Legal countermeasures against COVID-19 in Japan: effectiveness and limits of non-coercive measures
Legal countermeasures against COVID-19 in Japan: effectiveness and limits of non-coercive measures
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s12689-022-00093-x
复制
发表时间：
2022-04-11
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Kadomatsu N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kadomatsu N
本文分析了日本对COVID-19的法律的应对措施。日本没有在宪法层面宣布紧急状态。此外，它没有颁布新的法律，而是多次修改现有法规以科普这种情况。本文首先介绍了2021年2月修订前后的《新型流感法》和《传染病法》的规定。日本反措施的显著特点是侧重于非胁迫性措施。没有强制性计划确保一般居民“留在家里”。关于设施管理人员，《国家影响评估》规定，为确保有效性，应公布不遵守“建议”的情况。这种公告的法律的性质在日本行政法中存在争议。2021年2月的修正案增加了发布命令的可能性，其有效性由行政罚款保证。本文分析了日本传统上强调的“行政指导”，并提出了假设，为什么设施管理人员的公开不遵守案件观察。关于患者，在2021年2月修订之前，IDA规定了“建议”和“立即执行”这两个有问题的法律的数字。2021年2月的修正案增加了行政罚款，使法律的数字更加复杂。COVID-19的应对措施凸显了当公共行为改变是一个政策目标时，法律的控制的难度。我们必须通过试验和错误来进行，并积累有关有效影响公众行为的法律的规定或政府信息的知识。在这一过程中，我们应当接受宪政民主的基本原则，例如政府决策的民主合法性和问责制以及法治原则。同时，我们必须记住，传染病控制是一个人权和歧视问题，特别是考虑到日本传染病控制的不幸历史。
This paper analyzes the Japanese legal responses to COVID-19. Japan did not declare the state of emergency on the constitutional level. In addition, it did not enact a new law and instead amended existing statutes several times to cope with the situation. The paper first introduces provisions of the Novel Influenza Act and Infectious Diseases Acts provisions before and after the February 2021 amendments. The remarkable feature of the Japanese countermeasures was the focus on non-coercive measures. There is no compulsory scheme to ensure “staying at home” for general residents. Regarding the facility managers, the NIA provided for the public announcement of non-compliance of the “recommendation” to ensure effectiveness. The legal nature of such public announcements is disputed in Japanese administrative law. The February 2021 amendments added the possibility of issuing an order whose effectiveness was guaranteed by administrative fines. This paper analyzes the traditional emphasis of “administrative guidance” in Japan and proposes hypotheses as to why open non-compliance cases of facility managers are observed. Concerning patients, prior to the February 2021 amendment, the IDA provided for the problematic legal figures of “recommendation” and “immediate execution”. The Feb. 2021 amendment, which added administrative fines, made the legal figure more complex. COVID-19 countermeasures have highlighted the difficulty of legal control when public behavior change is a policy goal. We must proceed by trial and error and accumulate knowledge regarding legal regulations or governmental messages that effectively affect public behavior. In the process, we should embrace the basic principles of constitutional democracy, such as the democratic legitimacy and accountability of government decisions and the principle of the rule of law. Simultaneously, we must remember that infectious disease control is a matter of human rights and discrimination, especially considering the unfortunate history of infectious disease control in Japan.
影响因子：
29.9
作者：
Mathieu, Edouard;Ritchie, Hannah;Rodes-Guirao, Lucas
通讯作者：
Rodes-Guirao, Lucas