State of emergency and internal armed conflict in Ecuador: a legal analysis of executive decree no. 111

Abstract

The declaration of an internal armed conflict through Executive Decree No. 111 in Ecuador has raised significant concerns regarding its constitutional legitimacy and compliance with International Humanitarian Law. This study critically examines the legal validity of the measure, highlighting its implications for the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights in a context of escalating organized criminal violence. A dogmatic and comparative approach was applied, including doctrinal, jurisprudential, and normative analysis of the Ecuadorian constitutional framework, International Humanitarian Law, and comparative experiences from Colombia and El Salvador. The findings reveal that the presidential decree lacks material grounds to classify criminal violence as an internal armed conflict, since it does not meet the criteria of intensity and organization required by international law. The measure creates risks of an extensive interpretation of the state of emergency and potential violations of constitutional rights and basic judicial guarantees. The legal strategy adopted by the Executive undermines the principles of legality, proportionality, and checks on governmental power, representing a concerning trend towards the militarization of public security. The study concludes that the declaration of an internal armed conflict, as applied, does not align with constitutional or international standards, underscoring the urgent need for normative reforms that clearly distinguish criminal threats from genuine armed conflicts.