The Republic of Cyprus in the dramatic circumstances of 1963-64 saw the collapse of the two highest constitutional bodies (Supreme Constitutional Court, Supreme Court) for the administration of justice. The Cypriot House of Representatives, which was now comprised solely of Greek-Cypriot members, enacted law 33/64, which unified the two courts into a new Supreme Court, in which the five remaining judges, three Greek-Cypriots and two Turkish-Cypriots, were to participate.

The new Supreme Court faced claims regarding the constitutionality of law 33/64 in the Ibrahim decision based on the "doctrine" or "law of necessity", according to which emergency circumstances rendered legislative deviation from constitutional provisions permissible. The law of necessity was analyzed and regarded as an implicit principle of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, while in the following years it became a basis for a significant number of pieces of legislation through which the Cypriot state adapted to the new conditions after the withdrawal of Turkish-Cypriots from the constitutional bodies, as well as to the conditions that arose after the Turkish invasion of 1974.

The purpose of the work is to first illuminate the historical, political, and constitutional conditions of the Ibrahim decision and then analyze this decision, as well as critical aspects of the "law of necessity" during its jurisprudential evolution and processing up to the present day. In this context, the authors engage in dialogue with various positions, thoughts, or perspectives regarding the foundations and nature of the constitutional state, law, and fundamental rights.

The work, which is published at a critical juncture for the Cyprus issue, is aimed at lawyers in Cyprus and Greece, as well as political scientists who are interested in emergency situations, the constitutional form, and the functioning of the legal order of the Republic of Cyprus and the foundations of its resilient existence to this day.