COVID-19 measures and human rights guaranteed by the Japanese Constitution

Since March 2020, the Act on Special Measures for Pandemic Influenza and New Infectious Diseases Preparedness and Response has been a significant statute in dealing with COVID-19 in Japan. The Act mandates requests, instructions and orders for business suspension and shortened business hours, as well as stay-at-home requests. These measures limit freedom of movement and establishment, guaranteed rights under the Japanese Constitution. This article poses the following research question: “Does the Japanese Constitution allow measures against COVID-19 such as requests, instructions and orders for business suspension and shortened business hours, and stay-at-home requests?” It also asks: “Are measures with penalties allowed by the Constitution?” given the fact that the penalties were introduced in February 2021. This paper introduces constitutional concepts that guarantee or limit individual freedom. Concepts that guarantee individual freedoms include freedom of establishment and movement. These freedoms derive from the constitutional values of freedom to choose one’s occupation and choose and change one’s residence (Art. 22) and the right to own or hold property (Art. 29). Concepts that limit individual freedom include the right to life (Art. 13), welfare rights and public health (Art. 25), and public welfare (Art. 13). Individual freedom that threatens right to life, welfare rights and public health, and public welfare may not be guaranteed. This paper argues that the Constitution allows the measures against COVID-19 limiting freedom of establishment and movement from the perspectives of the right to life, welfare rights, public health, and public welfare, and the government is responsible for reducing the risk to life from COVID-19. It also argues that the Constitution permits measures with penalties, while proportionality needs to be considered.

COVID-19 measures and the Japanese Constitution

Since March 2020, the Act on Special Measures for Pandemic Influenza and New Infectious Diseases Preparedness and Response has been a significant statute in dealing with COVID-19 in Japan. The Act mandates requests and orders for business suspension and shortened business hours, as well as stay-at-home requests. Although there have been no penalties as of January 2021, these requests and orders limit freedom of movement and establishment, guaranteed rights under the Japanese Constitution. This article poses the following research question: “Does the Japanese Constitution allow measures against COVID-19 such as requests and orders for business suspension and shortened business hours, and stay-at-home requests?” It also asks: “Are measures with penalties allowed by the Constitution?” This paper introduces constitutional concepts that guarantee or limit individual freedom. Concepts that guarantee individual freedoms include freedom of establishment and movement. These freedoms derive from the constitutional values of freedom to choose one’s occupation and choose and change one’s residence (Art. 22) and the right to own or hold property (Art. 29). Concepts that limit individual freedom include the right to life (Art. 13), welfare rights and public health (Art. 25), and public welfare (Art. 13). Individual freedom that threatens right to life, welfare rights and public health, and public welfare may not be guaranteed. This paper argues that since measures against COVID-19 are considered public welfare, the Constitution allows the limiting of freedom of establishment and movement. Furthermore, from the perspectives of the right to life, welfare rights, and public health, the government is responsible for reducing the risk to life from COVID-19. It also argues that the Constitution permits measures with penalties, while proportionality needs to be considered.

(Un)Conditional Welfare? Tensions Between Welfare Rights and Migration Control in Swiss Case Law

This analysis of Swiss Federal Supreme Court judgements shows the coupling of welfare and migration control. Foreign nationals depending on social assistance might face the withdrawal of their residence permits. We show how the conveyed legal logics create conditionality of rights and a differentiation of (non-)citizens. The judgements individualise social assistance dependence and follow a neoliberal logic of economic participation. They establish rationalities which reinforce politics of belonging and welfare chauvinism.

Perlindungan Kebajikan Warga Emas Gelandangan dan Daif Menurut Akta Orang-Orang Papa 1977: Suatu Tinjauan Perundangan

Malaysia is reported to be an “elderly’”country by 2030. Senior citizens are “jewels in experience”, wherefore their welfare rights should be protected under the law or by the public in general. Therefore, this paper discusses the rights of senior citizens to be protected by examining the provisions of the Destitute Persons Act 1977. The study was carried out through library research. Apart from analysing the provisions of the Destitute Persons 1977 Act, reported cases of underprivileged and ill senior citizens in Malaysia were also taken into view. In addition, this article also discusses the role of government agencies in helping senior citizens in need of protection and care, in the form of physical or financial assistance. Finally, this article discusses the actions and recommendations of the government which seeks to draw up an Act specifically aimed at protecting senior citizen welfare rights as a whole.