This article analyses how emergency legislation has affected law-making and regulatory quality principles (RQPs) before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2021) from stakeholders’ perspectives. It takes Slovakia as a case study, as this country was considered a high performer in the adoption of RQPs before the crisis, while empirical findings suggest a subsequent decline in their use. We argue that formal RQPs are not deeply embedded and are vulnerable to crises. In doing so, we conceptually distinguish between standard (fully following the RQPs), emergency (modified to accommodate crisis) and non-standard law-making (violating formal rules and the RQPs). In the transition from a crisis to a post-crisis context, the deployment of both emergency and non-standard law-making has become relatively permanent without proper justification having been provided. This reinforces the notion that RQPs and governance legitimacy became less important for the executive than in the pre-crisis period and emergency and non-standard regulatory law-making became institutionalised as new norms of swift law-making. All of these factors prevent stakeholders from being informed and from engaging in deliberation, which jeopardises the legitimacy of post-crisis law-making governance.

中文翻译：

---

危机后紧急立法整合：监管质量原则只为美好时光？

本文从利益相关者的角度分析了紧急立法在 COVID-19 大流行之前、期间和之后（2019-2021 年）如何影响立法和监管质量原则 (RQP)。以斯洛伐克为案例研究，因为该国在危机前被认为在采用 RQP 方面表现出色，而实证研究结果表明随后其使用量有所下降。我们认为，正式的 RQP 并没有深入人心，而且容易受到危机的影响。在此过程中，我们从概念上区分了标准（完全遵循 RQP）、紧急情况（为适应危机而修改）和非标准立法（违反正式规则和 RQP）。在从危机向危机后过渡的过程中，紧急立法和非标准立法的部署已变得相对永久性，而没有提供适当的理由。这强化了这样一种观念，即与危机前相比，RQP 和治理合法性对于行政部门来说不再那么重要，紧急和非标准监管立法已制度化为​​快速立法的新规范。所有这些因素都阻碍利益相关者了解情况并参与审议，从而危及危机后立法治理的合法性。