No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Koronapandemian hallinta Suomessa 2020–2022: Hallintapyrkimykset, hallintatavat ja hallintotapojen käyttö
Abstract
The governance of the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland in 2020-2022: Aims and modes of governance and their uses Governance related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland revolved around the actions of the government and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. This article examines this governance by focusing on holistic (whole-of-government; network governance and participation) and reductionistic (coping and taming) modes of governance inspired by literature on the governance of wicked problems. Each mode includes a specific understanding of the problem at hand and the actions introduced to resolve it. In addition, securitization is viewed as a reductionistic mode of governance, but also as a way of justifying the usage of different modes of governance. The results highlight the centrality of the sectoral ministries and pre-existing governance structures. In addition, the results pinpoint how securitization may have been involved in the enactment of various policies, and not only drastic measures.
Crises are experienced locally in people’s own spatial and virtual social milieus. In each local context, the informational conditions for both short-term and long-term action are shaped by public and private sectors, but the use of social, physical, and digital infrastructure affecting information flows is essentially in the hands of the civil society, too. Using empirical findings from our case studies of community resilience in COVID-19 crisis in Helsinki, Finland, we discuss the significance of use of social media as a dispersed, yet collective informational capacity as part of emergency preparedness and operations. We argue that communicational agencies of people and communities and the resulting collective informational capacity, especially in the local settings, should be adopted and rooted to the concept of resilience, as well as to emergency preparedness and risk management of society.
To be resilient in the face of sudden and long-term crises, societies need the capacity to deal with various problems related to information. In an emergency, there is a need for quick sharing and correction of information. In the long run, the resilience of a society is bound up with informational conditions for collective change-making and adaptation to long-term system-level crises such as climate change.
Tilannetietoisuudella tarkoitetaan jaettua ymmärrystä tapahtuneista asioista, niihin vaikuttaneista olosuhteista sekä tapahtumien mahdollisista kehitysvaih-toehdoista. Tilannetietoisuuden muodostaminen on haasteellista, sillä tiedon tuotanto on hajautettu ja erillään tietoa hyödyntävistä tahoista. Tietämiseen liittyvän epävarmuuden vuoksi tilannetietoisuuden muodostamisen dyna-miikka on lähtökohtaisesti jännitteistä. Jännitteisyys leviää päätöksentekoon ja sen valmisteluun erilaisina tulkintoina kulloisestakin tilanteesta. Yhdestä ja samasta asiasta tehtävät, itsessään perustellut, mutta toisilleen vastakkaiset tulkinnat käsitteellistetään tässä tutkimuksessa tilannetietoisuuden paradok-siksi. Kysymys ei ole eri tulkintojen paremmuudesta vaan tilannetietoisuuden ominaispiirteestä. Artikkelissa vastataan kysymykseen: Millaisia tilannetietoi-suuden muodostamiseen vaikuttavia paradokseja on esiintynyt COVID-19-pandemianhallinnan eri vaiheissa? Tutkimuksen empiirinen aineisto koostuu tutkimushankkeissa WELGO ja IRWIN toteutetuista kahden eri sairaanhoito-piirin alueella toimivien koronakoordinaatiotyöryhmien jäsenten haastat-teluista. Aineistosta tunnistettiin kolme tiedonmuodostukseen vaikuttavaa paradoksia: 1) tiedonmuodostuksen ontologinen paradoksi (pandemia vs. so-siaaliset määrittäjät) liittyy terveyskriisin olemuksen hahmottamiseen ja sen merkitykseen tilannetietoisuuden rakentamisessa, 2) konsensuksen tavoitte-lun paradoksi koostuu tilannetietoisuuden kollektiivisen rakentamisen edelly-tyksistä monihallinnollisessa ja-tasoisessa vuotovaikutuksessa sekä 3) tiedon hyödyntämisen paradoksi liittyy informaation keräämiseen, tallentamiseen ja soveltamiseen tilannetietoisuuden rakentamisessa, ylläpitämisessä ja enna-koinnissa. Paradoksit kytketään tietoperustaisen ja politiikkaperustaisen pää-töksenteon välisestä suhteesta käytävään keskusteluun.
An effective response to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic is dependent on the public voluntarily adhering to governmental rules and guidelines. How the guidelines are communicated can significantly affect whether people will experience a sense of self-initiation and volition, protecting compliance from eroding. From the perspective of Self-Determination Theory, a broad theory on human motivation and its interpersonal determinants, effective communication involves the delicate combination of providing rules and structure in a caring and autonomy-supportive way. Research in applied domains from public messaging to education and health has shown that when social agents set limits in more autonomy-supportive, caring, and competence-fostering ways, it predicts autonomous forms of compliance, which in turn predict greater adherence and long-term persistence. Building on SDT, integrated with insights from social identity theory, we derive a practice-focused checklist with key communication guidelines to foster voluntary compliance in national crises such as the prevention of COVID-19 spread.
This paper applies a service ecosystems perspective on the public service logic to evaluate the benefits and challenges this view brings to the management of public services. First, the article clarifies the concepts of private and public value, as well as co-production and co-creation. Second, the article presents an overview of the service-dominant logic, public service-dominant logic, and public service logic. Third, the paper analyses the potential of merging public service logic with a service ecosystems framework in a technology-based context, cross-fertilising public management and marketing research. This can lead to the development of a theory of public service ecosystems.
This article discusses the correlation between national policy characteristics and the success in “flattening the curve” of infection of the COVID-19 virus, which is a generally acknowledged measure to contain the worst medical outcomes of a pandemic. While individual cases require careful and granular analysis to properly unpack, the article finds that the best correlation is found when looking at the pattern of choice related to either proactive or reactive approaches to the implementation of containment measures. This is especially evident for countries that have either very low or very high infection rates per million persons. For intermediate rates we find that a variety of institutional, political, and procedural variables intervene in the process.
This paper first discusses some of the basic spatial features of the COVID-19 crisis in Finland. Second, it considers the role of the state and state power in response to the pandemic and explores some of the geopolitical aspects of COVID-19 in the Finnish context. Finally, it argues that the politics of the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the role of health care as a crucial constituent of state power. The COVID-19 crisis has not only made state power more clearly visible, but has also revealed some of the ways in which the “extra-economic” occupies a central position in maintaining both economic and societal order.
The quality of public decision making depends significantly on the quality of analysis and advice provided through public organizations. Champions of "evidence-informed" policy making claim that rigorous evaluation practices can significantly improve attainment of cost-effective outcomes. After decades of experience, performance information is more sophisticated, but evaluation practices and capabilities vary enormously. Public agencies gather and process vast amounts of information, but there has been little analysis of how this information is actually utilized for policy and program improvement. This article examines how government agencies use evidence about policy and program effectiveness, with attention to four themes: (1) the prospects for improving "evidence-informed" policy making, (2) the diversity of practices concerning evidence utilization and evaluation across types of public agencies and policy arenas, (3) recent attempts to "institutionalize" evaluation as a core feature of policy development and budget approval, and (4) the relationships between public agencies and nongovernmental sources of expertise.
Anticipatory governance is ‘a broad-based capacity extended through society that can act on a variety of inputs to manage emerging knowledge-based technologies while such management is still possible’. It motivates activities designed to build capacities in foresight, engagement, and integration – as well as through their production ensemble. These capacities encourage and support the reflection of scientists, engineers, policy makers, and other publics on their roles in new technologies. This article reviews the early history of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the United States, and it further explicates anticipatory governance through exploring the genealogy of the term and addressing a set of critiques found in the literature. These critiques involve skepticism of three proximities of anticipatory governance: to its object, nanotechnology, which is a relatively indistinct one; to the public, which remains almost utterly naïve toward nanotechnology; and to technoscience itself, which allegedly renders anticipatory governance complicit in its hubris. The article concludes that the changing venues and the amplification within them of the still, small voices of folks previously excluded from offering constructive visions of futures afforded by anticipatory governance may not be complete solutions to our woes in governing technology, but they certainly can contribute to bending the long arc of technoscience more toward humane ends.
Interdisciplinarity involves bringing together distinctive components of two or more disciplines. In academic discourse, interdisciplinarity typically applies to four realms: knowledge, research, education, and theory. Interdisciplinary knowledge involves familiarity with distinctive components of two or more disciplines. Interdisciplinary research combines distinctive components of two or more disciplines in the search or creation of new knowledge, operational procedures, or artistic expressions. Interdisciplinary education merges distinctive components of two or more disciplines in a single program of instruction. Interdisciplinary theory takes interdisciplinary knowledge, research, or education as its main objects of study. At any given historical period, the interdisciplinary richness of any two exemplars of knowledge, research, and education can be compared by weighing four variables: number of disciplines, the distance between them, novelty, and integration.
Increasing attention is being paid to the
application of complex systems theories in
the social sciences. Although this trend is
less prominent in the field of public administration,
some examples of the use of
complexity theory in research in this domain
can be found. This article discusses three
central ideas in complex systems theory that
are relevant for public administration research:
dynamics, self-organization and coevolution.
After briefly introducing each idea,
the article traces similar concepts in public
administration research. It then contrasts
them with each other, and discusses how
they can improve our understanding of
phenomena in public administration. Finally,
the article explores how the manager’s role is
perceived in public administration and what
insights complexity theory can add to that
view.
While the Copenhagen School has provided security analysts with important tools for illuminating processes of threat construction, the reverse processes of un-making security or desecuritization have remained seriously underspecified. Informed by a critical sensibility, this article asks the question ‘how can desecuritization be thought’ and argues, contra the Copenhagen School, that desecuritization has to be tackled first politically and not analytically. I show that the dynamics of securitization/desecuritization raise questions about the type of politics we want, whether that is democratic politics of universal norms and slow procedures or the exceptional politics of speed and enemy exclusion. I subsequently propose a different concept of emancipation, which is informed by the principles of universality and recognition. This concept distances itself from both desecuritization and the equation of emancipation with security by Critical Security Studies since it has a different logic from the non-democratic and exclusionary logic of security and it engages more thoroughly with both democratic politics and the ‘conditions’ in which securitization becomes possible.
In January 1995, the first Complexity Seminar was held at the London School of Economics, in the UK. This was quite a momentous occasion as it proved to be the turning point for the series of seminars, which had started in December 1992. That seminar and those that followed it, had a profound effect on the research interests of Eve Mitleton-Kelly, the initiator and organiser of the series and editor of this volume, and thus laid the foundation for what became the LSE Complexity Research Programme, which proceeded to win several research awards for collaborative projects with companies. But the series also provided the material for this book. Earlier versions of the papers selected for this volume were first given at the LSE Complexity Seminar series. The seminar series, focussed primarily on the application of the theories of complexity to organisations - an area of study which was quite new to UK businesses and academics; it slowly helped to disseminate these ideas and today, there is a proliferation of networks and seminar series throughout the UK on complexity; a strong and active academic community studying complexity in different disciplines and a growing number of organisations, experimenting with these revolutionary ideas and putting them into practice. The 14 international authors in this volume reflect this interest in 10 chapters that range from the very practical application of the theory to more philosophical reflections on its nature and applicability. They do not all agree with each other, but since diversity and variety is at the heart of complexity they each provide a strand of an intertwined whole, which will enrich and deepen our understanding. In an environment of increasing uncertainty and ambiguity it is necessary to learn how to hold, in tension, disparate or even contradictory views, without undue stress. The world is not a simple dyadic black or white entity, but a rich multi-coloured and many-hued ensemble, each strand or perspective contributing to an intricate and inter-related n-dimensional whole.
The European Commission, through Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, invited Professor Mazzucato to draw up strategic recommendations to maximise the impact of the future EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation through mission-oriented policy. This report is the result of Professor Mazzucato’s reflections based on her research, with inputs through a consultation process with internal and external stakeholders of the European Commission.
Artikkelissa tarkastellaan pääministerin aseman määrittelyä siviilikriisien johtajana uuden perustuslain aikana. Artikkelissa pureudutaan pääministerin asemaan siviilikriisien johtajana yhtäältä valtioneuvostossa omaksutun ministerihallintomallin ja toisaalta presidentin turvallisuuspoliittisen roolin paineessa 2000-luvun aikana. Artikkelin johtopäätöksenä esitetään, että kriisijohtamisjärjestelmää tulisi täsmentää covid-19-pandemiatilanteen ratkettua.
This article explores the dynamic interaction of emergency policies and parliamentary constitutional review in the early policy response to the COVID‐19 outbreak in Finland. A thorough analysis of the official records of Parliament's Constitutional Law Committee shows how the Government's use of delegated emergency powers raised particular concerns about inter‐institutional transparency during the state of emergency. These findings prompt an enquiry into whether delegated emergency powers and the related quest for centralized transparency‐led accountability produced a rupture in the theory of complex multicentric policymaking. This analysis suggests that policy process research can play an important role in exposing the more subtle and longitudinal effects of emergency policies on democratic governance.
The Berlin Republic of today is neither Weimar (1918–1932) nor Bonn (1949–1990). It is by all standards the best democracy ever on German soil. Nevertheless, during the COVID-19 crisis there was a shift from democracy as a mode of governance to what the controversial legal theorist Carl Schmitt (1922) affirmingly described as a “state of exception”; a state that is desired and approved by the people (through opinion polls). It was the hour of the executive. The parliament disempowered itself. There was very little, if any, contestation or deliberation during the first eight weeks of the COVID-19 crisis. This article reflects on the implications of this mode of governance on institutions and actors of democracy in Germany, and offers a way of assessing the wellbeing of democracies in times of deep crisis.
In this brief paper, I argue that the coronavirus pandemic is functioning like an ethnomethodological ‘breaching experiment’. In short, it is putting a gigantic spanner in the works of neoliberal governance, in the process exposing the widening cracks and fissures of what I have called the ‘fractured society’. I begin by recalling Garfinkel’s notion of the breaching experiment and by listing the principal attributes of the fractured society. I then explore the response to the coronavirus in the UK, from the government’s initial commitment to ‘herd immunity’ to its present policy of ‘muddling through’. The bulk of the remainder of this contribution addresses precisely how this global health crisis shines a harsh and unforgiving searchlight on the strategies and policies pursued by governments in the UK since 2010, and most especially after the passing of the Health and Social Care Act of 2012. In the closing paragraphs, I examine possible scenarios for a post-fractured society, making particular use of Fraser’s concepts on ‘reactionary’ versus ‘progressive populism’, and conclude with a comment on sociology and engagement.
Extraordinary limitation of certain fundamental rights seems necessary in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries have declared a state of emergency for that purpose. Yet, there is also a risk of misusing the emergency for power grabbing, especially in the current era of executive aggrandizement, democratic decay and abusive populist constitutionalism. In this setting the legislative and judicial checks on the executive create a dilemma. Their standard operation in the state of emergency could control the executive, but might also impair its capacity to fight the pandemic effectively. This article therefore focuses on the desired role of the legislature and the judiciary in COVID-19 emergencies. Although many constitutions address emergencies, they are often vague and leave considerable room for the involved actors themselves to adjust their behaviour. This article asks how parliaments and courts should use this de facto room. I argue that they should show some deference to the executive, its level depending on the stage and severity of the crisis, but should not clear the field for governments. They must modify their activities but not suspend them. My main argument is that the deliberative and scrutiny functions of the legislature and the dispute-resolution function of courts are crucial not only for preventing the abuse of emergency measures, but also for increasing the effectiveness of emergency measures by improving conditions necessary for compliance. The legislature and courts can contribute to the higher feasibility and legitimacy of the emergency measures and thereby increase voluntary compliance, which is crucial for tackling the spread of the new coronavirus. The article illustrates these issues by way of the case study of the Czech Republic – a country experiencing its first nationwide state of emergency amid tendencies towards democratic decay and managerial populism.
This essay examines the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health inequalities. It outlines historical and contemporary evidence of inequalities in pandemics—drawing on international research into the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918, the H1N1 outbreak of 2009 and the emerging international estimates of socio-economic, ethnic and geographical inequalities in COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. It then examines how these inequalities in COVID-19 are related to existing inequalities in chronic diseases and the social determinants of health, arguing that we are experiencing a syndemicpandemic . It then explores the potential consequences for health inequalities of the lockdown measures implemented internationally as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the likely unequal impacts of the economic crisis. The essay concludes by reflecting on the longer-term public health policy responses needed to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic does not increase health inequalities for future generations.
Security concerns have mushroomed. Increasingly numerous areas of life are governed by security policies and technologies. Security Unbound argues that when insecurities pervade how we relate to our neighbours, how we perceive international politics, how governments formulate policies, at stake is not our security but our democracy. Security is not in the first instance a right or value but a practice that challenges democratic institutions and actions. We are familiar with emergency policies in the name of national security challenging parliamentary processes, the space for political dissent, and fundamental rights. Yet, security practice and technology pervade society heavily in very mundane ways without raising national security crises, in particular through surveillance technology and the management of risks and uncertainties in many areas of life. These more diffuse security practices create societies in which suspicion becomes a default way of relating and governing relations, ranging from neighbourhood relations over financial transactions to cross border mobility. Security Unbound demonstrates that governing through suspicion poses serious challenges to democratic practice. Some of these challenges are familiar, such as the erosion of the right to privacy; others are less so, such as the post-human challenge to citizenship. Security unbound provokes us to see that the democratic political stake today is not our security but preventing insecurity from becoming the organising principle of political and social life.
This book focuses on security practices, civil liberties and the politics of borders in liberal democracies. In the aftermath of 9/11, security practices and the denial of human rights and civil liberties are often portrayed as an exception to liberal rule, and seen as institutionally, legally and spatially distinct from the liberal state. Drawing upon detailed empirical studies from migration controls, such as the French waiting zone, Australian off-shore processing and US maritime interceptions, this study demonstrates that the limitation of liberties is not an anomaly of liberal rule, but embedded within the legal order of liberal democracies. The most ordinary, yet powerful way, of limiting liberties is the creation of legal identities, legal borders and legal spaces. It is the possibility of limiting liberties through liberal and democratic procedures that poses the key challenge to the protection of liberties. The book develops three inter-related arguments. First, it questions the discourse of exception that portrays liberal and illiberal rule as distinct ways of governing and scrutinizes liberal techniques for limiting liberties. Second, it highlights the space of government and argues for a change in perspective from territorial to legal borders, especially legal borders of policing and legal borders of rights. Third, it emphasizes the role of ordinary law for illiberal practices and argues that the legal order itself privileges policing powers and prevents access to liberties. This book will be of interest to students of critical security studies, social and political theory, political geography and legal studies, and IR in general.
This paper is concerned with two interrelated problems in the Copenhagen School’s (CS’s) securitization theory. The first is the challenge that non-exceptional security polices pose to the theory, which starts from the assumption that securitization is ‘successful’ only when extraordinary emergency measures are adopted. The second arises not from what factors define securitization’s ‘success’, but rather from who does so. Securitization theory suffers from a constructivist deficit because the criterion for the ‘success’ of securitization is set by scholars, whereas a more ‘radically constructivist [theory] regarding security’ would require practitioners to be in charge of defining the ‘success’ of securitization. The paper offers a solution to both of these problems by suggesting that securitization is ‘successful’ only when (1) the identification of a threat that justifies a response (securitizing move) is followed by (2) a change of behaviour (action) by a relevant agent (that is, the securitizing actor or someone instructed by the same), and also (3) the action taken is justified by the securitizing actor with reference to the threat they identified and declared in the securitizing move. It goes on to reject the ideas of a sanctioning audience and of the insistence on existential threats as also set by the CS.
I suspect that many members of our field, including those in leadership positions, believe that our hypercommitment to theory - and particularly the requirement that every article must contribute to theory - is somehow on the side of the angels. They may believe that this is a hallmark of a serious field. They may believe that theory is good and that the "mere" description of phenomena and generation of facts are bad. Worse yet, they may have given no thought to these matters, accepting our field's zeal about theory as simply part of the cosmos. My aim has been to promote a rethinking of these positions. Theory is critically important for our field, and we should remain committed to it. And, for sure, the greatest acclaim will always go to those who develop breakthrough theories. So there is plenty of incentive to keep working on theory. But it takes much more than theory for an academic field to advance. Indeed, various types of atheoretical or pretheoretical work can be instrumental in allowing theory to emerge or develop. Thus, our insistence in the field of management that all papers contribute to theory may actually have the unintended perverse effect of stymying the discovery of important theories. More broadly, this norm - or policy, really - is holding back our field.
Foucault introduced the concept ‘governmentality’ to refer to the conduct of conduct, and especially the technologies that govern individuals. He adopted the concept after his shift from structuralist archaeology to historicist genealogy. But some commentators suggest governmentality remains entangled with structuralist themes. This article offers a resolutely genealogical theory of govermentality that: echoes Foucault on genealogy, critique, and technologies of power; suggests resolutions to problems in Foucault’s work; introduces concepts that are clearly historicist, not structuralist; and opens new areas of empirical research. The resulting genealogical theory of governmentality emphasizes nominalism, contingency, situated agency, and historicist explanations referring to traditions and dilemmas. It decenters governance by highlighting diverse elite narratives, technologies of power, and traditions of popular resistance.
This article seeks to gauge the nature, distinctiveness and significance of the ‘interpretivist turn’ in public administration and political science more broadly. It considers the various interpretations and, indeed, misinterpretations to which this new hermeneutics of public administration has given rise, its relationship to (genuinely and seemingly) cognate perspectives (notably constructivism, the new institutionalism and critical realism) and its strengths and weaknesses – both as an analytical perspective and as a developing research programme. In the process it argues for a broadening of the interpretivist research agenda to accord a greater role to the institutional contexts in which the ideas and beliefs that actors hold acquire and retain resonance and for the value of exploring more thoroughly the synergies with constructivist variants of the new institutionalism.
The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems. They are wicked problems, whereas science has developed to deal with tame problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about optimal solutions to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no solutions in the sense of definitive and objective answers.
7th ed. Terminologický slovník
Koronapassikapina leviää -Nyt EK:n johtaja ilmoitti ryhtyvänsä tarkastamaan koronapasseja itsenäisesti
- Maija Aalto
Aalto, Maija (2021). Koronapassikapina leviää -Nyt
EK:n johtaja ilmoitti ryhtyvänsä tarkastamaan koronapasseja itsenäisesti: "En kysy lupaa".
Helsingin Sanomat. Haettu osoitteesta https://
www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art-2000008433005.html
20.12.2022.
Liikkumisrajoituksia pidettiin välttämättöminä, kunnes eduskunnassa kaikki muuttui -näin Marinin hallituksen historiallinen hanke törmäsi seinään
- Matti Koivisto
Koivisto, Matti (2021). Liikkumisrajoituksia pidettiin välttämättöminä, kunnes eduskunnassa kaikki muuttui -näin Marinin hallituksen
historiallinen hanke törmäsi seinään. Yle.fi.
17.4.2021. Haettu osoitteesta https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11888879 9.10.2022.
The SAGE Handbook of Governance, (s. 142-159)
- Le Galès
Le Galès, Patrick (2011). Policy instruments and
governance. Teoksessa Bevir, Mark (Ed.), The
SAGE Handbook of Governance, (s. 142-159).
London: Sage Publications. https://dx.doi.
org/10.4135/9781446200964
Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics
- Andrew Moravcsik
Moravcsik, Andrew (1997). Taking preferences
seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513-553.
https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550447
Koronaepidemian ensimmäinen vaihe Suomessa vuonna 2020. Helsinki: OTKES. Perustuslaki 11.6.1999/731
OTKES (2021). Koronaepidemian ensimmäinen
vaihe Suomessa vuonna 2020. Helsinki: OTKES.
Perustuslaki 11.6.1999/731. Haettu sivulta https://
www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990731
8.3.2023.
Sairaaloiden vierailijakiellot vuonna 2020 olivat lainvastaisia. Perus tuslakiblogi
- Pauli Rautiainen
Rautiainen, Pauli (2022). Sairaaloiden vierailijakiellot vuonna 2020 olivat lainvastaisia. Perus tuslakiblogi. Haettu sivulta https://perustuslakiblogi.wordpress.com/2021/01/07/martin-scheinin-suomi-tarvitsee-nyt-rytminvaihdoksen-kilpailussa-koronavirusta-vastaan/
9.10.2022.
Suomi tarvitsee nyt rytmivaihdoksen kilpailussa koronavirusta vastaan Perustuslakiblogi
- Martin Scheinin
Scheinin, Martin (2021). Suomi tarvitsee nyt rytmivaihdoksen kilpailussa koronavirusta vastaan Perustuslakiblogi. Haettu sivulta https://
perustuslakiblogi.wordpress.com/2022/02/15/
pauli-rautiainen-sairaaloiden-vierailijakiellot-vuonna-2020-olivat-lainvastaisia/
Pandemia: Kiihdytysajon äkkijarrutuksesta uuteen normaaliin
- Juha Siltala
Siltala, Juha (2022). Pandemia: Kiihdytysajon äkkijarrutuksesta uuteen normaaliin. Helsinki:
Otava.
Biouhkat turvallisuusuhkana: Turvallisuusuhkaksi kutsutusta turvallisuusuhkaksi muodostuneet. Doctoral dissertation manuscript in political science
- Susanna Sissonen
Sissonen, Susanna (2022). Biouhkat turvallisuusuhkana: Turvallisuusuhkaksi kutsutusta turvallisuusuhkaksi muodostuneet. Doctoral dissertation manuscript in political science. Arvioitu
väitöstilaisuus loppuvuodesta 2022. Helsinki:
University of Helsinki.
Toimin tasuun nitelma hybridistrategian mukaisten suositusten ja rajoitusten toteuttamiseen covid-19-epi demian ensimmäisen vaiheen jälkeen
- Sosiaali-Ja Terveysministeriö
Sosiaali-ja terveysministeriö (2020). Toimin tasuun nitelma hybridistrategian mukaisten suositusten ja rajoitusten toteuttamiseen covid-19-epi demian ensimmäisen vaiheen jälkeen. Haettu
sivulta https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162421/STM_2020_26_j.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 9.10.2022.
Korona virusepidemian tasot sekä niihin liittyvät toimenpiteet
- Sosiaali-Ja Terveysministeriö
Sosiaali-ja terveysministeriö (2021). Korona virusepidemian tasot sekä niihin liittyvät toimenpiteet.
Haettu sivulta https://stm.fi/koronavirusepidemian-tasot
Valtioneuvoston yleisistunto 5.3.2021. VN 21/2021
- Valtioneuvosto
Valtioneuvosto (2021). Valtioneuvoston yleisistunto
5.3.2021. VN 21/2021. Haettu osoitteesta
https://valtioneuvosto.fi/paatokset/istunto?ses-sionId=0b00908f80713bf3 9.10.2022.
Matkustaminen Suomeen ja Suomesta koronaepidemian aikana
- Valtioneuvosto
Valtioneuvosto (2022). Matkustaminen Suomeen
ja Suomesta koronaepidemian aikana. Päivitetty
20.5.2022. https://valtioneuvosto.fi/tietoa-koronaviruksesta/rajoitukset-ja-suositukset/matkustusrajoitukset.