Author
Prof Chien-hung Liu
Organisation/Institution
National Chung Cheng University, College of Law
Country
TAIWAN (ROC)
Panel
Law and Society
Title
Legal Culture and Pandemic Management: A Comparative Analysis
Abstract
Abstract This article examines how legal culture shaped and was revealed through COVID-19 responses in four jurisdictions—mainland China, Taiwan, New Zealand, and Germany. While existing literature has emphasized governance models, political systems, and human rights issues, few studies have adopted a comparative approach grounded in legal-cultural analysis. Legal culture here refers to the interaction between formal legal frameworks, institutional behavior, and public legal consciousness. The study first outlines pandemic trajectories and major control strategies in each jurisdiction. China and New Zealand implemented stringent “zero-COVID”–style measures, Taiwan adopted a tiered and highly coordinated response without mandatory lockdowns, and Germany oscillated between containment strategies while confronting legal and social contestation. Each jurisdiction’s legislative and administrative responses differed: Germany and New Zealand enacted and amended statutes to expand executive authority with defined limits; Taiwan’s special law conferred broad but vague powers to its epidemic authority; China relied on flexible yet opaque statutory bases supplemented by Party-state directives, later codifying key measures post-pandemic. Institutional checks varied significantly. New Zealand and Germany maintained active judicial review and legislative oversight, while Taiwan’s courts exhibited deference, prioritizing collective health interests amid uncertainty. In China, judicial and administrative institutions functioned in alignment with Party priorities, emphasizing political stability and social control over individual rights. Public compliance reflected cultural attitudes toward state authority and individual rights: Germany and New Zealand saw both cooperation and robust dissent; Taiwan displayed disciplined civic participation with limited contestation; China witnessed strong apparent public support alongside restricted expression and mobilization. The analysis concludes that legal culture—comprising formal law, institutional practice, and public rights consciousness—played a critical role in shaping pandemic governance. The uneven balance between emergency efficiency and rights protection across jurisdictions underscores the importance of constitutional design, rule-of-law safeguards, and civic engagement for future global crises.
Biography
Chien-Hung Liu is a Professor of Law at National Chung Cheng University in Taiwan and Director of the Center for AI and Technology Law. He received his Doctor of Laws (Dr. jur.) from the University of Freiburg in Germany. Professor Liu’s research focuses on administrative law, administrative litigation, constitutional law, and petition and grievance systems, with special emphasis on comparative public law and the evolving interaction between digital governance, algorithmic decision-making, and the rule of law. Professor Liu has served as a visiting professor at Doshisha University in Japan and holds extensive public-sector advisory experience, including appointments on appeal boards and legal review committees across multiple Taiwanese central and local government agencies. He has led numerous nationally funded research projects and collaborated with government ministries on regulatory reform, public administration innovation, and smart-city governance frameworks. A prolific scholar, Professor Liu has authored multiple books and influential articles in leading Taiwanese and international journals. His recent work examines administrative automation, due-process requirements in digital government, and lessons from comparative pandemic governance. Professor Liu also actively engages in international academic exchange and has presented his research at major conferences in Asia and Europe.
