Search

Responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic have been widely criticized for being too delayed and indecisive. As a result, the precautionary principle has been endorsed, applauded, and proposed to guide future responses to global public health emergencies. Drawing from controversial issues in response to COVID‐19, especially in Vietnam, this paper critically discusses some key ethical and legal issues of employing the precautionary principle in public health emergencies. Engaging with discussions concerning this principle, especially in environmental law where the precautionary principle first appeared as a guiding principle with objective content(s), this paper formulates the precautionary principle as 'in dubio pro salus', which is about advising, justifying and demanding states to proactively prepare for scenarios arising out of any public health emergency. It distinguishes the precautionary principle into moderate and hard versions. A moderate version largely takes a holistic approach and fulfils a series of criteria specified in this paper, while a hard version either permits restrictive measures to be deployed primarily on a hypothetic basis or expresses an instrumental mentality. The hard version should be rejected because of the ethical and legal problems it raises, including risk‐risk tradeoffs, internal paradoxes, unjustified causing of fear and unreasonable presupposition. Ultimately, this paper defends the moderate version. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 outbreak and its practical impacts are changing policing and police responses. Alongside the relentless efforts of the health sector, the role of police forces has been the subject of debate between the global South and North. As the first study in Vietnam, this paper explains how Vietnam’s police applied community-based policing to prevent and detect the interlaced occurrences among old and new patients at the communal cluster. Multiple sources were used to collect secondary data on police responses in the first lockdowns between February and March 2020. Online interviews with police leaders and six frontline officers were conducted to collect primary data. The findings show that, in each case, Vietnamese police implemented dynamic operations as much as possible in an effort to elicit voluntary collaborations to detect and contain COVID-19. Police used “onion-layer” and “door-to-door” approaches to coordinate and cooperate with their partners in the health sector. In addition, delivering persuasive propaganda was highly prioritized to incite local people to take up preventive measures rather than enforce them. The paper concludes with four specific recommendations and further discussions aimed at improving community-based policing’s effectiveness in future exceptional circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human rights constitute a universal concern in different countries' responses to COVID-19. Vietnam is internationally praised for its success in containing the pandemic; nevertheless, human rights issues are a key area that needs to be assessed and improved. Little legal and ethical research is available on human rights in Vietnam, particularly in its response to COVID-19, however. In Vietnam, decentralization took place during the pandemic: higher authorities delegated power to lower ones to make and implement public health measures. Unfortunately, many measures made and implemented decentrally caused human rights concerns or breaches. This article aims to study what makes such measures cause human rights concerns or breaches. It argues that several social, legal, and political factors, including an inadequate understanding of human rights, the undefined breadth of discretion, and lack of supervision, are underlying factors for such problematic decentralized measures. Accordingly, this paper proposes two solutions (i) improving the supervision of the decentralization process, and (ii) improving the understanding of human rights. While Vietnam should learn from the international community to improve its measures, lessons and experience from Vietnam can also contribute to a richer dialogue and better protection of human rights globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]