Reacting to COVID Culturally: The Case of Romania

It is indisputable that as the coronavirus pandemic was sweeping across the world, countries were called to adapt quickly. While responding to the general need to fight against the disease, many of the measures taken, respectful of human rights or less so, also reflected local conditions. In other words, countries seemed to react to the same threat within the boundaries established by their own cultures. This explains why France decided to keep its wineshops open (they were deemed essential to the life of the nation) why some American states did so for gun shops. This is just one superficial example of how local practices shaped the coronavirus response. The analysis can nonetheless be taken further and applied at the level of a given legal culture. I argue that in the hastiness of the first wave measures many countries drew on scientific data but, importantly, also heeded to local practices and preferences. In the case of Romania, the country I would like to discuss here in particular, this meant a focus on borders, the intervention of the military and criminal law means. I seek to explore the measures that were taken in this respect and to determine to what extent they represent an expression of a legal culture that allows for the manifestation of penal populism, especially when confronted to a crisis situation. Also, I wish to establish if this populist ethos, problematic from a rule of law standpoint, was efficiently countered and by which institutions /mechanisms in particular.