亚洲一线产区二线产区区别在哪,亚洲AV永久无码精品,久久精品国产精品国产精品污,亚洲精品亚洲人成年,青青草视频在线观看综合网,亚洲国产色欲AV一区二区三区在线,亚洲美乳字幕日韩无线码高清专区

福來寬（Hiroshi Fukurai)，加州大學(xué)圣塔克魯茲分校；

羅賓·加布里埃爾（Robin Gabriel），加州大學(xué)圣塔克魯茲分校；

梁曉晨，加州大學(xué)圣塔克魯茲分校

Abstract: The coronavirus pandemic has led to millions of deaths around the world. In many countries, it has also exposed long-standing inequities and injustices in health care, income distribution, labour market practice, and social protection for the poor, women, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized segments of the population. The disproportionate casualties among vulnerable populations have also exposed predatory corporate practices, such as the refusal to share vaccine patents with low-income countries (LIC) in the Global South. World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that this “vaccine apartheid” could lead to the further spread of more dangerous forms of virus variants, and that global solidarity and collaboration may be the only viable approach to current and future pandemics. Scientists have long warned that the continued destruction of the environment and ecological diversity would lead to future waves of cross-species (zoonotic) viral pandemics, due to the elimination of “natural borders” that once existed between human and non-human species. In the last several decades alone, humanity has suffered from five major zoonotic pandemics: AIDS, SARS, MARS, Ebola, and COVID-19. This Special Issue focuses on a select group of Asian countries in order to critically examine the impact of socio-legal inequities in state-centric policies upon domestic populations, including indigenous peoples, and to explore the possibility of international collaborative strategies for controlling the spread of deadly viruses and their variants in the coming years and decades, in Asia and beyond.

摘要：冠狀病毒大流行致使世界各地數(shù)百萬人死亡。在許多國家，它還暴露了長期以來在醫(yī)療保健、收入分配、勞動力市場運作以及對窮人、婦女、原住民和其他邊緣群體的社會保護方面存在的不公平和不公正現(xiàn)象。弱勢人群中不成比例的傷亡情況也暴露了掠奪式的企業(yè)做法，如拒絕與全球南部的低收入國家分享疫苗專利。世界衛(wèi)生組織（WHO）總干事譚德塞（Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus）警告說，這種“疫苗種族隔離”可能導(dǎo)致更危險的病毒變種進一步傳播，全球團結(jié)與合作可能是應(yīng)對當(dāng)前和未來流行病的唯一可行辦法?？茖W(xué)家們早就警告說，由于人類和非人類物種之間曾經(jīng)存在的“自然邊界”被消除，對環(huán)境和生態(tài)多樣性的持續(xù)破壞將導(dǎo)致未來一波又一波的跨物種（人畜共患?。┎《敬罅餍小H在過去的幾十年里，人類就遭受了五次重大的人畜共患病大流行：艾滋病、SARS、MARS、埃博拉和 COVID-19。本期特刊重點關(guān)注部分亞洲國家，從而批判性地審視以國家為中心的政策中社會-法律方面的不平等對包括原住民在內(nèi)的國內(nèi)人口所造成的影響，并探討在未來數(shù)年和數(shù)十年中，在亞洲及其他地區(qū)采取國際合作戰(zhàn)略來控制致命病毒及其變種傳播的可能性。摘要：冠狀病毒大流行致使世界各地數(shù)百萬人死亡。在許多國家，它還暴露了長期以來在醫(yī)療保健、收入分配、勞動力市場運作以及對窮人、婦女、原住民和其他邊緣群體的社會保護方面存在的不公平和不公正現(xiàn)象。弱勢人群中不成比例的傷亡情況也暴露了掠奪式的企業(yè)做法，如拒絕與全球南部的低收入國家分享疫苗專利。世界衛(wèi)生組織（WHO）總干事譚德塞（Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus）警告說，這種“疫苗種族隔離”可能導(dǎo)致更危險的病毒變種進一步傳播，全球團結(jié)與合作可能是應(yīng)對當(dāng)前和未來流行病的唯一可行辦法?？茖W(xué)家們早就警告說，由于人類和非人類物種之間曾經(jīng)存在的“自然邊界”被消除，對環(huán)境和生態(tài)多樣性的持續(xù)破壞將導(dǎo)致未來一波又一波的跨物種（人畜共患?。┎《敬罅餍?。僅在過去的幾十年里，人類就遭受了五次重大的人畜共患病大流行：艾滋病、SARS、MARS、埃博拉和 COVID-19。本期特刊重點關(guān)注部分亞洲國家，從而批判性地審視以國家為中心的政策中社會-法律方面的不平等對包括原住民在內(nèi)的國內(nèi)人口所造成的影響，并探討在未來數(shù)年和數(shù)十年中，在亞洲及其他地區(qū)采取國際合作戰(zhàn)略來控制致命病毒及其變種傳播的可能性。

Keywords: COVID-19; World Health Organization (WHO); vaccine apartheid, indigenous peoples; Cuba; vaccine untouchables; vaccine genocide

關(guān)鍵詞：新冠疫情；世界衛(wèi)生組織；疫苗種族隔離；原住民；古巴；疫苗賤民；疫苗種族滅絕

皮亞-潘薩帕（Piya Pangsapa），泰國國立法政大學(xué)全球研究學(xué)院

Abstract: In January 2020, Thailand became the first country outside of China to report a coronavirus infection. In July 2020, Thailand was the number one ranked country (out of 184 countries) for its effective handling of COVID-19. In December 2020, the country was hit by a second wave and the government was once again able to contain the new outbreak. In late March 2021, however, a third wave broke out and as of 1 April 2021, Thailand had seen 2,022,117 new cases and a death toll during the third wave of 20,211. The Thai government has not only been unable to contain the virus this time around, but has also failed in its procurement, allocation, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines for its 70 million people. This article will look at the government’s mismanagement of the pandemic in the third wave and how the government is dealing with the current crisis.

摘要：2020年1月，泰國成為中國以外第一個報告冠狀病毒感染的國家。2020年7月，泰國在有效處理 COVID-19 方面在于184 個國家中排名第一。2020年12月，泰國遭遇第二次疫情，其政府再次有效控制疫情。然而，2021年3月下旬，第三次疫情爆發(fā)，截至2021年4月1日，泰國在第三次疫情中新增病例2,022,117例，新增死亡病例20,211例。泰國政府此次不僅無法控制病毒蔓延，而且未能為其7000萬人口采購、配給和分發(fā)新冠肺炎疫苗。本文將探討泰國政府在第三次疫情中的管理失當(dāng)，以及政府如何應(yīng)對當(dāng)前的危機。

Keywords: Thailand; COVID-19 outbreak; third wave; pandemic crisis; COVID-19 vaccination; vaccine shortage

關(guān)鍵詞：泰國；新冠肺炎疫情爆發(fā)；第三次浪潮；大流行病危機；新冠肺炎疫苗接種；疫苗短缺

羅賓·加布里埃爾（Robin Gabriel），加州大學(xué)圣塔克魯茲分校

Abstract: This article interrogates the necropolitical logics of the Israeli settler-state apparatus towards Palestinians in the Occupied Territories during the COVID-19 pandemic. It examines these logics and practices through the prism of coloniality, which conceptualizes manifestations of colonialism (whether material, epistemic, or ontological) as a diffuse set of practices, opening up the conversation to discuss the ways in which international organizations, other states, and the Palestinian Authority continue to inflict the colonial harm through the employment of particular policies. Centering coloniality as an analytic allows a more global perspective and widens the discussion to include the ways in which Palestinians practise decoloniality, building and imagining “otherwise” worlds. This article maps the ways in which the devastation of the pandemic is not a product of the pandemic itself, but larger legacies of material, epistemic, and ontological colonial intervention.

摘要：本文檢視了新冠病毒大流行期間，以色列定居者-國家機器對被占領(lǐng)土上巴勒斯坦人所施加的死亡政治邏輯（the necropolitical logics）。文章通過殖民性（coloniality）這一棱鏡來審視這些邏輯和實操，將殖民主義的表現(xiàn)（無論是物質(zhì)的、認識論的還是本體論的）概念化為彌散著的一組實踐，從而展開對話，以討論國際組織、其他國家和巴勒斯坦當(dāng)局是如何通過采取特定政策來繼續(xù)造成殖民傷害的。將殖民性作為分析的中心可以讓我們有一個更加全球化的視角，并擴大討論范圍，將巴勒斯坦人實踐去殖民性、構(gòu)筑和想象“另一個”世界的方式包括在內(nèi)。這篇文章描繪了，大流行病的破壞性并非其本身的產(chǎn)物，而是殖民干預(yù)在物質(zhì)、認識論和本體論上更為深遠的遺產(chǎn)所造成的。

Keywords: Palestinian liberation; international solidarity; Israeli settler colonialism; vaccine apartheid；decoloniality

關(guān)鍵詞：巴勒斯坦解放；國際團結(jié)；以色列定居者殖民主義；疫苗種族隔離；去殖民化

羅伯特·B·萊弗拉爾（Robert B Leflar），臺灣大學(xué)法學(xué)院，臺灣陽明交通大學(xué)，阿肯色大學(xué)法學(xué)院

Abstract: Taiwan’s record of preventing infections and deaths from COVID-19 outshines that of almost every other nation, far outstripping the performance of the US, all European countries, and almost all Asian countries. Yet Taiwan is the nation closest to Wuhan, font of the pandemic. Equally importantly, Taiwan’s public health achievement has occurred without the government dictates such as business and residential lockdowns that have aroused controversy and caused economic and psychological distress around the globe. This essay relates the story of Taiwan’s actions during the crucial early months of 2020 and explores the factors—historical, geographical, legal, institutional, strategic, and cultural—accounting for Taiwan’s remarkable success. Prominent among those factors are the legal and institutional infrastructure of preparedness that Taiwan constructed following its unhappy experience with the 2003 SARS outbreak, and the prompt and decisive measures taken upon discovery of the Wuhan outbreak on 31 December 2019. A dialogue between the judiciary and the legislative and executive branches of government following the SARS episode enabled the infrastructure of preparedness to be created through a process consonant with democratic government, respecting principles of individual liberty and fairness. Risk communication techniques were skillfully employed to build public trust in expert advice about measures for infection prevention. Persuasion, not compulsion, was the norm. Cultural factors including customary acceptance of mask-wearing and authoritative advice, and perhaps a high level of risk-aversity, also played an important part. Taiwan’s pandemic control policies have drawn criticism of government overreach. Some recommendations, such as for outdoor masking, bear little rational relation to infection prevention and are best characterized as mere “hygiene theatre.” Nevertheless, early-2020 government measures received a high level of public approval. Taiwan’s successful response to the pandemic illustrates the nation’s nature: a disciplined democracy.

摘要：臺灣地區(qū)在預(yù)防新冠肺炎感染和死亡方面的成果幾乎超越了其他所有地區(qū)。盡管臺灣地區(qū)距離疫情前線的武漢最近，其表現(xiàn)則遠超美國、所有歐洲國家和幾乎所有亞洲國家和地區(qū)。同樣重要的是，臺灣地區(qū)在公共健康方面的成就并非依賴于諸如商業(yè)和居住封鎖的政府命令，這些命令在全球范圍內(nèi)引發(fā)了爭議，并造成經(jīng)濟和心理困擾。本文敘述了臺灣地區(qū)在2020年初期關(guān)鍵月份的舉措，并探討了臺灣取得顯著成功的歷史、地理、法律、制度、戰(zhàn)略和文化因素。其中最重要的是臺灣地區(qū)在2003年“非典”的不幸遭遇之后所建立的法律以及制度性的備災(zāi)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，以及在2019年12月31日發(fā)現(xiàn)武漢疫情爆發(fā)后所采取的迅速果斷的措施?！胺堑洹币咔榘l(fā)生后，司法、立法和政府行政部門間的對話使備災(zāi)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施得以按照民主政府的程序建立起來，以尊重個人自由原則和公平原則。風(fēng)險溝通技術(shù)得以巧妙運用，以建立公眾對于感染預(yù)防措施專家意見的信賴。說服，而非強制，才是常態(tài)。文化因素也發(fā)揮了重要作用，包括對佩戴口罩和權(quán)威建議的習(xí)慣性接納，可能還包括高度的風(fēng)險厭惡。臺灣地區(qū)的大流行病管控政策招致對政府越權(quán)行為的批判。一些與感染預(yù)防無合理聯(lián)系的建議，例如戶外口罩，被恰當(dāng)描述為僅僅是“衛(wèi)生劇場”。不過，2020年初期的政府措施還是獲得了公眾的高度認可。臺灣地區(qū)對大流行病的成功應(yīng)對闡明了臺灣地區(qū)的本質(zhì)：紀律嚴明的民主體制。

Keywords: electronic fence; hygiene theatre; Interpretation No. 690; lockdown; masks and masking; quarantine; risk aversion; risk communication; SARS; WHO (World Health Organization); COVID-19

關(guān)鍵詞：電子圍欄；衛(wèi)生劇場；第690號解釋；封控；口罩和口罩佩戴；隔離；風(fēng)險厭惡；風(fēng)險溝通；非典；世界衛(wèi)生組織；新冠肺炎

吉田貴彥（Kunihiko Yoshida），北海道大學(xué)

Abstract: This article first distinguishes three governance scenarios that have been enacted in the COVID-19 pandemic, including identification and control; herd immunity without policy adjustments; and periodic lockdowns and hasty opening. In suggesting how different governments’ strategies were taxonomized into these categories, the paper examines major socio-legal challenges, including variations in social structures and government responsibilities; differences in public health cultures and legal policy options available to governments; unequal distribution of health and social welfare benefits; and public concerns of government overreach in relation to privacy of the infected and the preservation of individual liberty and freedom. Finally, the paper offers critical recommendations in the interest of ensuring a robust social-legal framework for providing adequate medical care to the infected; improving public health for vulnerable groups; ensuring that less privileged countries have access to vaccines; and designing post-disaster reconstruction by seeking global health objectives, rather than state-centric national justice.

摘要：本文首先區(qū)分了在新冠肺炎大流行中實施的三種治理場景，包括識別和控制；無政策調(diào)整的群體免疫；以及定期封鎖和倉促開放。在表明如何將不同政府的戰(zhàn)略歸入這些類別時，本文考察了主要的社會法律挑戰(zhàn)，包括社會結(jié)構(gòu)和政府責(zé)任的區(qū)別；公共衛(wèi)生文化和可供政府選擇的法律政策的差異；衛(wèi)生和社會福利待遇分配的不平等；以及公眾對政府過度侵入感染者隱私和個人自由維護方面的擔(dān)憂。最后，本文提出了重要建議，以確保建立一個強有力的社會法律框架，為感染者提供充分的醫(yī)療服務(wù)；改善弱勢群體的公共衛(wèi)生狀況；確保弱勢國家能夠獲得疫苗；以及通過尋求全球衛(wèi)生目標而非以國家為中心的國家正義來規(guī)劃災(zāi)后重建。

Keywords: COVID-19; COVAX; vaccination; WHO; Japan; Asia; global justice

關(guān)鍵詞：新冠肺炎；冠狀病毒；疫苗接種；世界衛(wèi)生組織；日本；亞洲；全球正義

赫里?？āべZ因 （Hrishika Jain），在印度最高法院從事憲法研究的獨立學(xué)者

Abstract: The state has historically played favourites—by incentivizing conventional families and clamping down on alternative families like ascetic maths, it ensured that the heteronormative family flourished. I trace the socio-legal histories of families and establish a constitutional imperative for “family equality” located in the rights to religious freedom, privacy, and equal treatment, and propose that it (not marriage equality) drives the queer movement. “Family” must be reimagined beyond marriage in light of the public ethic of care to encompass a vast range of non-normative families like hijra communes. I consider the Canadian Law Commission’s proposals for recognizing “families” and argue that a similar framework is an unrecognized constitutional mandate in India that, once recognized, would render a wealth of laws interacting with family life unconstitutional. The shared socioconstitutional contexts across jurisdictions and the growing convergence of human rights standards could well mean that this will impact legal systems around the world.

摘要：國家自古以來便存在（價值）偏好——通過鼓勵傳統(tǒng)家庭、取締僧侶家庭等另類家庭確保異性戀家庭的繁榮。我追溯了家庭的社會法律史，從宗教自由權(quán)、隱私權(quán)和平等待遇權(quán)中確立“家庭平等”的憲法要求，并提出它（而非婚姻平等）推動了酷兒運動。“家庭”（的內(nèi)涵）必須超越婚姻，根據(jù)公共關(guān)懷倫理重新定義，以涵蓋大量如海吉拉公社等非常規(guī)家庭。我考察了加拿大法律委員會關(guān)于承認“家庭”的提案，并認為類似的（分析）框架在印度是一項未被承認的憲法授權(quán)。（這一框架）一旦得到承認，將使大量與家庭生活相關(guān)的法律違憲。各法域共享的社會憲法背景以及日漸趨同的人權(quán)標準，很可能將對世界各地的法律體系產(chǎn)生影響。

Keywords: family; public ethic of care; queerness and the law; Puttaswamy; marriage equality

關(guān)鍵詞：家庭；公共關(guān)懷倫理；酷兒理論與法律；普塔斯瓦米案；婚姻平等

宋育賢 （Yu-Hsien Sung），南卡羅來納大學(xué)

許怡青 （Yi-Ching Hsu），萊頓大學(xué)政治學(xué)研究所

王金壽 （Chin-Shou Wang），國立成功大學(xué)

Abstract: In 2017, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court handed down Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 748, which was a ruling in favour of same-sex marriage. The Court also ordered the national legislature to amend the law within two years. Despite a significant backslide in the Taiwanese 2018 referendum, the legislature eventually followed the Court’s order and legalized gay marriage in 2019. This victory made Taiwan the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in Asia. Many legal scholars consider the same-sex marriage ruling a progressive decision in which the Court undertook a countermajoritarian task of protecting a minority group. While we agree with the Court’s role in promoting marriage equality, we contend that most legal scholars overlook an important question in this dynamic: the legislature had had several chances to settle this issue over the past decades, so why did it refuse to draft gay-marriage legislation but later, in 2019, defer to the Court’s decision? In this paper, we explain the political foundations of an activist judiciary by using the case of the first gay-marriage legislation in Asia. We argue that the risk of position-taking on tough issues leads incentive-facing political elites to engage in position avoidance and to see the political value in deferring to a high court’s ruling. Using original data, we present evidence of how Taiwan’s diverse constituency relative to the same-sex marriage issue influenced legislators’ position-avoidance behaviour and led them to dodge political backfire by delegating policy-making authority to the Constitutional Court.

摘要：2017年，臺灣憲法法庭頒布“司法院釋字748號”，作出了支持同性婚姻的判決。法院還責(zé)令立法機關(guān)在兩年內(nèi)修改（相關(guān)）法律。盡管2018年臺灣公投中出現(xiàn)了重大倒退，但立法機關(guān)最終還是遵照法院的命令，于2019年使同性婚姻合法化。這一勝利使臺灣成為第一個同性婚姻合法化的亞洲地區(qū)。許多法律學(xué)者認為同性婚姻判決是一項進步的判決，法院在其中承擔(dān)了保護少數(shù)群體的反多數(shù)主義任務(wù)。盡管我們同意法院在促進婚姻平等方面的作用，但我們認為大多數(shù)法律學(xué)者忽視了這一動態(tài)過程中的一個重要問題：在過去幾十年中，立法機構(gòu)曾有多次機會解決（同性婚姻合法化）這一問題，那么為什么立法機構(gòu)（一直）拒絕起草同性婚姻法案，卻又在2019年服從法院的判決呢？本文通過亞洲首個同性婚姻立法的案例來解釋積極司法的政治基礎(chǔ)。我們認為，在棘手問題上明確立場的風(fēng)險會導(dǎo)致面臨激勵的政治精英進行立場回避，并發(fā)現(xiàn)服從高等法院判決所具有的政治價值。通過使用原始數(shù)據(jù)，我們呈現(xiàn)了臺灣關(guān)于同性婚姻問題的不同選區(qū)是如何影響立法者的立場回避行為，并導(dǎo)致他們將決策權(quán)授予憲法法院以避免政治反彈的證據(jù)。

Keywords: judicial policy-making; court; legislative deferral; same-sex marriage

關(guān)鍵詞: 司法決策；法院；立法滯后；同性婚姻

王曉丹（Hsiao-Tan Wang），臺灣政治大學(xué)法學(xué)院

Abstract: Literature on neighbourhood disputes has explored legal consciousness by focusing on identity, personal relationships, and community norms. However, it still remains unclear how affective factors and one’s sense of identity can influence the social practice of law and how the recursive relationship between law, emotion, and identity can influence life in particular communities. This study explores the dynamics of identity/alterity construction, and the role of emotion in shaping these dynamics during a neighbourhood conflict in Taipei, Taiwan. This dispute highlights how ordinary Taiwanese people’s legal consciousness is constituted through a culturally embedded sense of emotion (qíng) and belonging (zìjǐrén). Analysis of “The Noodle Shop Case” advances our understanding of the social presence and authority of law and the ways in which the role of law changes according to how individuals feel as they seek both mutual recognition and justice.

摘要：關(guān)于鄰里糾紛的文獻通過關(guān)注身份、個人關(guān)系和社群規(guī)范來探究法律意識。然而，仍不清楚的是，情感因素和個人的身份意識如何影響法律的社會實踐，法律、情感和身份之間的遞歸關(guān)系如何影響特定社群內(nèi)的生活。本研究以臺灣地區(qū)臺北市某鄰里沖突為例，探究其同一性/他異性建構(gòu)的動態(tài)過程，以及情感在塑造這些動態(tài)過程中的作用。該糾紛凸顯了臺灣地區(qū)普通民眾的法律意識是如何借助文化嵌入的情感(qíng)和歸屬感(zìjǐrén)而形成的。通過對“面館案”的分析，我們進一步理解了法律的社會呈現(xiàn)和法律權(quán)威，以及法律的作用如何根據(jù)個人在尋求相互承認和正義時的感受而改變。

Keywords: legal consciousnes; identity; alterity; emotion; sense of belonging; interpersonal conflict

關(guān)鍵詞：法律意識；同一性；他異性；情感；歸屬感；人際沖突