From the editors: research in times of COVID

D. Roth
{"title":"From the editors: research in times of COVID","authors":"D. Roth","doi":"10.1080/07329113.2021.1957432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For almost one and a half year, the world has been in the grip of the COVID pandemic, confronting people worldwide with a wide variety of unexpected health, social, economic, legal, political and other impacts on their daily lives and lifeworlds. COVID took the world by surprise and totally unprepared; the rich parts of the world more interested in business-as-usual and economic growth than in disaster-preparedness, despite earlier wake-up calls like ebola, SARS, Q-fever and many others. Those who read David Quammen’s Spillover, published in 2013, could have known. Sociologically COVID can be seen as a life-changing “event,” a rupture that creates a “before” and an “after.” However, it does so differently for various people in different parts of the world and positioned differently socially, economically and otherwise. The outbreak and spread of the COVID pandemic does not only reveal the human vulnerability to and unpreparedness for pandemics, but also lays bare the deeper social, political and other fault lines, sensitivities and conflicts that tend to remain hidden under “normal” conditions. While in most countries COVID was acknowledged to be a serious threat, in some it was disregarded for political-ideological reasons (e.g. the United States during the Trump administration; Bolsonaro’s Brazil) or it was even forbidden to mention it (Tanzania under John Magufuli). Governing the COVID crisis is a matter of trial and error. While it took time to find out what works in combatting the pandemic, the three cases mentioned above have clearly shown what does not work, what bad governance of the pandemic looks like, and what the consequences of denial and disregard are in terms of human suffering. Many COVID-related measures have raised important constitutional, legal and justice issues. COVID has become the legitimizing argument for forms of securitization, centralization of powers and the creation of “states of exception,” expressed through emergency laws, policies and interventions. In Hongkong, for instance, COVID created a window of opportunity for those in power to forbid demonstrations against Beijing’s growing influence and thus to eliminate political opposition. In a world preoccupied with combatting the pandemic, authoritarian regimes more generally seem to have benefited from fear of contamination, reduced social interaction, and the ban on mass meetings and demonstrations. But the pandemic has raised many other political, legal and justice issues. Globally, the huge inequalities in access to pharmaceutical production infrastructure and the markets for vaccines dominated by rich countries have created unacceptable distributional inequalities and massive vulnerabilities. While rich countries bought up the lions’ share of global vaccine production, many poor countries, especially in Africa, stand by and remain dependent on gifts by other countries. Moreover, COVID","PeriodicalId":44432,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2021.1957432","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

For almost one and a half year, the world has been in the grip of the COVID pandemic, confronting people worldwide with a wide variety of unexpected health, social, economic, legal, political and other impacts on their daily lives and lifeworlds. COVID took the world by surprise and totally unprepared; the rich parts of the world more interested in business-as-usual and economic growth than in disaster-preparedness, despite earlier wake-up calls like ebola, SARS, Q-fever and many others. Those who read David Quammen’s Spillover, published in 2013, could have known. Sociologically COVID can be seen as a life-changing “event,” a rupture that creates a “before” and an “after.” However, it does so differently for various people in different parts of the world and positioned differently socially, economically and otherwise. The outbreak and spread of the COVID pandemic does not only reveal the human vulnerability to and unpreparedness for pandemics, but also lays bare the deeper social, political and other fault lines, sensitivities and conflicts that tend to remain hidden under “normal” conditions. While in most countries COVID was acknowledged to be a serious threat, in some it was disregarded for political-ideological reasons (e.g. the United States during the Trump administration; Bolsonaro’s Brazil) or it was even forbidden to mention it (Tanzania under John Magufuli). Governing the COVID crisis is a matter of trial and error. While it took time to find out what works in combatting the pandemic, the three cases mentioned above have clearly shown what does not work, what bad governance of the pandemic looks like, and what the consequences of denial and disregard are in terms of human suffering. Many COVID-related measures have raised important constitutional, legal and justice issues. COVID has become the legitimizing argument for forms of securitization, centralization of powers and the creation of “states of exception,” expressed through emergency laws, policies and interventions. In Hongkong, for instance, COVID created a window of opportunity for those in power to forbid demonstrations against Beijing’s growing influence and thus to eliminate political opposition. In a world preoccupied with combatting the pandemic, authoritarian regimes more generally seem to have benefited from fear of contamination, reduced social interaction, and the ban on mass meetings and demonstrations. But the pandemic has raised many other political, legal and justice issues. Globally, the huge inequalities in access to pharmaceutical production infrastructure and the markets for vaccines dominated by rich countries have created unacceptable distributional inequalities and massive vulnerabilities. While rich countries bought up the lions’ share of global vaccine production, many poor countries, especially in Africa, stand by and remain dependent on gifts by other countries. Moreover, COVID
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
编辑:新冠疫情时期的研究
近一年半以来,世界一直处于COVID大流行的控制之下,全世界人民的日常生活和生活世界面临着各种意想不到的健康、社会、经济、法律、政治和其他影响。COVID让世界措手不及,完全没有准备;世界上的富裕地区更关心的是一切照旧和经济增长,而不是备灾,尽管埃博拉、SARS、q热和许多其他疾病早前就敲响了警钟。读过大卫•奎曼2013年出版的《溢出效应》(Spillover)的人应该知道。从社会学角度来看,COVID可以被视为一个改变生活的“事件”,一个创造“之前”和“之后”的断裂。然而,它对世界不同地区的不同人的作用是不同的,对社会、经济和其他方面的定位也是不同的。COVID - 19大流行的爆发和传播不仅揭示了人类对大流行的脆弱性和准备不足,而且暴露了在“正常”条件下往往仍然隐藏的更深层次的社会、政治和其他断层线、敏感性和冲突。虽然在大多数国家,COVID被认为是一个严重的威胁,但在一些国家,出于政治和意识形态的原因,它被忽视了(例如,特朗普政府时期的美国;博尔索纳罗领导的巴西),或者甚至被禁止提及(约翰·马古富力领导的坦桑尼亚)。治理COVID危机是一个反复试验的问题。虽然需要时间才能找出有效的防治这一流行病的方法,但上述三个案例清楚地表明,什么方法不起作用,对这一流行病的不良治理是什么样子,以及否认和无视对人类痛苦的后果。许多与疫情有关的措施引发了重要的宪法、法律和司法问题。COVID已成为通过紧急法律、政策和干预措施表达的证券化、权力集中化和创建“例外状态”形式的合法化论据。例如,在香港,新冠疫情为当权者提供了一个机会窗口,可以禁止反对北京日益增长的影响力的示威活动,从而消除政治反对派。在一个专注于抗击疫情的世界上,专制政权似乎更普遍地受益于对污染的恐惧、社会互动的减少以及对大规模集会和示威的禁止。但疫情也引发了许多其他政治、法律和司法问题。在全球范围内,在获得药品生产基础设施和由富裕国家主导的疫苗市场方面的巨大不平等造成了不可接受的分配不平等和巨大的脆弱性。虽然富裕国家买下了全球疫苗生产的大部分份额,但许多贫穷国家,尤其是非洲国家,却袖手旁观,继续依赖其他国家的馈赠。此外,COVID
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: As the pioneering journal in this field The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law (JLP) has a long history of publishing leading scholarship in the area of legal anthropology and legal pluralism and is the only international journal dedicated to the analysis of legal pluralism. It is a refereed scholarly journal with a genuinely global reach, publishing both empirical and theoretical contributions from a variety of disciplines, including (but not restricted to) Anthropology, Legal Studies, Development Studies and interdisciplinary studies. The JLP is devoted to scholarly writing and works that further current debates in the field of legal pluralism and to disseminating new and emerging findings from fieldwork. The Journal welcomes papers that make original contributions to understanding any aspect of legal pluralism and unofficial law, anywhere in the world, both in historic and contemporary contexts. We invite high-quality, original submissions that engage with this purpose.
期刊最新文献
Construing the transformed property paradigm of South Africa’s water law: new opportunities presented by legal pluralism? Wait, what are we fighting about? – Kelsen, Ehrlich and the reconciliation of normative jurisprudence and sociology of law Interview article: water movements’ defense of the right to water. From the European arena to the Dutch exception Scientific versus folk legal pluralism An exploration of legal pluralism, power and custom in South Africa. A conversation with Aninka Claassens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1