal basis in good time.

The concept of the fundamental legal good is to be understood restrictively. It is about legal interests that are of existential importance for private individuals (life, limb, health) and the state (internal / external peace, external independence). These legal interests can z. B. be affected by serious unrest, military or terrorist threats, natural disasters, epidemics, etc. Ä.

In legal theory, it is controversial whether economic and social policy measures, such as those taken by the Federal Council in recent practice (see below), are permissible as the subject of emergency ordinances. This is countered by the fact that the primarily security law concept of “disturbance of public order” is interpreted very broadly; there was no mention of this when the constitution was drafted. This is supported by the fact that the narrower interpretation can prevent the state from doing justice to certain exceptional situations. The example of the Corona crisis (see below) shows that an extraordinary situation can also lead to an economic disaster, which can only be averted or at least alleviated through emergency ordinance law.

Art. 185 para. 3 BV does not establish any extra-constitutional right (see below) and therefore does not give the Federal Council comprehensive power to deviate from the BV. It is a constitutional emergency law; its application must take place within the framework of the federal constitution. In particular, the “principles of the rule of law” ( Art. 5 ) must be observed, i. H. the emergency law must "be in the public interest and be proportionate." Art. 36 allows “restrictions on fundamental rights ”, in the case of “serious, immediate and not otherwise avertable danger” even without a basis in the law, B. on the basis of an emergency ordinance. Article 36 (4), however, stipulates: "The core content of fundamental rights is inviolable". Interfering with the constitutional competences of the cantons appears permissible if it can be assumed that an emergency cannot be remedied within the scope of the cantons' competences.

There is disagreement in legal doctrine as to whether the Federal Council's emergency law may conflict with existing statutory law ( contra legem ) or whether it may only be enacted in addition to this law ( praeter legem ). The latter view is particularly supported by the fact that the Federal Council itself stated in its explanatory remarks on the draft Federal Constitution in 1996: The orders “must not contradict the Federal Assembly”. In more recent practice (see below), however, the Federal Council has not adhered to this restriction. The more recent teaching partially approves of this change of course. It is in the nature of emergency law that its purpose in certain situations can only be achieved with objectively necessary measures that contradict applicable law.

The Federal Council may only issue an emergency ordinance if it cannot wait for a resolution to be passed by parliament. “Emergency law is never an alternative if it is possible to question parliament” (Federal Councilor Widmer-Schlumpf's vote on June 19, 2013 in the Council of States).

If necessary, the Federal Assembly can correct or amend emergency ordinances of the Federal Council. According to Art. 173 para. 1 let. c BV, it is also responsible for issuing ordinances or simple federal decrees (the latter correspond to the orders of the Federal Council) "to safeguard internal security", "if exceptional circumstances so require." This purpose for emergency law is therefore more general than that for the emergency law of the Federal Council. Since the Federal Assembly is subordinate to the Federal Council, its measures have priority over those of the Federal Council.

The purpose of the limitation of emergency ordinances of the Federal Council prescribed by the BV is that emergency law may only apply as long as the necessary requirements are met . If it is to apply for a longer period of time, it must be converted into ordinary statutory law as quickly as possible, which is decided by the Federal Assembly and is subject to the optional (in the case of an urgent federal law, subsequent referendum). The federal law of December 17, 2010 with the programmatic title «Preservation of democracy, the rule of law and the state's ability to act in extraordinary situations» , drawn up on the basis of a parliamentary initiative, is intended to help achieve this goal . Thereafter, the ordinance of the Federal Council expires if it does not submit the draft of a legal basis for the content of the ordinance or the draft of an emergency ordinance of the Federal Assembly, which replaces the emergency ordinance of the Federal Council, to the Federal Assembly within six months of its entry into force. The maximum period of validity of an emergency ordinance of the Federal Assembly is limited to three years. With the amendment to the law, the Federal Council has also been obliged to provide information if it issues an emergency decree. It must in that case, the Control Delegation of the Federal Assembly within inform 24 hours.

practice

Examples of emergency law since the entry into force of the current BV (January 1, 2000):

  • The measures against the group " Al Qaïda " and similar terrorist organizations provide an example of the problem of a timely transfer of an emergency ordinance into ordinary law and the only example so far of an emergency ordinance of the Federal Assembly. In the absence of a legal basis, the Federal Council issued an emergency ordinance of November 7, 2001, banning the "Al Qaïda" group. This regulation was limited to two years and was extended three times, which was condemned by legal doctrine as “constitutionally untenable”. The Federal Council ordinance was replaced by an ordinance of the Federal Assembly dated December 23, 2011 as a result of the new fixed-term rules of the Federal Act on “Safeguarding Democracy, the Rule of Law and the State's Capacity to Act in Extraordinary Situations”. This ordinance, limited to three years, was replaced by the urgent federal law of December 12, 2014, which had to be extended after its four-year period of validity had expired because a permanent legal basis could still not be established.
  • The resolutions of the Federal Council in 2007 and 2008 to destroy all seized files during an ongoing investigation against persons suspected of participating in plans for the construction of nuclear weapons are examples of legally controversial emergency orders by the Federal Council ( Tinner case ). This case contributed significantly to the fact that the amendment to the law of December 17, 2010 introduced the Federal Council's obligation to provide information to the competent body of parliament (see above).
  • In connection with the global financial crisis of 2008 , the Federal Council decided on October 15, 2008 a package of measures to strengthen the Swiss financial system. The legal basis for an urgent loan (see below) to recapitalize UBS in the amount of 6 billion francs was an emergency ordinance. With this economic policy measure, the previously applicable safety framework of the emergency ordinance law was broken for the first time, which both raised concerns in parliament and aroused opposition in legal doctrine. This was countered by the fact that from an economic point of view there was undoubtedly an urgent need for action and a very large public interest in an intervention (problem of “ too big to fail ”).
  • While in the case of the above examples, emergency law was applied in thematically limited areas, the Federal Council made extensive use of emergency law for the first time since World War II in spring 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic . In addition to the “Ordinance on Measures to Combat the Coronavirus (COVID-19)” of February 28, 2020, which contains in particular sanitary regulations, replaced by Ordinance 2 with the same title of March 13, 2020, the Federal Council decided to follow numerous other emergency ordinances Topic areas (in chronological order): deadlines for federal referendums, deadlines in civil and administrative proceedings, culture, loss of earnings, unemployment insurance, job registration, occupational benefits, solidarity guarantees, rent and lease, asylum, judicial and procedural law, insolvency law, compensation for relatives the army, high school maturity exams. During the extraordinary session from May 4 to 6, 2020 , the Federal Assembly had the opportunity to discuss the emergency legal measures of the Federal Council and to correct them if necessary. It refrained from directly correcting the emergency ordinances of the Federal Council with its own superordinate emergency ordinances, but instructed the Federal Council, with a few assumed motives, to supplement or correct its measures. Overcoming the corona crisis also shows that the Federal Assembly can, if necessary, create a legal basis very quickly and thus avoid resorting to emergency law. On April 29, 2020, the Federal Council submitted a draft urgent amendment to the Aviation Act to the Federal Assembly. The law was adopted by the Federal Assembly on May 6, 2020 and entered into force on May 7, 2020. On May 20, 2020, the Federal Council presented the draft of a legal basis for the introduction of the Corona-Warn-App (CoronaProximity-Tracing-App). The Federal Assembly adopted the necessary amendment to the Epidemics Act on June 19, 2020 and made it urgent.

Urgent financial decisions

Legal bases

The Federal Constitution assigns the Federal Council the competence to issue legislative provisions and orders in extraordinary situations (see above). But there is no constitutional emergency financial law. According to Art. 167 , the Federal Assembly must approve all expenditure by approving the budget and commitment credits. Unlike in other countries, the estimate (budget) and other spending decisions in Switzerland have no legislative character; these resolutions are therefore not in the form of a law, but of a federal resolution that is not subject to a referendum.

In order for emergency ordinances to be implemented, it is often necessary to be able to decide on the expenditure necessary for their implementation without delay. It is not always possible to wait for the Federal Assembly to meet. In such cases, Art. 28 and Art. 34 of the Financial Budget Act delegate the responsibility for prior approval to the finance delegation of the Federal Parliament . The Federal Council must submit the urgent commitment loans and urgent supplementary loans (supplements to the approved budget for a year) to the Federal Assembly for subsequent approval. If the urgent obligation or the urgent expenditure exceeds CHF 500 million and a quarter of the members of a council or the Federal Council requests the Federal Assembly to convene an extraordinary session within one week of the approval of the finance delegation, this must be convened in the third calendar week after the submission of desire take place. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure that politically controversial loans receive the necessary democratic legitimation as soon as possible. The unsatisfactory situation that parliament can only subsequently approve a fait accompli is at least partially alleviated - depending on the circumstances of the individual case. If the Federal Assembly refuses to give its approval - which has never happened in practice - payments that have not yet been made would be stopped. However, payments that have already been made cannot be reversed; the sanction of the Federal Assembly would at least be of a political nature. On the basis of the specific circumstances of the individual case, it would have to be examined to what extent obligations entered into, which have not yet resulted in payments, have to be fulfilled despite rejection by the Federal Assembly.

practice

Urgent loans, which the Federal Assembly only approves retrospectively, are part of normal practice and in most cases have nothing to do with an extraordinary situation and the necessary implementation of an emergency ordinance. This is shown in the annual report of the financial delegation on its activities in 2019, which provides an overview of the practice in 2009–2019. In these eleven years, the Federal Council has submitted a total of 36 urgent supplementary credits totaling CHF 314.2 million to the finance delegation for approval. The finance delegation approved 34 additional credits (totaling 302 million) and rejected two (totaling 12.2 million). It also approved an urgent loan commitment in 2019, for the first time since 2008.

Extraordinary urgent loans to resolve emergency situations were granted in 2001, 2008 and 2020:

  • After the “ Swissair grounding” on October 2, 2001, the Federal Assembly adopted the Federal Council's draft of November 7, 2001 for a “Federal Decree on the Financing of the Redimensioning Concept for National Civil Aviation” at an extraordinary session on November 17, 2001. This financing decision had a legal basis in the Aviation Act, but like all other financial decisions had to be approved by the Federal Assembly. This was faced with a “fait accompli”: the Federal Council had already granted loans totaling 3.8 billion francs in the urgent procedure in October 2001 with the approval of the finance delegation. This approach aroused opposition in parliament; In the National Council, the federal resolution was adopted with 110 to 56 votes, in the Council of States with 36 to 3 votes. As a result, two attempts were made to amend the law to limit the competences of the Federal Council and the finance delegation. Loans over CHF 250 million should in any case have to be approved in advance by the Federal Assembly. The National Council approved this change, but the Council of States rejected it twice.
  • The recapitalization of UBS in 2008 triggered criticism not only because of its legal basis in the form of an emergency ordinance by the Federal Council (see above), but also because of the procedure for approving the supplementary credit amounting to 6 billion francs. While the emergency ordinance was the responsibility of the Federal Council, this loan had to be approved retrospectively by the Federal Assembly after the Federal Council had already entered into the corresponding obligation with the consent of the finance delegation. In December 2008, the federal resolution was adopted by the National Council with 116 to 55 votes, by the Council of States with 22 to 2 votes with 7 abstentions. As a result, another change in the urgent loan approval procedure was requested. Limiting the responsibilities of the Federal Council and the finance delegation was again rejected. However, the proposal that politically controversial loans could be brought before the Federal Assembly within binding short deadlines was successful (for details see above).
  • Urgent loans in an unprecedented amount of around 57 billion francs were decided by the Federal Council in March and April 2020 in the wake of the Corona crisis with the approval of the finance delegation and subsequently approved by the Federal Assembly in the extraordinary session from May 4 to 6, 2020 and at the same time slightly increased. In contrast to the “Swissair” and “UBS” cases, the urgent loans were not submitted and explained in a separate message from the Federal Council, but dealt with as part of Supplement I to the 2020 budget. The urgent loans were submitted as “late reports” on this business in the form of letters from the Federal Council to the finance commissions on March 20 and April 16, 2020. In contrast to the “Swissair” and “UBS” cases, there was hardly any fundamental criticism of the urgent loans in the federal councils. The National Council approved addendum I with 192 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions, the Council of States even unanimously. The council offices created cause for criticism of the procedure by adopting resolutions of 19 and 26 March 2020 preventing the commissions of the federal councils from dealing with the federal council's measures at an early stage. After the Federal Council and 31 members of the Council of States called for an extraordinary session to be convened on March 23 and 25, 2020, the Council offices would have this session in accordance with Articles 28 and 34 of the Financial Budget Act (see above) for the third following calendar week, i.e. during the period must convene from April 14th to 17th; the session did not take place until three weeks later.

Extra-constitutional emergency law

In the history of the Swiss federal state since 1848, extremely difficult extraordinary situations have arisen in which the existence of Switzerland as a state was threatened. The Federal Assembly on August 3, 1914 beginning of the First World War, adopted a federal decree, which the Federal Council " carte blanche " given " for ur undertake all measures that the loan for the interests of security, integrity and neutrality of Switzerland and to respect and the economic interests of the country, in particular also to secure a livelihood. " The wording of the “Power of Attorney Resolution” of August 30, 1939 shortly before the start of the Second World War is almost identical . The Federal Assembly passed these resolutions, although the Federal Constitution did not expressly declare them responsible for them. The so-called “ power of attorney regime ” is therefore extra-constitutional emergency law; one also speaks of state emergency . Other states have created their own legal basis for this (e.g. the emergency laws of the Federal Republic of Germany). In Switzerland, the creation of a written emergency law article was deliberately avoided, "because if it were broad, such an article would actually encourage an excessive expansion of the emergency law, whereas if it were narrow, it would often not suffice in a real emergency". The more recent doctrine of constitutional law agrees that such power of attorney decisions are also permissible today. The prerequisite for this would have to be an existential threat to Switzerland and its population; In addition to armed conflicts, the most serious disasters would also be conceivable. In extra-constitutional emergency law, too, mandatory international law, the emergency guarantees of fundamental rights ( Art. 15 Para. 2 ECHR and Art. 4 Para. 2 UN Pact II) and the international law of war must be observed.

See also

Web link

literature

  • Lucienne Hubler: Emergency Law. In: Historical Lexicon of Switzerland .
  • David Rechsteiner: Law in special and extraordinary situations . Dike Verlag, Zurich / St. Gallen 2016, ISBN 978-3-03751-788-8
  • Urs Saxer: Art. 173 para. 1 let. c, Art. 185. In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary. Dike Verlag, Zurich / St. Gallen 2014, Schulthess Legal Media, Zurich / Basel / Geneva 3rd edition 2014, Volume 2, pp. 2796–2802, 2956–2986, ISBN 978-3-03751-606-5 and ISBN 978-3-7255-6698- 3
  • Ralph Trümpler: Emergency law. A taxonomy of manifestations and an analysis of the intra-constitutional emergency law de lege lata e de lege ferenda . Schulthess Legal Media, Zurich / Basel-Geneva 2012, ISBN 978-3-7255-6551-1

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Ralph Trümpler: Notrecht. A taxonomy of manifestations and an analysis of the intra-constitutional emergency law de lege lata e de lege ferenda . Zurich / Basel / Geneva 2012, p. 1 .
  2. ^ Giovanni Biaggini: BV. Comment . 2nd Edition. Zurich 2017, p. 1399 .
  3. ↑ Urs Saxer: Art. 185 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / Basel 2014, p. 2970 .
  4. ↑ Pierre Tschannen: Art. 165 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / St. Gallen 2014, p. 2697 .
  5. ↑ Urs Saxer: Art. 185 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / St. Gallen 2014, p. 2973-2975 .
  6. ↑ Giovanni Biaggini: “Emergency Law” in Times of the Coronavirus - A Critique of the Federal Council's most recent practice on Art. 185 Para. 3 BV . In: Zentralblatt für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht . No. 5 , 2020, p. 257-259 .
  7. ↑ Florian Brunner, Felix Uhlmann, Martin Wilhelm: The Corona Virus and the Limits of Emergency Law. In: General Legal Practice. 2020, pp. 694–695 , accessed on May 18, 2020 .
  8. ^ Federal Council: Message on a new Federal Constitution. In: Bundesblatt BBl 1997, Volume I, p. 416 ff. November 20, 1996, accessed on May 18, 2020 .
  9. ↑ Urs Saxer: Art. 185 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / St. Gallen 2014, p. 2979-2980 .
  10. ^ Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, Council of States. 2013, p. 596 , accessed on June 19, 2020 .
  11. ↑ Swiss Federal Assembly: 09.402. Parliamentary initiative. State Political Commission of the National Council. Preservation of democracy, the rule of law and the state's ability to act in extraordinary situations. In: Curiavista Business Database. Retrieved May 18, 2020 .
  12. ↑ Urs Saxer: Art. 185 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / St. Gallen 2014, p. 2981 .
  13. ↑ The process is outlined in the Federal Council's message on the extension of the federal law banning the groups “Al-Qaida” and “Islamic State” and related organizations of November 22, 2017
  14. ↑ Parliamentary Services: Tinner case: Official pronouncements of the three state powers and the ECHR. Retrieved May 18, 2020 .
  15. ↑ State Political Commission of the National Council: 09.402. Parliamentary initiative. Preservation of democracy, the rule of law and the ability to act in extraordinary situations. Report. February 5, 2010, pp. 1572–1574 , accessed on May 18, 2020 (the report contains a list of all other publicly published emergency decrees of the Federal Council since 2000, p. 1572).
  16. ↑ State Political Commission of the National Council: 91.402. Parliamentary initiative. Preservation of democracy, the rule of law and the ability to act in extraordinary situations. Report. February 5, 2010, pp. 1568–1570 , accessed May 18, 2020 .
  17. ↑ Andreas Lienhard / Agata Zielniewicz: The scope of the Federal Council Notrechts . In: Swiss Central Gazette for Constitutional and Administrative Law . No. 113 , 2012, p. 111-142 .
  18. ↑ Urs Saxer: Art. 185 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / St. Gallen, S. 2982 .
  19. ↑ Report of the Federal Council on the exercise of its emergency law competencies and the implementation of transferred commission motions since the beginning of the corona crisis. May 27, 2020, accessed June 19, 2020 .
  20. ↑ Florian Brunner, Felix Uhlmann, Martin Wilhelm: The coronavirus and the limits of emergency law. In: General Legal Practice. 2020, pp. 686–687 , accessed on May 18, 2020 (list of all ordinances with full titles and references).
  21. ↑ sda: That was decided by the parliament in the extraordinary session. May 6, 2020, accessed May 18, 2020 .
  22. ↑ Swiss Federal Assembly: 20.039. Urgent amendment to aviation law in light of the Covid-19 crisis. In: Curiavista Business Database. Retrieved June 19, 2020 .
  23. ↑ Swiss Federal Assembly: 20.040. Urgent change to the Epidemics Act in view of the COVID-19 crisis (Proximity Tracing System). In: Curiavista Business Database. Retrieved June 19, 2020 .
  24. ↑ Thomas Stauffer / Urs Cavelti: Art. 167 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / St. Gallen 2014, p. 2731-2732 .
  25. ↑ State Political Commission of the National Council: 09.402. Parliamentary initiative. Preservation of democracy, the rule of law and the state's ability to act in extraordinary situations. Report. February 5, 2010, pp. 1579–1581 , accessed May 21, 2020 .
  26. ↑ Finance delegation of the federal councils: Activity report of the finance delegation to the finance commissions of the Council of States and the National Council regarding the supervision of federal finances in 2019. March 17, 2020, pp. 15-18 , accessed on May 21, 2020 .
  27. ↑ 01.067 Message on the financing of the redimensioning concept for national civil aviation. Bundesblatt, November 7, 2001, pp. 6439–6485 , accessed on May 22, 2020 .
  28. ↑ Swiss Federal Assembly: 01.067. Redimensioning concept for national civil aviation. Financing. In: Curiavista Business Database. Retrieved May 22, 2020 .
  29. ↑ State Political Commission of the National Council: 09.402. Parliamentary initiative. Preservation of democracy, the rule of law and the ability to act in extraordinary situations. Report. February 5, 2010, pp. 1576–1577 , accessed May 22, 2020 .
  30. ↑ Swiss Federal Assembly: 08.077. Package of measures to strengthen the Swiss financial system. In: Curiavista Business Database. Retrieved May 22, 2020 .
  31. ↑ Swiss Federal Assembly: Budget 2020. Addendum I. In: Business database Curiavista. Retrieved May 22, 2020 .
  32. ↑ Federal Council: Late notification to supplement 1/2020: supplementary credits to cushion the effects on the economy and society. March 20, 2020, accessed May 22, 2020 .
  33. ↑ Federal Council: Measures to cushion the effects of the coronavirus on the economy and society - Second late notification to supplement 1/2020. April 16, 2020, accessed May 22, 2020 .
  34. ↑ Art. 35 ParlG. Retrieved May 24, 2020 .
  35. ↑ Felix Uhlmann / Martin Wilhelm: The implementation of sessions and committee meetings in extraordinary situations (coronavirus). April 3, 2020, accessed May 22, 2020 .
  36. ↑ Felix Uhlmann / Martin Wilhelm: Session termination and calling for an extraordinary session. April 16, 2020, accessed May 22, 2020 .
  37. ↑ Federal decree on measures to protect the country and maintain neutrality. August 30, 1914, accessed May 23, 2020 .
  38. ^ Alfred Kölz: Modern Swiss Constitutional History . Bern 2004, p. 778 .
  39. ↑ Pierre Tschannen: Art. 165 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / St. Gallen 2014, p. 2697-2698 .
  40. ↑ David Rechsteiner: Law in special and extraordinary situations . Zurich / St. Gallen 2016, p. 220-239 .
  41. ↑ Urs Saxer: Art. 185 . In: The Swiss Federal Constitution. St. Gallen commentary . 3. Edition. tape 2 . Zurich / Basel 2014, p. 2961 .