| 魏志江,郑宇晴.论公共卫生的“安全化”与“去安全化”[J].国际安全研究,2020,(5):134-156 |
| 论公共卫生的“安全化”与“去安全化” |
| “Securitization” and “Desecuritization” of Public Health: Analysis of China’s “Wuhan Model” and Japan’s “Sendai Model” for Combating COVID-19 |
| 修订日期：2020-07-20 |
| DOI：10.14093/j.cnki.cn10-1132/d.2020.05.006 |
| 中文关键词: 安全化 去安全化 中日公共卫生 大规模传染性疾病治理 |
| 英文关键词: securitization, de-securitization, public health in China and Japan, governance of large-scale infectious diseases |
| 基金项目: |
| 作者 | 单位 | | 魏志江 | WEI Zhijiang, Professor and Ph.D. Supervisor, School of International Relations, Sun Yat-Sen University
ZHENG Yuqing, Project Research Assistant, School of International Relations, Sun Yat-Sen University Zhuhai, 519000. | | 郑宇晴 | WEI Zhijiang, Professor and Ph.D. Supervisor, School of International Relations, Sun Yat-Sen University
ZHENG Yuqing, Project Research Assistant, School of International Relations, Sun Yat-Sen University Zhuhai, 519000. |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1491 |
| 全文下载次数: 1051 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 2019年新冠肺炎疫情暴发以来，为应对疫情对民众生命安全和身体健康造成的威胁，世界各国采取了不同程度的“安全化”措施抗击疫情。其中，中国的“武汉模式”和日本的“仙台模式”是两种极具代表性的抗疫策略，中国的抗疫模式遵循的是“完全安全化”的路径，而日本遵循的则是“有限安全化”的路径。通过梳理 “安全化”模式和“安全化”困境的既有研究，对 “武汉模式”和“仙台模式”的“安全化”进程及特征以及“完全安全化”和“有限安全化”进行比较研究和理论阐释。在“完全安全化”模式中，施动者应对威胁进行准确判断、施动者与受众共同发挥抗疫主体作用、“安全化”先于“去安全化”在场，而“有限安全化”模式则具有受众发挥更为关键的主体作用、“安全化”与“去安全化”须同时在场的特征。上述两种模式所形成的“东亚模式”对国际社会治理大规模传染性疾病具有借鉴意义，无论选择哪种抗疫模式，为了切实保障人的安全，都必须在抗疫过程中确保“去安全化”的在场，这样才能有效避免“安全化”的困境，促进国际社会共同应对疫情威胁。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Since the outbreak of COVID-19, countries around the world have taken varied “securitization” measures designed to combat the epidemic and protect people’s health and safety. It is noteworthy that China’s “Wuhan model” and Japan’s “Sendai Model” are the two representative countermeasure strategies with the former following a path of “complete securitization” while the latter a path of “limited securitization”. Based on the existing studies concerning “securitization” model and “securitization” dilemma, this paper intends to compare and analyze the securitization process and basic characteristics of these two models and offer theoretical interpretations of “complete securitization” and “limited securitization” respectively. In the “complete securitization” model, the actors should make accurate judgments about the threats and play a principal role together with the affected in the anti-epidemic drive. Hence, “securitization” always arrives on the scene ahead of “desecuritization”. By comparison, under the model of “limited securitization”, the affected play a more important part than the actors with “securitization” and “desecuritization” required to be on the scene at the same time. In view of this, the paper further summarizes the two models and hence generates the “East Asia Model” that could be useful for the international community to better address large-scale outbreaks of infectious diseases. Whichever anti-epidemic model to choose, for the sake of human security, it is imperative to have the presence of “desecuritization” so as to effectively avoid the “securitization” dilemma and promote international cooperation in tackling threats of pandemics. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|