澳大利亚人在印度被抛弃:新冠肺炎时代入境权作为一种担保权的分析。

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-18 DOI:10.1007/s40592-022-00151-x
Diego S Silva
{"title":"澳大利亚人在印度被抛弃:新冠肺炎时代入境权作为一种担保权的分析。","authors":"Diego S Silva","doi":"10.1007/s40592-022-00151-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In May 2021, when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV2 was wreaking havoc in India, the Australian Federal Government banned its citizens and residents who were there from coming back to Australia for 14 days on penalty of fines or imprisonment. These measures were justified on the grounds of protecting the broader Australian public from potentially importing the Delta strain, which officials feared would then seed a local outbreak. Those Australians stranded in India, and their families and communities back home, claimed that they were abandoned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government. This case-along with other barriers used as part of border control measures in the name of public health-raises the following question: is it ever morally permissible for a state to ban its citizens and residents from entering their own country during a pandemic? I conclude that it's impermissible. I argue that persons have a right of entry that should be understood as a security right. This security right should be non-derogable because it's a foundational good that is necessary for life-planning purposes. Moreover, it is a right that people should be able to rely upon absolutely, even during pandemics. At the very least, should someone believe that there are rare exceptions to the right of entry on public health grounds, governments have a duty-grounded in the principle of reciprocity-to support those who are temporarily denied entry. In the case of Australians stranded in India, I will argue that the Australian Federal Government failed on all accounts.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":"40 1","pages":"94-109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8856926/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The abandonment of Australians in India: an analysis of the right of entry as a security right in the age of COVID-19.\",\"authors\":\"Diego S Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40592-022-00151-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In May 2021, when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV2 was wreaking havoc in India, the Australian Federal Government banned its citizens and residents who were there from coming back to Australia for 14 days on penalty of fines or imprisonment. These measures were justified on the grounds of protecting the broader Australian public from potentially importing the Delta strain, which officials feared would then seed a local outbreak. Those Australians stranded in India, and their families and communities back home, claimed that they were abandoned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government. This case-along with other barriers used as part of border control measures in the name of public health-raises the following question: is it ever morally permissible for a state to ban its citizens and residents from entering their own country during a pandemic? I conclude that it's impermissible. I argue that persons have a right of entry that should be understood as a security right. This security right should be non-derogable because it's a foundational good that is necessary for life-planning purposes. Moreover, it is a right that people should be able to rely upon absolutely, even during pandemics. At the very least, should someone believe that there are rare exceptions to the right of entry on public health grounds, governments have a duty-grounded in the principle of reciprocity-to support those who are temporarily denied entry. In the case of Australians stranded in India, I will argue that the Australian Federal Government failed on all accounts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"94-109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8856926/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-022-00151-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/2/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-022-00151-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2021年5月,当SARS-CoV2的三角洲变种在印度肆虐时,澳大利亚联邦政府禁止在印度的公民和居民在14天内返回澳大利亚,否则将处以罚款或监禁。这些措施是合理的,因为它们可以保护澳大利亚广大公众免受可能进口三角洲病毒的影响,官员们担心这会在当地引发疫情。那些被困在印度的澳大利亚人,以及他们在国内的家人和社区,声称他们被总理斯科特·莫里森(Scott Morrison)的政府抛弃了。这一案例以及以公共卫生的名义作为边境控制措施的一部分使用的其他障碍提出了以下问题:在大流行期间,一个国家禁止其公民和居民进入自己的国家在道德上是否允许?我认为这是不允许的。我认为人的进入权应该被理解为担保权。这种担保权应该是不可减损的,因为它是一种基本利益,对于人生规划的目的是必要的。此外,即使在大流行期间,人们也应该能够绝对依赖这一权利。至少,如果有人认为基于公共卫生理由的入境权存在罕见的例外情况,政府有责任——基于互惠原则——支持那些暂时被拒绝入境的人。在澳大利亚人滞留印度的情况下,我认为澳大利亚联邦政府在各方面都失败了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The abandonment of Australians in India: an analysis of the right of entry as a security right in the age of COVID-19.

In May 2021, when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV2 was wreaking havoc in India, the Australian Federal Government banned its citizens and residents who were there from coming back to Australia for 14 days on penalty of fines or imprisonment. These measures were justified on the grounds of protecting the broader Australian public from potentially importing the Delta strain, which officials feared would then seed a local outbreak. Those Australians stranded in India, and their families and communities back home, claimed that they were abandoned by Prime Minister Scott Morrison's government. This case-along with other barriers used as part of border control measures in the name of public health-raises the following question: is it ever morally permissible for a state to ban its citizens and residents from entering their own country during a pandemic? I conclude that it's impermissible. I argue that persons have a right of entry that should be understood as a security right. This security right should be non-derogable because it's a foundational good that is necessary for life-planning purposes. Moreover, it is a right that people should be able to rely upon absolutely, even during pandemics. At the very least, should someone believe that there are rare exceptions to the right of entry on public health grounds, governments have a duty-grounded in the principle of reciprocity-to support those who are temporarily denied entry. In the case of Australians stranded in India, I will argue that the Australian Federal Government failed on all accounts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
期刊最新文献
Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology. Do androids dream of informed consent? The need to understand the ethical implications of experimentation on simulated beings. Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X. The provision of abortion in Australia: service delivery as a bioethical concern. The immorality of bombing abortion clinics as proof that abortion is not murder.
×
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