对突发公共卫生事件的法律应对与法外应对。

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
C. Günther
{"title":"对突发公共卫生事件的法律应对与法外应对。","authors":"C. Günther","doi":"10.1163/15718093-bja10066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a long-established claim that emergency action through the law is impossible, or bound to be ineffective. This article seeks to challenge this position by reference to the response of many European states to the Coronavirus pandemic and by drawing on Lon Fuller's theory of law. It argues that there are a number of reasons why a fragmentation of governance between ordinary, legal action and emergency, extra-legal action is neither necessary nor desirable in this specific context. In societies that are generally rule of law compliant governance according to formal legal principles is not only constraining, it also possesses the quality of a 'liberating limitation', creating the room for effective, sustainable action. Too little has been made of this positive dimension of the legal form as an instrument for emergency action.","PeriodicalId":43934,"journal":{"name":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","volume":"29 1 1","pages":"131-149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal vs. Extra-Legal Responses to Public Health Emergencies.\",\"authors\":\"C. Günther\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718093-bja10066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is a long-established claim that emergency action through the law is impossible, or bound to be ineffective. This article seeks to challenge this position by reference to the response of many European states to the Coronavirus pandemic and by drawing on Lon Fuller's theory of law. It argues that there are a number of reasons why a fragmentation of governance between ordinary, legal action and emergency, extra-legal action is neither necessary nor desirable in this specific context. In societies that are generally rule of law compliant governance according to formal legal principles is not only constraining, it also possesses the quality of a 'liberating limitation', creating the room for effective, sustainable action. Too little has been made of this positive dimension of the legal form as an instrument for emergency action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW\",\"volume\":\"29 1 1\",\"pages\":\"131-149\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有一种由来已久的主张认为,通过法律采取紧急行动是不可能的,或者注定是无效的。本文试图通过参考许多欧洲国家对冠状病毒大流行的反应并借鉴朗·富勒的法律理论来挑战这一立场。它认为,在这种具体情况下,有若干原因可以说明,在普通的法律行动和紧急的法外行动之间的治理分割既无必要,也不可取。在普遍遵守法治的社会中,根据正式法律原则进行的治理不仅具有约束性,而且还具有“解放性限制”的性质,为有效、可持续的行动创造了空间。对作为紧急行动工具的法律形式的这一积极方面重视得太少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legal vs. Extra-Legal Responses to Public Health Emergencies.
There is a long-established claim that emergency action through the law is impossible, or bound to be ineffective. This article seeks to challenge this position by reference to the response of many European states to the Coronavirus pandemic and by drawing on Lon Fuller's theory of law. It argues that there are a number of reasons why a fragmentation of governance between ordinary, legal action and emergency, extra-legal action is neither necessary nor desirable in this specific context. In societies that are generally rule of law compliant governance according to formal legal principles is not only constraining, it also possesses the quality of a 'liberating limitation', creating the room for effective, sustainable action. Too little has been made of this positive dimension of the legal form as an instrument for emergency action.
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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Jewish Studies (EJJS) is the Journal of the European Association for Jewish Studies (EAJS). Its main purpose is to publish high-quality research articles, essays and shorter contributions on all aspects of Jewish Studies. Submissions are all double blind peer-reviewed. Additionally, EJJS seeks to inform its readers on current developments in Jewish Studies: it carries comprehensive review-essays on specific topics, trends and debated questions, as well as regular book-reviews. A further section carries reports on conferences, symposia, and descriptions of research projects in every area of Jewish Studies.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信