Abstract
This paper provides a comparison of the regulation of the pandemic in the Netherlands and Poland in order to determine whether a country with a high level of adherence to the rule of law in normal circumstances would also maintain this adherence in exceptional circumstances to a greater degree than a country with an initially lower level of adherence. The central questions posed in the paper are the following: what is the role of the rule of law in regulating the pandemic in the Netherlands and Poland? Is it true that the Dutch government was more successful in preserving legality than its Polish counterpart. By comparing the regulations in the two countries, the paper explores what role the rule of law – in particular, the principle of legality – may play in a crisis situation like this. According to Carl Schmitt, in a state of emergency, order has to be restored first before a return to the ‘normal’ legal order is possible. Does the regulation of the COVID-19 pandemic in the two countries confirm Schmitt’s claim or not?