The psychosocial perception of fundamental rights compliance in crisis contexts: between trust in authorities and the sense of personal security

Abstract

The compliance with fundamental rights during crisis situations—such as pandemics, natural disasters, or states of emergency—raises essential questions regarding how individuals perceive the legitimacy and proportionality of governmental actions. This study investigates the psychosocial perception of citizens concerning the respect for fundamental rights in exceptional contexts, with a focus on the balance between public trust in authorities and the subjective feeling of personal security.

Drawing on theoretical frameworks from social psychology, human rights law, and crisis communication, the research explores how factors such as institutional trust, exposure to mass media, and previous experiences with state intervention shape perceptions of rights compliance. The study uses a mixed-method approach, combining survey-based quantitative data with qualitative insights from interviews and focus groups.

The central aim is to assess whether restrictive measures are perceived as protective or repressive, and how this perception varies across social categories. The findings are expected to provide valuable data for improving public policies that ensure both security and civil liberties during future crises.

       The research is guided by the following questions:

1. How do individuals perceive the respect for fundamental rights during a declared state of emergency?
2. What is the relationship between trust in public authorities and the perception of rights compliance?
3. How does the sense of personal security influence the acceptance of restrictive governmental measures?

        This paper contributes to the broader understanding of how democratic values are maintained or challenged in times of crisis, with implications for both governance and civic resilience.