Pacific

Abstract: The Indo-Pacific, combines a panoply of regions and blends multiple security architectures. Some regions are dominated by non-traditional security threats, while others are unstable and rife with security dilemma. Instability and disorder are most palpable in the maritime domain, especially in the geographical region of the western Pacific. From the beginning of 2020, China has intensified its assertiveness in the South China Sea, including the announcement of two administrative districts and transgressions by its survey ship Haiyang Dizhi 8. Some attribute these developments to the COVID-19 outbreak. Enhanced US posture in the region seems to have little effect on Chinese revanchism. This article assesses the spurt of developments in the South China Sea during the COVID-19 pandemic. It establishes the conceptual framework for analysing the change in the regional order. It evaluates the regional security architecture of the western Pacific and the efficacy of the putative order. The prospective change in the security order of the western Pacific and response is also examined. :

Abstract: As the Director of the Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney, Jane McAdam provided a short submission to the Senate Select Committee on Temporary Migration. One of the Kaldor Centre’s areas of expertise is mobility in the context of climate change and disasters. In particular, their work examines how well-constructed temporary migration schemes – as one component of a comprehensive migration programme – can provide a safety valve for people who wish to diversify their livelihoods but not move permanently elsewhere, especially where they enable circular mobility. The submission below focuses on this issue. :

Abstract: As members of the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney, Jane McAdam and Frances Voon provided this submission to the Inquiry into the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for Australia’s foreign affairs, defence and trade. Their submission considers two issues relevant to the Inquiry’s terms of reference and the Centre’s expertise. The first is how States’ responses to refugees and people seeking asylum in the context of COVID-19 pose challenges to the international rules-based order, in Australia’s region and beyond. The second is the implications of COVID-19 for the Pacific, particularly the need to promote longer-term resilience through measures to address the impacts of climate change, such as enhancing mobility.

Abstract: The Coronavirus disease (Covid-19) outbreak has not only caused disruptions worldwide in social, economic and political arenas, but also raises a plethora of issues in the data privacy protection arena. Government authorities and businesses around the world seek to respond to this public health emergency by using personal data and information of their employees, visitors, customers and/or suppliers, including by deploying technologies to collect individuals’ health and location data to manage health and safety issues arising from the Covid-19 virus and for targeted crowd monitoring. As the increased use by health authorities and businesses/employers rise in the collection and use of personal data and health information for tracking and identifying Covid-19 carriers for public health emergency purposes, privacy discussions and concerns abound over potential personal data misuse, mishandling and a more permanent stretch of government powers for long-term privacy-intrusive monitoring even after the virus ends. At this juncture, we examine how data protection regulators in the Asia Pacific (APAC) and the UK have approached data privacy issues and guidelines in the context of Covid-19, to shed light on how privacy rights balance against the countervailing interests of public health emergency and to what extent APAC and UK data privacy laws are able to protect individuals’ rights.

Abstract: Over the initial months of the vaccine rollout, demand for COVID-19 vaccines exceeded supply. Although the CDC issued data-based guidance for how to prioritize access to the vaccines, it was non-binding, and many state and local governments set different priorities. This Article documents the different prioritizations set by the 64 different local health authorities – or ‘jurisdictions’ – that received COVID-19 vaccines through the CDC’s program. These jurisdictions consisted of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five large cities (Chicago, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Antonio), along with American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marina Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. Many of these jurisdictions changed their vaccine prioritizations mid-course. The following tables reflect those changes and show how the COVID-19 vaccine was distributed to individuals aged 16 and older in each jurisdiction.

Abstract: Over the initial months of the vaccine rollout, demand for COVID-19 vaccines exceeded supply. Although the CDC issued data-based guidance for how to prioritize access to the vaccines, it was non-binding, and many state and local governments set different priorities. This Article documents the different prioritizations set by the 64 different local health authorities – or ‘jurisdictions’ – that received COVID-19 vaccines through the CDC’s program. These jurisdictions consisted of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five large cities (Chicago, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Antonio), along with American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marina Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. Many of these jurisdictions changed their vaccine prioritizations mid-course. The following tables reflect those changes and show how the COVID-19 vaccine was distributed to individuals aged 16 and older in each jurisdiction.

Abstract: Over the initial months of the vaccine rollout, demand for COVID-19 vaccines exceeded supply. Although the CDC issued data-based guidance for how to prioritize access to the vaccines, it was non-binding, and many state and local governments set different priorities. This Article documents the different prioritizations set by the 64 different local health authorities – or ‘jurisdictions’ – that received COVID-19 vaccines through the CDC’s program. These jurisdictions consisted of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five large cities (Chicago, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Antonio), along with American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marina Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. Many of these jurisdictions changed their vaccine prioritizations mid-course. The following tables reflect those changes and show how the COVID-19 vaccine was distributed to individuals aged 16 and older in each jurisdiction.

Abstract: Over the initial months of the vaccine rollout, demand for COVID-19 vaccines exceeded supply. Although the CDC issued data-based guidance for how to prioritize access to the vaccines, it was non-binding, and many state and local governments set different priorities. This Article documents the different prioritizations set by the 64 different local health authorities – or ‘jurisdictions’ – that received COVID-19 vaccines through the CDC’s program. These jurisdictions consisted of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five large cities (Chicago, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Antonio), along with American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marina Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. Many of these jurisdictions changed their vaccine prioritizations mid-course. The following tables reflect those changes and show how the COVID-19 vaccine was distributed to individuals aged 16 and older in each jurisdiction.

Abstract: Over the initial months of the vaccine rollout, demand for COVID-19 vaccines exceeded supply. Although the CDC issued data-based guidance for how to prioritize access to the vaccines, it was non-binding, and many state and local governments set different priorities. This Article documents the different prioritizations set by the 64 different local health authorities – or ‘jurisdictions’ – that received COVID-19 vaccines through the CDC’s program. These jurisdictions consisted of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five large cities (Chicago, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Antonio), along with American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marina Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. Many of these jurisdictions changed their vaccine prioritizations mid-course. The following tables reflect those changes and show how the COVID-19 vaccine was distributed to individuals aged 16 and older in each jurisdiction.

Abstract: Over the initial months of the vaccine rollout, demand for COVID-19 vaccines exceeded supply. Although the CDC issued data-based guidance for how to prioritize access to the vaccines, it was non-binding, and many state and local governments set different priorities. This Article documents the different prioritizations set by the 64 different local health authorities – or ‘jurisdictions’ – that received COVID-19 vaccines through the CDC’s program. These jurisdictions consisted of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five large cities (Chicago, Houston, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Antonio), along with American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marina Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. Many of these jurisdictions changed their vaccine prioritizations mid-course. The following tables reflect those changes and show how the COVID-19 vaccine was distributed to individuals aged 16 and older in each jurisdiction.