The declaration o f a state o f emergency is a responsibility belonging to the State to protect the interests o f the society and citizens in special circumstances. When declaring a state o f emergency the State shall, on behalf o f its people, choose a m inor damage rather than a greater one. In this context, in the name o f common interest for the whole fam ily the state plays a parental role in a large fam ily and provides a highly imposing, non~consultative and unbiased measure regardless o f the fam ily members'perspectives. However, in many countries, this type o f measure exists even during the norm al state, forming a paternalistic state model. This writing poses the question: How does the paternalistic state model influence the relationship between the State and its people in countries which more or less follow this regime such as China and Vietnam? How do China and Vietnam benefit from this regime once they face an emergency? When drowing a comporison between the application o f measures to restrict human rights in a state o f emergency and in criminaljustice, especially in countries with paternalistic states, the writing continues to raise the question: Can there be any similarities in the criteria which restrict human rights In criminal justice and can there be a shift from such criteria in crim inal justice into those in an emergency?