Asian Journal of Law and Society
【編者按】《亞洲法與社會(huì)雜志》（Asian Journal of Law and Society）是由上海交通大學(xué)中國(guó)法與社會(huì)研究院（CISLS）及其前身法社會(huì)學(xué)研究中心（LSC）為凱原法學(xué)院與劍橋大學(xué)出版社合作出版的全英文學(xué)術(shù)期刊。目前訂購(gòu)數(shù)超過(guò)8500戶，其中超過(guò)6000是機(jī)構(gòu)訂戶。僅在劍橋出版社的期刊平臺(tái)，僅在2018年，這份新興期刊的全文下載數(shù)就達(dá)到10000次以上。據(jù)最近獲得的權(quán)威信息，本刊在SCOPUS引文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)排行榜已經(jīng)上升到第二方陣，也已經(jīng)被納入ESCI (Emerging Scholars Citation Index)引文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)，并有望在近期達(dá)到SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) 數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)的收錄標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
在《亞洲法與社會(huì)雜志》創(chuàng)刊10周年之際，期刊共同主編和編輯委員會(huì)的構(gòu)成根據(jù)性別和國(guó)別代表原則有所變更。其中共同主編宮澤節(jié)生（Setsuo Miyazawa）因?yàn)槿嫱诵荻o去主編職務(wù)，接替他的是來(lái)自日本神戶大學(xué)的金子由芳（Yuka Kaneko）教授（女）。編委會(huì)成員中，有九名成員屆滿離任，新增了加利福尼亞大學(xué)爾灣分校Swethaa Ballaskrishnan教授、墨爾本大學(xué)Sarah Biddulph教授、臺(tái)灣大學(xué)Wen-Chen Chang教授、新南威爾士大學(xué)Melissa Crouch教授、耶魯大學(xué)Rohit De副教授、北京大學(xué)戴昕（Xin Dai）副教授、牛津大學(xué)尹孟修（Matthew Erie）副教授、香港大學(xué)顧維遐（Weixia Gu）副教授、東京大學(xué)平田彩子（Ayako Hirata）副教授、萊頓大學(xué)Hoko Horii教授、卡爾加里大學(xué)柳倩（Qian Liu）助理教授、不列顛哥倫比亞大學(xué)Renisa Mawani教授、神戶大學(xué)的宮澤節(jié)生（Setsuo Miyazawa）教授、 加利福尼亞大學(xué)伯克利分校Rachel Stern教授、朱拉隆功大學(xué)Arm Tungnirun講師、印度尼西亞大學(xué)Dyah Wirastri講師、復(fù)旦大學(xué)許多奇（Duoqi Xu）教授、清華大學(xué)于曉虹（Xiaohong Yu）副教授、澳門大學(xué)於興中（Xingzhong Yu）教授、耶魯大學(xué)張?zhí)┨K（Taisu Zhang）教授。（按照姓氏拼音順序排列）
本期集中推送雜志第9卷第3期（2023年2月）的目錄，以方便讀者查閱和引用，也可方便研究者了解本刊錄用稿件的方針和特色。歡迎大家積極參與全英文學(xué)術(shù)期刊Asian Journal of Law and Society的建設(shè)，在這個(gè)平臺(tái)上構(gòu)筑一個(gè)跨學(xué)科、跨國(guó)界的知識(shí)共同體！
#01
RESEARCH PAPER
研究論文
Monarchical Constitutional Guardianship and Legal Métissage in Asia
亞洲君主立憲監(jiān)護(hù)和法律雜糅
馬爾捷·德·維瑟（Maartje De Visser），新加坡管理大學(xué)法學(xué)院
安德魯·哈?。?/span>Andrew Harding），新加坡國(guó)立大學(xué)法學(xué)院
Abstract: This article presents a roadmap for examining the phenomenon of monarchy in Asia, which weconceive as a pluralist institution in a twofold manner. First, many monarchies discharge a widerange of roles and responsibilities ranging from the symbolic to the religious to the legal-political.These varied functions can be usefully captured under the notion of constitutional guardianship, andcall for intersectional analysis. Second, it is common for monarchies to have metamorphosed frombeing purely endogenous institutions to becoming ones embedded in a scheme of limited, constitutionalgovernment under the influence of ideas from elsewhere. Monarchies should accordingly beviewed as a form of legal métissage, viz. a braiding of local and extraneous ideas, practices, and rules. In this sense, a law-and-society approach is more likely to reveal the nature of monarchies than astrictly legal-doctrinal approach, although some of the latter is needed to fully appreciate the former’s significance.
摘要：本文為研究亞洲的君主制現(xiàn)象提供了路線圖。這種制度被我們視為以雙重方式存在的多元制度。首先，許多君主制承擔(dān)著從象征意義到宗教再到法律政治的廣泛的角色和責(zé)任。這些不同的功能可以在憲法監(jiān)護(hù)的概念下得到有效體現(xiàn)，并有待交叉分析。其次，在外來(lái)思想的影響下，君主制常常從純粹的內(nèi)生制度蛻變?yōu)橐惶浊度胗谟邢薜膽椪?jì)劃的制度。因此，君主制應(yīng)當(dāng)被視為法律雜糅的一種形式，即本土和外來(lái)理念、實(shí)踐和規(guī)則的交織。在這個(gè)意義上，法與社會(huì)的研究方法比嚴(yán)格的法教義研究方法更有可能揭示君主制的本質(zhì)，盡管我們需要后者的一些內(nèi)容以充分理解前者的重要性。
Keywords: monarchies; constitutional guardianship; legal métissage; constitutional interpretation; constitutional identity; symbolism
關(guān)鍵詞：君主制；憲法監(jiān)護(hù)；法律雜糅；憲法解釋；憲法認(rèn)同；象征意義
A Constitutional Ethnography of Monarchy: Buddhist Kingship, “Granted Constitutionalism, ” and Royal State Ceremonies in Thailand
君主制的憲政民族志：佛教王權(quán)、“授權(quán)立憲”和泰國(guó)的皇家儀式
歐仁妮·梅里奧 （Eugénie Mérieau），巴黎第一大學(xué)法學(xué)院，潘提翁-索邦分校
Abstract: This paper defines constitutional ethnography as the cultural study of constitutionalism through itssymbolic representations. By focusing on the materiality of constitutionalism as embodied in variousstate ceremonies such as ceremonies of “royal octroy” (constitution-granting ceremonies) as well asin state monuments honouring the Constitution, it strives to offer an ethnography of a polity’sconstitutional identity. In this paper, I argue that in Thailand, Westernized Hindu-Buddhist stateceremonies and monuments using Westernized Hindu-Buddhist symbolism represent the Thaimonarch as the ultimate law-giver holding permanent “constituent power” and therefore yieldingextra-constitutional customary powers pre-existing the Constitution. This representation, in turn, informs Thai constitutional identity as defined incrementally by courts and jurists since the earlytwentieth century, which in turn informs present Thai constitutional interpretation. Therefore, thispaper argues that the study of state ceremonies can be a useful entry point into the analysis of a “constitutional culture” shaping modes of constitutional interpretation.
摘要：本文將憲政民族志定義為通過(guò)憲政的象征性表征對(duì)其進(jìn)行的文化研究。通過(guò)關(guān)注體現(xiàn)在例如“皇家?jiàn)W特羅伊”儀式（憲法授予儀式）、紀(jì)念憲法的國(guó)家紀(jì)念碑等不同國(guó)家儀式中的憲政的實(shí)質(zhì)性，本文努力提供一個(gè)有關(guān)政體之憲法特性的民族志。我在本文中認(rèn)為，泰國(guó)的西化印度佛教國(guó)家儀式和采用西化印度佛教象征的紀(jì)念碑代表了泰國(guó)君主是擁有永久“憲法權(quán)力”的最終法律制定者，由此產(chǎn)生了先于憲法存在的憲法外的習(xí)慣權(quán)力。這種表征轉(zhuǎn)而說(shuō)明了自二十世紀(jì)初以來(lái)由法院和法學(xué)家逐步界定的泰國(guó)的憲法特性，而這又反過(guò)來(lái)為當(dāng)前泰國(guó)的憲法解釋提供了參考。因此，本文認(rèn)為對(duì)國(guó)家儀式的研究可以成為分析塑造憲法解釋模式的“憲法文化”的有益切入點(diǎn)。
Keywords: Thailand; monarchy; Buddhist kingship; state ceremonies; constitutional ethnography; constitutional culture
關(guān)鍵詞：泰國(guó)；君主制；佛教王權(quán)；國(guó)家儀式；憲法民族志；憲法文化
The Symbolic Safeguard: Royal Absence in Cambodia’s Constitutional Monarchy
象征性保障：柬埔寨君主立憲制中的王權(quán)缺位
本·勞倫斯 （Ben Lawrence），新加坡國(guó)立大學(xué)法律系
Abstract: The product of an internationalized peace process, Cambodia’s 1993 Constitution restored the monarchy and endowed the Crown with a political safeguarding role that successive kings have beenunable to fulfil in practice. After a brief survey of the tragic modern history of Cambodia’s monarchy,this paper outlines the formal constitutional role of the king, highlighting the central dichotomybetween the provisions that promise that the king “shall reign but shall not govern” and those thatprovide the king a more active role as “guarantor.” The paper highlights how this fundamental ambiguity has been borne-out publicly, by focusing on a handful of specific instances in which both KingSihanouk and King Sihamoni are understood to have been strategically absent from the country toavoid signing controversial legislation. Short of providing a veto power in the legislative process, theking’s safeguarding role is shown to manifest in the symbolic denial of royal legitimacy.
摘要：作為國(guó)際化和平進(jìn)程的產(chǎn)物，柬埔寨的1993年憲法恢復(fù)了君主制，并賦予王室以政治保障地位，然而歷代國(guó)王在實(shí)踐中均無(wú)法履行這一職能。在簡(jiǎn)要回顧柬埔寨君主制的悲劇近代史后，本文概述了國(guó)王正式的憲政地位，強(qiáng)調(diào)國(guó)王“臨朝而不理政（或統(tǒng)而不治）”條款與“國(guó)王作為‘擔(dān)保人’發(fā)揮更多積極作用”條款之間的核心分歧。西哈努克國(guó)王和西哈莫尼國(guó)王被理解成出于避免簽署有爭(zhēng)議的法律的原因，而戰(zhàn)略性地離開(kāi)國(guó)家。本文借由其中的一些具體事例，釋明了上述根本性分歧是如何被公開(kāi)證實(shí)的。國(guó)王的保障性角色除了體現(xiàn)為在立法過(guò)程中具備否決權(quán)外，還表現(xiàn)為能夠象征性地否認(rèn)王室的合法性。
Keywords: Cambodia; monarchy; constitutional law; legitimacy; politics
關(guān)鍵詞：柬埔寨；君主制；憲法；合法性；政治
The Malay Monarchies in Constitutional and Social Conception
憲法與社會(huì)觀念中的馬來(lái)君主制
安德魯·哈丁 （Andrew Harding），新加坡國(guó)立大學(xué)法律系哈山·庫(kù)馬拉辛厄姆 （Harshan Kumarasingham），愛(ài)丁堡大學(xué)社會(huì)與政治科學(xué)學(xué)院
Abstract: This article examines the constitutional nature of the Malaysian monarchies in their social context.We discuss the evolution of the monarchies through pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial history,and account for their survival despite several attempts to curb their powers, including restriction ofthe royal assent and sovereign immunity. It is argued that the powers of the monarchies respond totheir historical role and social embeddedness constitutional monarchy; Malay monarchy; heads of state; constitutional conventions; royal powers: constitutional monarchy; Malay monarchy; heads of state; constitutional conventions;royal powers of the monarchies, stretching the role of the Rulersbeyond the Westminster norms as set out in constitutional texts. Moving to contemporary issues, we see the assertion of the right to uphold the Constitution in relation to prime-ministerial appointments, and acting on advice. Here, the monarchies reflect a braiding of both traditional elements andWestminster constitutional norms.
摘要：本文分析了馬來(lái)西亞君主制在其社會(huì)背景下的憲政性質(zhì)。我們討論了君主制在前殖民地時(shí)期、殖民地時(shí)期和后殖民地時(shí)期的歷史演變，并說(shuō)明其在經(jīng)歷限制御準(zhǔn)(指君主對(duì)議會(huì)兩院通過(guò)的法案予以認(rèn)可，從而使該法案成為議會(huì)法律。譯者注）和主權(quán)豁免權(quán)等幾次限權(quán)嘗試后仍然存續(xù)的原因。本文認(rèn)為，君主的權(quán)力回應(yīng)了他們的歷史角色以及君主制的社會(huì)嵌入性，（進(jìn)而）將統(tǒng)治者的角色延伸到憲法文本規(guī)定的威斯敏斯特規(guī)范之外。在當(dāng)代問(wèn)題上，我們（也可以）看到（君主）在任命政府首腦和聽(tīng)取政府建議方面主張維護(hù)憲法權(quán)利。馬來(lái)君主制體現(xiàn)了傳統(tǒng)要素與威斯敏斯特憲法規(guī)范的交織。
Keywords: constitutional monarchy; Malay monarchy; heads of state; constitutional conventions; royal powers
關(guān)鍵詞：君主立憲制；馬來(lái)君主制；國(guó)家元首；憲法慣例；王權(quán)
Beyond the Sharia State: Public Celebrations and Everyday State-Making in the Malay Islamic Monarchy of Brunei Darussalam
超越伊斯蘭教法國(guó)家：文萊達(dá)魯薩蘭國(guó)馬來(lái)伊斯蘭君主政體中的公共慶典和日常國(guó)家建構(gòu)
多米尼克·M.穆勒（Dorminik M. Müller）埃爾朗根-紐倫堡弗里德里希-亞歷山大大學(xué)，社會(huì)學(xué)研究所
Abstract: This article describes post-colonial state-making in the absolute monarchy of Brunei. After detailing the Sultan’s powers, contextualizing the monarchy’s stability, and introducing its state ideology, Melayu Islam Beraja (“MIB”), the article addresses formal laws, such as Brunei’s Constitution and a new Islamic penal code, which are symbolically significant for the MIB state’s (self-)legitimation but have little immediate relevance to many Bruneians’ lives. The article, therefore, shifts its focus to normative spheres that receive much less scholarly attention but, arguably, should—namely state-rituals like the Sultan’s three-week-long birthday celebrations. These, and other non-legal spheres, including, also, royal speeches, contain normative aspects that reflect and impact key developments in the MIB state. Grounded in the Royal Birthday’s and Islamic penal code’s analysis, the final part problematizes stereotypes of Brunei being a “sharia state” vis-à-vis its multidirectional normative messages and ability to hybridize broad cultural influences for the ruling system’s benefit.
摘要：本文通過(guò)審查一起在中國(guó)有爭(zhēng)議的跨國(guó)非法藥品代購(gòu)案件，分析了非法性在威權(quán)主義國(guó)家如何被正當(dāng)化。通過(guò)對(duì)新聞報(bào)道、法律文件和訪談進(jìn)行三角分析，本研究區(qū)分了非法性正當(dāng)化的兩種途徑：去政治化和政治化。本文討論了去政治化的途徑是通過(guò)實(shí)用主義、道德和法律的框架成為可能的，而政治化的途徑則是建立在制度的框架之上。我認(rèn)為，媒體是非法性正當(dāng)化的重要媒介。非法實(shí)踐的參與者和法律權(quán)威傾向于只調(diào)動(dòng)去政治化的框架，而媒體則同時(shí)作出去政治化和政治化的努力。通過(guò)這個(gè)深入分析，本文加深了我們對(duì)威權(quán)主義國(guó)家中非法性的社會(huì)建構(gòu)以及法律、媒體和社會(huì)之間錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的關(guān)系的理解。
Keywords: Brunei Darussalam; absolute monarchy; everyday state-making; Royal Birthday; Islamic law
關(guān)鍵詞: 文萊達(dá)魯薩蘭國(guó)；絕對(duì)君主制；日常國(guó)家建構(gòu)；王室生日；伊斯蘭法
The Progressive Monarchy of Bhutan: A Not-So-Absolute Monarchy to a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy
不丹穩(wěn)步發(fā)展的君主政體：從并非絕對(duì)的君主政體到民主憲政君主政體
尼瑪·多吉（Nima Dorji） 吉格梅-辛格-旺楚克法律學(xué)院
Abstract: This article provides a descriptive account of the evolution of the Bhutanese monarchy, and normative claims about its endurance and its nature, suggesting that the monarchy is both the expression of as well as the guardian of the country’s constitutional identity. Bhutan became a democratic constitutional monarchy by adopting the written Constitution in 2008 after a successful 100 years of hereditary monarchy. The willingness of successive monarchs to evolve based on changing times, their ability to ensure stability and continuity, and work for the benefits of the people and country guided by the principles of Buddhist kingship seem to have contributed not only in them benefitting from unqualified support of the people, but also in attaining the status of an expression of Bhutanese constitutional identity.
摘要：本文對(duì)不丹君主制的演變進(jìn)行描述，并對(duì)其持久性和性質(zhì)提出規(guī)范性主張，認(rèn)為君主政體既是國(guó)家憲法特質(zhì)的表現(xiàn)，也是國(guó)家憲法特質(zhì)的守護(hù)者。不丹在成功實(shí)行了100年的世襲君主制之后，于2008年通過(guò)了成文憲法，成為民主君主立憲制國(guó)家。歷任君主自發(fā)地根據(jù)變化的時(shí)代而變化，他們有能力確保國(guó)家的穩(wěn)定性和連續(xù)性，并在佛教王權(quán)原則的指導(dǎo)下為人民和國(guó)家的利益而努力。上述內(nèi)容似乎不僅使君主們受益于人民的無(wú)條件支持，而且也使他們獲得了表達(dá)不丹憲法特質(zhì)的地位。
Keywords: constitutional monarchy; GNH; Kidu; constitutional identity; dualsystem; Dharmaraja
關(guān)鍵詞：君主立憲政體；國(guó)民幸?？傊担换牛?/span>Kidu，指國(guó)王的一種權(quán)力，譯者注）；憲法特質(zhì)；雙重制度；達(dá)摩之治
Policing Terrorism in the Chinese Community: A Critical Analysis
中國(guó)社區(qū)警務(wù)對(duì)恐怖主義的治理：一個(gè)批判性分析
李英申（Enshen Li） 澳大利亞昆士蘭大學(xué)伯恩法學(xué)院
Abstract: After the 9/11 incidents, global counter-terrorism efforts have focused increasingly on community policing as a proactive and preventive approach to thwarting terrorism. This article explores the developments, tensions, and prospects of counter-terrorism community policing (“CTCP”) in China. By applying the concepts of police legitimacy and social capital to the normative and operational framework of CTCP, I argue that this vital counter-terrorism endeavour is fraught with problems, for both Chinese police to procure effective civic co-operation and the local community to develop its capacity as a self-reliant player in preventing terrorism. More specifically, community co-operation in China’s CTCP is largely an obligatory process in the form of forced mobilization by local bureaucracies that does not necessarily entail trust and support from citizens based on their legitimacy judgement. My analysis on social capital building in Chinese communities further suggests that both police and citizens are unable to form deep and meaningful partnerships for counter-terrorism. While an authoritarian regime like China is reluctant to cede substantial power and authority to people in most of all aspects of policing, the public has become apathetictowards and alienated from voluntary collaboration with police in formal community affairs—a dichotomy lies between reality and ideal in China’s CTCP.
摘要：911事件之后，全球反恐工作愈發(fā)注重社區(qū)警務(wù)，將其作為挫敗恐怖主義的主動(dòng)性和預(yù)防性方法。本文探討了中國(guó)反恐社區(qū)警務(wù)（“CTCP”）的發(fā)展歷程、矛盾沖突和發(fā)展前景。通過(guò)將警務(wù)合法性和社會(huì)資本的概念運(yùn)用于“CTCP”的規(guī)范和運(yùn)作框架，本文認(rèn)為，這一重要的反恐努力問(wèn)題重重，既需要中國(guó)警察獲得有效的公民合作，也需要當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)發(fā)展自身能力，成為預(yù)防恐怖勢(shì)力的自力更生者。更具體地說(shuō)，中國(guó)“CTCP”中的社區(qū)合作很大程度上是以地方官僚機(jī)構(gòu)強(qiáng)迫動(dòng)員為形式的強(qiáng)制性過(guò)程，不一定會(huì)得到公民基于自身合法性判斷而產(chǎn)生的信任和支持。本文對(duì)中國(guó)社區(qū)的的社會(huì)資本建設(shè)的分析進(jìn)一步表明，警察和公民均無(wú)法建立深入和有意義的反恐伙伴關(guān)系。盡管像中國(guó)這樣的WeiQuan政治不愿在警務(wù)工作的多數(shù)方面將大量的實(shí)質(zhì)性權(quán)力和權(quán)威讓渡給人民，然而社會(huì)公眾對(duì)于在正式社區(qū)事務(wù)中與警力的自愿合作已經(jīng)變得冷漠和疏遠(yuǎn)——中國(guó)的“CTCP”存在著理想與現(xiàn)實(shí)的二分。
本。
Keywords: China; terrorism; community policing; procedural justice; social capital
關(guān)鍵詞：中國(guó)；恐怖主義；社區(qū)警務(wù)；程序正義；社會(huì)資本
Mandating Symbolic Patriotism: China’s Flag and Anthem in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
強(qiáng)制施行象征性愛(ài)國(guó)主義：香港特別行政區(qū)的中國(guó)國(guó)旗和國(guó)歌
布倫丹·克利夫特（Brendan Clift） 墨爾本大學(xué)法學(xué)院
Abstract: The Hong Kong statute criminalizing disrespect of the Chinese national anthem, passed in 2020, is one of many recent moves to suppress political dissent in the former British colony. The law restricts freedom of political expression, but its constitutionality is practically assured courtesy of earlier decisions upholding laws against flag desecration. This article draws on sociological and political literature to argue that symbolic nationalism, particularly when given the force of law, is a tool of the authoritarian state. Against this backdrop, it critically and comparatively analyses Hong Kong judicial decisions upholding the suppression of symbolic dissent, assessing their doctrinal coherence, normative defensibility, and consequences. It concludes with observations on the efficacy of attempts to enforce patriotic orthodoxy and on how deference to authoritarianism affects the rule of law.
摘要：香港于2020年通過(guò)的將不尊重中國(guó)國(guó)歌作為犯罪的法令，是該前英國(guó)殖民地近期壓制政治異見(jiàn)的眾多舉措之一。雖然這項(xiàng)法律限制了政治言論自由，但由于早先的判決支持了反對(duì)褻瀆國(guó)旗的法律，其合憲性實(shí)際上得到了保持。本文借鑒了社會(huì)學(xué)和政治學(xué)文獻(xiàn)，認(rèn)為象征性的民族主義，尤其在被賦予法律強(qiáng)制力的情況下，是威權(quán)國(guó)家的工具。在此背景下，本文從批判和比較的視角分析了支持壓制象征性異見(jiàn)的香港司法判決，評(píng)估這些判決在教義上的連貫性、規(guī)范上的可辯護(hù)性及其后果。本文最后對(duì)試圖強(qiáng)制落實(shí)愛(ài)國(guó)主義正統(tǒng)觀念的有效性，以及遵從WeiQuan主義的行為如何影響法治的問(wèn)題提出了看法。
Keywords: National symbols; freedom of expression; political dissent; authoritarianism; Hong Kong
關(guān)鍵詞：國(guó)家象征；言論自由；政治異見(jiàn)；WeiQuan主義；香港
#02
BOOK REVIEW
書(shū) 評(píng)
Thailand’s Monarchy and Constitutional History - Constitutional Bricolage: Thailand’s Sacred Monarchy vs. the Rule of Law.
By Eugenie Mérieau. London: Hart Publishing, 2021, 328 pp. Hardcover $90.00
《泰國(guó)的君主政體和憲政史——憲法拼湊：泰國(guó)的神圣君主政體vs法治》，作者：Eugenie Mérieau
History and Meaning of Establishing the Constitutions of North-East Asian States - Constitutional Foundings in Northeast Asia.
Edited by Kevin Y. L. Tan and Michael Ng. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2022. 256 pp. Hardcover $115.00
《東北亞國(guó)家立憲的歷史與意義——東北亞的立憲》，主編：Kevin Y. L. Tan和Michael Ng
#03
BOOK DISCUSSION
書(shū)目討論
Winner, 2020 Distinguished Book Award, Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA), Anna High, Non-Governmental Orphan Relief in China: Law, Policy, and Practice (Routledge, 2019)
《中國(guó)的非政府孤兒救助：法律、政策與實(shí)踐》（亞洲法律與社會(huì)協(xié)會(huì)，2020年杰出圖書(shū)得主），作者：Anna High