You're listening to the Corbett Report.

Corbett report. Corbett.com.

Welcome back to

ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the Corbett Report.

I'm your host James Corbett of Corbett report.com coming to you as always

from the sunny climes of Western Japan here on the 11th day of February 2022 and you are tuned into

episode 411 of the Corporate Report Podcast, States of Emergency. Now the average person doesn't know about it because why would they

but there is in fact a lengthy and voluminous tradition in the field of

legal scholarship debating the question of states of

exception and states of emergency and how they interact with and impinge

upon the legal order of various jurisdictions.

For example, you could turn back to the 12th century where the Benedictine monk Gration wrote in

his decreum that if something is done out of necessity it is done licitly

since what is not licit in law necessity makes licit., necessity has no law. Or we could turn to Thomas Aquinas who wrote the

following century in the 13th century in his Summa Theologica.

If the observance of the law, according to the letter, does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy,

it is not the business of anyone whatsoever to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state.

Those alone can do this who are in authority and who, on account of such cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.

If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring

the matter to authority, the necessity itself carries with it a dispensation since necessity knows no law.

And this line of thinking has continued throughout the centuries and was, for example, given a more modern formulation by the

20th century Italian legal scholar Santee Romano, who in 1999 wrote, the necessity with which we are concerned here

...