福来宽（Hiroshi Fukurai)，加州大学圣塔克鲁兹分校；

罗宾·加布里埃尔（Robin Gabriel），加州大学圣塔克鲁兹分校；

梁晓晨，加州大学圣塔克鲁兹分校

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：冠状病毒大流行致使世界各地数百万人死亡。在许多国家，它还暴露了长期以来在医疗保健、收入分配、劳动力市场运作以及对穷人、妇女、原住民和其他边缘群体的社会保护方面存在的不公平和不公正现象。弱势人群中不成比例的伤亡情况也暴露了掠夺式的企业做法，如拒绝与全球南部的低收入国家分享疫苗专利。世界卫生组织（WHO）总干事谭德塞（Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus）警告说，这种“疫苗种族隔离”可能导致更危险的病毒变种进一步传播，全球团结与合作可能是应对当前和未来流行病的唯一可行办法。科学家们早就警告说，由于人类和非人类物种之间曾经存在的“自然边界”被消除，对环境和生态多样性的持续破坏将导致未来一波又一波的跨物种（人畜共患病）病毒大流行。仅在过去的几十年里，人类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。本期特刊重点关注部分亚洲国家，从而批判性地审视以国家为中心的政策中社会-法律方面的不平等对包括原住民在内的国内人口所造成的影响，并探讨在未来数年和数十年中，在亚洲及其他地区采取国际合作战略来控制致命病毒及其变种传播的可能性。摘要：冠状病毒大流行致使世界各地数百万人死亡。在许多国家，它还暴露了长期以来在医疗保健、收入分配、劳动力市场运作以及对穷人、妇女、原住民和其他边缘群体的社会保护方面存在的不公平和不公正现象。弱势人群中不成比例的伤亡情况也暴露了掠夺式的企业做法，如拒绝与全球南部的低收入国家分享疫苗专利。世界卫生组织（WHO）总干事谭德塞（Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus）警告说，这种“疫苗种族隔离”可能导致更危险的病毒变种进一步传播，全球团结与合作可能是应对当前和未来流行病的唯一可行办法。科学家们早就警告说，由于人类和非人类物种之间曾经存在的“自然边界”被消除，对环境和生态多样性的持续破坏将导致未来一波又一波的跨物种（人畜共患病）病毒大流行。仅在过去的几十年里，人类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。本期特刊重点关注部分亚洲国家，从而批判性地审视以国家为中心的政策中社会-法律方面的不平等对包括原住民在内的国内人口所造成的影响，并探讨在未来数年和数十年中，在亚洲及其他地区采取国际合作战略来控制致命病毒及其变种传播的可能性。

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

关键词：新冠疫情；世界卫生组织；疫苗种族隔离；原住民；古巴；疫苗贱民；疫苗种族灭绝

皮亚-潘萨帕（Piya Pangsapa），泰国国立法政大学全球研究学院

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，泰国成为中国以外第一个报告冠状病毒感染的国家。2020年7月，泰国在有效处理 COVID-19 方面在于184 个国家中排名第一。2020年12月，泰国遭遇第二次疫情，其政府再次有效控制疫情。然而，2021年3月下旬，第三次疫情爆发，截至2021年4月1日，泰国在第三次疫情中新增病例2,022,117例，新增死亡病例20,211例。泰国政府此次不仅无法控制病毒蔓延，而且未能为其7000万人口采购、配给和分发新冠肺炎疫苗。本文将探讨泰国政府在第三次疫情中的管理失当，以及政府如何应对当前的危机。

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

关键词：泰国；新冠肺炎疫情爆发；第三次浪潮；大流行病危机；新冠肺炎疫苗接种；疫苗短缺

罗宾·加布里埃尔（Robin Gabriel），加州大学圣塔克鲁兹分校

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：本文检视了新冠病毒大流行期间，以色列定居者-国家机器对被占领土上巴勒斯坦人所施加的死亡政治逻辑（the necropolitical logics）。文章通过殖民性（coloniality）这一棱镜来审视这些逻辑和实操，将殖民主义的表现（无论是物质的、认识论的还是本体论的）概念化为弥散着的一组实践，从而展开对话，以讨论国际组织、其他国家和巴勒斯坦当局是如何通过采取特定政策来继续造成殖民伤害的。将殖民性作为分析的中心可以让我们有一个更加全球化的视角，并扩大讨论范围，将巴勒斯坦人实践去殖民性、构筑和想象“另一个”世界的方式包括在内。这篇文章描绘了，大流行病的破坏性并非其本身的产物，而是殖民干预在物质、认识论和本体论上更为深远的遗产所造成的。

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

关键词：巴勒斯坦解放；国际团结；以色列定居者殖民主义；疫苗种族隔离；去殖民化

罗伯特·B·莱弗拉尔（Robert B Leflar），台湾大学法学院，台湾阳明交通大学，阿肯色大学法学院

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：台湾地区在预防新冠肺炎感染和死亡方面的成果几乎超越了其他所有地区。尽管台湾地区距离疫情前线的武汉最近，其表现则远超美国、所有欧洲国家和几乎所有亚洲国家和地区。同样重要的是，台湾地区在公共健康方面的成就并非依赖于诸如商业和居住封锁的政府命令，这些命令在全球范围内引发了争议，并造成经济和心理困扰。本文叙述了台湾地区在2020年初期关键月份的举措，并探讨了台湾取得显著成功的历史、地理、法律、制度、战略和文化因素。其中最重要的是台湾地区在2003年“非典”的不幸遭遇之后所建立的法律以及制度性的备灾基础设施，以及在2019年12月31日发现武汉疫情爆发后所采取的迅速果断的措施。“非典”疫情发生后，司法、立法和政府行政部门间的对话使备灾基础设施得以按照民主政府的程序建立起来，以尊重个人自由原则和公平原则。风险沟通技术得以巧妙运用，以建立公众对于感染预防措施专家意见的信赖。说服，而非强制，才是常态。文化因素也发挥了重要作用，包括对佩戴口罩和权威建议的习惯性接纳，可能还包括高度的风险厌恶。台湾地区的大流行病管控政策招致对政府越权行为的批判。一些与感染预防无合理联系的建议，例如户外口罩，被恰当描述为仅仅是“卫生剧场”。不过，2020年初期的政府措施还是获得了公众的高度认可。台湾地区对大流行病的成功应对阐明了台湾地区的本质：纪律严明的民主体制。

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

关键词：电子围栏；卫生剧场；第690号解释；封控；口罩和口罩佩戴；隔离；风险厌恶；风险沟通；非典；世界卫生组织；新冠肺炎

吉田贵彦（Kunihiko Yoshida），北海道大学

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：本文首先区分了在新冠肺炎大流行中实施的三种治理场景，包括识别和控制；无政策调整的群体免疫；以及定期封锁和仓促开放。在表明如何将不同政府的战略归入这些类别时，本文考察了主要的社会法律挑战，包括社会结构和政府责任的区别；公共卫生文化和可供政府选择的法律政策的差异；卫生和社会福利待遇分配的不平等；以及公众对政府过度侵入感染者隐私和个人自由维护方面的担忧。最后，本文提出了重要建议，以确保建立一个强有力的社会法律框架，为感染者提供充分的医疗服务；改善弱势群体的公共卫生状况；确保弱势国家能够获得疫苗；以及通过寻求全球卫生目标而非以国家为中心的国家正义来规划灾后重建。

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

关键词：新冠肺炎；冠状病毒；疫苗接种；世界卫生组织；日本；亚洲；全球正义

赫里希卡·贾因 （Hrishika Jain），在印度最高法院从事宪法研究的独立学者

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：国家自古以来便存在（价值）偏好——通过鼓励传统家庭、取缔僧侣家庭等另类家庭确保异性恋家庭的繁荣。我追溯了家庭的社会法律史，从宗教自由权、隐私权和平等待遇权中确立“家庭平等”的宪法要求，并提出它（而非婚姻平等）推动了酷儿运动。“家庭”（的内涵）必须超越婚姻，根据公共关怀伦理重新定义，以涵盖大量如海吉拉公社等非常规家庭。我考察了加拿大法律委员会关于承认“家庭”的提案，并认为类似的（分析）框架在印度是一项未被承认的宪法授权。（这一框架）一旦得到承认，将使大量与家庭生活相关的法律违宪。各法域共享的社会宪法背景以及日渐趋同的人权标准，很可能将对世界各地的法律体系产生影响。

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

关键词：家庭；公共关怀伦理；酷儿理论与法律；普塔斯瓦米案；婚姻平等

宋育贤 （Yu-Hsien Sung），南卡罗来纳大学

许怡青 （Yi-Ching Hsu），莱顿大学政治学研究所

王金寿 （Chin-Shou Wang），国立成功大学

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，台湾宪法法庭颁布“司法院释字748号”，作出了支持同性婚姻的判决。法院还责令立法机关在两年内修改（相关）法律。尽管2018年台湾公投中出现了重大倒退，但立法机关最终还是遵照法院的命令，于2019年使同性婚姻合法化。这一胜利使台湾成为第一个同性婚姻合法化的亚洲地区。许多法律学者认为同性婚姻判决是一项进步的判决，法院在其中承担了保护少数群体的反多数主义任务。尽管我们同意法院在促进婚姻平等方面的作用，但我们认为大多数法律学者忽视了这一动态过程中的一个重要问题：在过去几十年中，立法机构曾有多次机会解决（同性婚姻合法化）这一问题，那么为什么立法机构（一直）拒绝起草同性婚姻法案，却又在2019年服从法院的判决呢？本文通过亚洲首个同性婚姻立法的案例来解释积极司法的政治基础。我们认为，在棘手问题上明确立场的风险会导致面临激励的政治精英进行立场回避，并发现服从高等法院判决所具有的政治价值。通过使用原始数据，我们呈现了台湾关于同性婚姻问题的不同选区是如何影响立法者的立场回避行为，并导致他们将决策权授予宪法法院以避免政治反弹的证据。

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

关键词: 司法决策；法院；立法滞后；同性婚姻

王晓丹（Hsiao-Tan Wang），台湾政治大学法学院

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：关于邻里纠纷的文献通过关注身份、个人关系和社群规范来探究法律意识。然而，仍不清楚的是，情感因素和个人的身份意识如何影响法律的社会实践，法律、情感和身份之间的递归关系如何影响特定社群内的生活。本研究以台湾地区台北市某邻里冲突为例，探究其同一性/他异性建构的动态过程，以及情感在塑造这些动态过程中的作用。该纠纷凸显了台湾地区普通民众的法律意识是如何借助文化嵌入的情感(qíng)和归属感(zìjǐrén)而形成的。通过对“面馆案”的分析，我们进一步理解了法律的社会呈现和法律权威，以及法律的作用如何根据个人在寻求相互承认和正义时的感受而改变。

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

关键词：法律意识；同一性；他异性；情感；归属感；人际冲突