Page 162 - 《国际安全研究》2020年第5期

Journal of International Security Studies
peace and security building in Africa, this country’s sluggish economic growth and
relatively declining national strength make it unable to effectively cope with the
increasingly complex security situation in Africa. Intensified intervention in Africa’s
security affairs from major powers outside the region and the rising competition from
other regional powers in Africa have also constrained South Africa’s leading role in
building regional peace and security. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic,
economic downturn and aggravated social conflicts, South Africa will devote more
energy and resources to addressing domestic economic and social problems with a
declining willingness and capacity to directly get involved in conflict resolution in
Africa. In the course of its participation in African security affairs, South Africa will
make use of its economic and military resources sparingly and become more dependent
on diplomacy and African collective security mechanisms.
[Keywords] South Africa, African peace and security, African security governance,
African Union
[Author] ZHANG Kai, Deputy Director of Editorial Department of Contemporary
World, International Department of the Central Committee of Communist Party of
China (Beijing, 100860).

134 “Securitization” and “Desecuritization” of Public Health: Analysis
of China’s “Wuhan Model” and Japan’s “Sendai Model” for
Combating COVID-19
WEI Zhijiang and ZHENG Yuqing
[Abstract] 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.
[Keywords] securitization, de-securitization, public health in China and Japan,
governance of large-scale infectious diseases
[Authors] 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).
（本期英文编辑：张国帅 高静）

· 160 ·