Comparative Perspectives on Domestic Emergencies, the Pandemic Response, and Civil-Military Relations

Abstract While domestic military operations used to be rare, their frequency, length, and complexity have expanded significantly since the end of the Cold War, driven by new threat vectors such as pandemics, climate change, and terrorism. Drawing on 26 country case studies of military deployments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the conclusion highlights a global pattern of extensive military deployments in non-combat roles. It details how varying legal frameworks inform the extent of military involvement in domestic emergencies, public order, and law enforcement. Anglo-Saxon states tend to be more reticent in drawing on their militaries to support civil authorities than some countries in East Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Irrespective of region, the authority to deploy military forces domestically typically rests with the political executive, with varying levels of legislative oversight to ensure accountability. During COVID-19, roles performed by the military were almost universal: medical support (e.g., testing, vaccination, patient care), logistical and infrastructural support (e.g., distributing supplies, creating facilities, repatriation), and law enforcement (e.g., border control, enforcing restrictions). States tended to draw on existing military capabilities or repurposed personnel ad hoc. The pandemic also exposed weaknesses in inter-ministerial coordination and reliance on the military as "surge capacity" in the face of undercapitalized and overstretched civilian emergency services. The unprecedented global deployment of militaries during COVID-19 underscores a growing expectation for their involvement in domestic emergencies. This trend has implications for civil-military relations, particularly concerns about military overreach, diminished civilian control, human rights violations, and the impact on force sustainment. This necessitates a re-evaluation of military posture, structure, funding, and training, and a careful balancing act to prevent the erosion of combat readiness while ensuring robust civilian oversight to maintain democratic principles and prevent securitizing and militarizing domestic policy.