In recent years, armed conflicts have changed in nature (civil war, ‘terrorism’) and the means used are increasingly technological (robotisation, cyberwar). Faced with these developments, some would claim International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is outdated. While these technological innovations present new challenges in the application of IHL, it still constitutes a relevant legal framework for armed conflicts and the conduct of hostilities. Indeed, the flexibility of IHL allows it to adapt to contemporary conflicts. Therefore, this shows that the statements about its obsolescence are primarily political in nature.

When in 2020 the World Health Organization announced a COVID-19 contagious disease pandemic, it was clear that governments must take actions to limit the consequences of pandemia. Poland was one of the first to introduce far-reaching measures, limiting freedom of movement and closing an increasing number of business and activities. The Polish Constitution contains potential extraordinary measures, including the provision for declaring a “state of natural disaster”, but the Polish government has refrained from enacting it. Instead, it is based on a “state of epidemic”, which is not provided for in the Constitution as the legal ground for limiting human rights. The purpose of this study is to answer the question whether human rights restrictions introduced during the epidemic have a sufficient legal basis from the point of view of the Polish Constitution and the resulting principles.