There is a long-established claim that emergency action through the law is impossible, or bound to be ineffective. This article seeks to challenge this position by reference to the response of many European states to the Coronavirus pandemic and by drawing on Lon Fuller’s theory of law. It argues that there are a number of reasons why a fragmentation of governance between ordinary, legal action and emergency, extra-legal action is neither necessary nor desirable in this specific context. In societies that are generally rule of law compliant governance according to formal legal principles is not only constraining, it also possesses the quality of a ‘liberating limitation’, creating the room for effective, sustainable action. Too little has been made of this positive dimension of the legal form as an instrument for emergency action.

有一个由来已久的主张，即通过法律采取紧急行动是不可能的，或者注定是无效的。本文试图通过参考许多欧洲国家对冠状病毒大流行的反应并借鉴朗富勒的法律理论来挑战这一立场。它认为，在这种特定情况下，普通的法律行动和紧急的法律外行动之间的治理碎片化既没有必要也不可取，原因有很多。在普遍遵守法治的社会中，根据正式法律原则进行治理不仅具有约束力，而且还具有“解放限制”的性质，为有效、可持续的行动创造了空间。对作为紧急行动工具的法律形式的这一积极方面的研究太少了。