In the context of the Coronavirus pandemic that has swept the world, the Finnish Government, like many of its peers, has issued policy measures to combat the virus. A significant number of these measures have been implemented by legal acts, including measures taken under the Emergency Powers Act, or otherwise by decisions of ministries and regional and local authorities in their exercise of powers provided by the law. However, some parts of the governmental policy measures have been implemented through non-binding guidelines and recommendations. Using border travel recommendations as a case study, this Article critically evaluates governmental decision-making in relation to non-binding but restrictive measures. The Government’s inexperience with what may be thought of as soft law resulted in much confusion among the public and instigated a steep learning curve for the Government. Some of the problems can be explained as resulting from inadequate preparation and the need to act rapidly towards a legitimate aim, in particular in furtherance of the rights to life and health. That said, the debacle over the use of soft law to fight a pandemic in Finland revealed that there are fundamental misunderstandings about the processes and circumstances under which instruments conceived as soft law can be issued, as well as a lack of attention to their effects from a fundamental rights perspective.
