This study examines the constitutional framework governing the state of emergency from a comparative analytical perspective, examining the legal and constitutional frameworks regulating this exceptional state in a number of political systems, focusing on the balance between public authorities and individual rights during periods of emergency. This topic is particularly sensitive given the frequent resort by political systems to declaring a state of emergency in the face of crises threatening national security, whether security, political, health,or Natural disasters. This places public freedoms under constant threat.
The study focused on comparing constitutional models in Egypt, France, and Iraq, in addition to drawing on relevant international standards, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The study concluded that most constitutional systems, while recognizing the state of emergency as an exceptional instrument, differ in its organization, conditions, and guarantees. The study recommended strengthening judicial and parliamentary oversight and imposing explicit constitutional restrictions on the executive branch to ensure that the state of emergency does not become a permanent tool for suppressing freedoms and undermining the rule of law.