突发公共卫生事件中的军民接触:国内应对COVID-19的比较分析

S. Boland, R. Grace, J. Kaplan
{"title":"突发公共卫生事件中的军民接触:国内应对COVID-19的比较分析","authors":"S. Boland, R. Grace, J. Kaplan","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-801094/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background\n\nDespite the central role that domestic militaries regularly play in supporting civilian disease outbreak responses, the dynamics of domestic civil-military engagement (CME) during major health emergencies remain largely under-explored in public health, humanitarian, and security literatures. Previous research has found, furthermore, that existing international and domestic civil-military guidelines hold limited relevance during public health emergencies, including epidemics and pandemics, currently evidenced by the observable lack of coherence and high variance in both international and domestic military approaches to supporting COVID-19 responses worldwide.\nMethods\n\nThis article presents a comparative analysis of three of these approaches—in China, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines—and maps these countries’ military contributions to the COVID-19 response across a number of domains.\nResults\n\nAnalysis of these case studies provides important insights into the ways that CME exists in unacknowledged contexts and forms; how militaries, particularly domestic forces acting as first responders, play an important role in major health crisis contexts; the confusion surrounding how to understand various non-military armed and security actors; and how pandemics, in particular—and other types of largescale health emergencies more broadly—represent a unique domain for CME that tests both the international system and international norms.\nConclusion\n\nThis paper concludes with policy, guidance development, and research recommendations for improved practice for localised CME during public health emergencies.","PeriodicalId":44806,"journal":{"name":"Stability-International Journal of Security and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Civil-Military Engagement During Public Health Emergencies: A Comparative Analysis of Domestic Responses to COVID-19\",\"authors\":\"S. Boland, R. Grace, J. Kaplan\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-801094/v1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Background\\n\\nDespite the central role that domestic militaries regularly play in supporting civilian disease outbreak responses, the dynamics of domestic civil-military engagement (CME) during major health emergencies remain largely under-explored in public health, humanitarian, and security literatures. Previous research has found, furthermore, that existing international and domestic civil-military guidelines hold limited relevance during public health emergencies, including epidemics and pandemics, currently evidenced by the observable lack of coherence and high variance in both international and domestic military approaches to supporting COVID-19 responses worldwide.\\nMethods\\n\\nThis article presents a comparative analysis of three of these approaches—in China, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines—and maps these countries’ military contributions to the COVID-19 response across a number of domains.\\nResults\\n\\nAnalysis of these case studies provides important insights into the ways that CME exists in unacknowledged contexts and forms; how militaries, particularly domestic forces acting as first responders, play an important role in major health crisis contexts; the confusion surrounding how to understand various non-military armed and security actors; and how pandemics, in particular—and other types of largescale health emergencies more broadly—represent a unique domain for CME that tests both the international system and international norms.\\nConclusion\\n\\nThis paper concludes with policy, guidance development, and research recommendations for improved practice for localised CME during public health emergencies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stability-International Journal of Security and Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stability-International Journal of Security and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-801094/v1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stability-International Journal of Security and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-801094/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管国内军队在支持平民疾病暴发应对方面经常发挥核心作用,但在公共卫生、人道主义和安全文献中,重大卫生突发事件期间国内军民接触(CME)的动态仍未得到充分探讨。此外,先前的研究发现,现有的国际和国内军民指南在突发公共卫生事件(包括流行病和大流行)期间的相关性有限,目前国际和国内军方支持全球COVID-19应对的方法缺乏一致性和高度差异就证明了这一点。方法本文对其中三种方法(中国、英国和菲律宾)进行了比较分析,并绘制了这些国家在多个领域对COVID-19应对的军事贡献图。结果对这些案例研究的分析提供了重要的见解,以了解CME在未被承认的环境和形式中存在的方式;军队,特别是作为第一反应者的国内部队如何在重大卫生危机背景下发挥重要作用;围绕如何理解各种非军事武装和安全行为体的困惑;特别是流行病,以及更广泛的其他类型的大规模突发卫生事件,是CME的一个独特领域,对国际体系和国际规范都是考验。结论提出了突发公共卫生事件中地方CME改进实践的政策、指南制定和研究建议。
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
Civil-Military Engagement During Public Health Emergencies: A Comparative Analysis of Domestic Responses to COVID-19
Background Despite the central role that domestic militaries regularly play in supporting civilian disease outbreak responses, the dynamics of domestic civil-military engagement (CME) during major health emergencies remain largely under-explored in public health, humanitarian, and security literatures. Previous research has found, furthermore, that existing international and domestic civil-military guidelines hold limited relevance during public health emergencies, including epidemics and pandemics, currently evidenced by the observable lack of coherence and high variance in both international and domestic military approaches to supporting COVID-19 responses worldwide. Methods This article presents a comparative analysis of three of these approaches—in China, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines—and maps these countries’ military contributions to the COVID-19 response across a number of domains. Results Analysis of these case studies provides important insights into the ways that CME exists in unacknowledged contexts and forms; how militaries, particularly domestic forces acting as first responders, play an important role in major health crisis contexts; the confusion surrounding how to understand various non-military armed and security actors; and how pandemics, in particular—and other types of largescale health emergencies more broadly—represent a unique domain for CME that tests both the international system and international norms. Conclusion This paper concludes with policy, guidance development, and research recommendations for improved practice for localised CME during public health emergencies.
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
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Stability: International Journal of Security & Development is a fundamentally new kind of journal. Open-access, it publishes research quickly and free of charge in order to have a maximal impact upon policy and practice communities. It fills a crucial niche. Despite the allocation of significant policy attention and financial resources to a perceived relationship between development assistance, security and stability, a solid evidence base is still lacking. Research in this area, while growing rapidly, is scattered across journals focused upon broader topics such as international development, international relations and security studies. Accordingly, Stability''s objective is to: Foster an accessible and rigorous evidence base, clearly communicated and widely disseminated, to guide future thinking, policymaking and practice concerning communities and states experiencing widespread violence and conflict. The journal will accept submissions from a wide variety of disciplines, including development studies, international relations, politics, economics, anthropology, sociology, psychology and history, among others. In addition to focusing upon large-scale armed conflict and insurgencies, Stability will address the challenge posed by local and regional violence within ostensibly stable settings such as Mexico, Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Civil-Military Engagement During Public Health Emergencies: A Comparative Analysis of Domestic Responses to COVID 19 Legitimate Targets: What is the Applicable Legal Framework Governing the Use of Force in Rio de Janeiro? Challenging how Danger is Understood: A Research Practitioners’ Note on Migration in Africa Housing, Land and Property Rights as War-Financing Commodities: A Typology with Lessons from Darfur, Colombia and Syria Reflections on the Evolution of Conflict Early Warning
×
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