Consumers, the food industry, and the government are the main actors in the area of food safety and the embedded domain of public health. Theoretically, only by balancing power among the three actors will desired food safety be maintained, even though the three actors have different preferences. Nevertheless, the industry frequently plays the leading role in the market because of its superiority in information possession. Thus, the government usually leans toward collaborating with the industry, leaveing consumers under industry domination in the long run. In recent years, food scandals broke out one after another in Taiwan, forcing the government to amend the Act for governing food safety and public health, while hoping to better manage the market. Yet, the government’s response to address food safety caused an imbalance of rights and liabilities distribution among the three actors. Particularly, the obligations of the food industry increased, and the responsibilities of the government extended. This paper argues that such imbalance not only induced the incremental incidence of food scandals in Taiwan over the past years, but also worsened the interaction between the three actors, sharpening hostility among the three parties. As a result, the Taiwan’s Act Governing Food Sanitation has features of the law of the enemy. This article argues for the appropriate distribution of rights and liabilities of the three actors, and risk communication as remedy to the imbalance in the market and legislation.
國際關係學者瓦特(Stephen M. Walt)曾提出以「威脅平衡」概念為主的聯盟理論，挑戰了現實主義內部關於「權力平衡」的論點，後來又有學者提出「利益平衡」與「推卸責任」的論述加以反駁。經由本文的探討與重新檢視，這些學者爭論的焦點在於「制衡」與「扈從」概念上的界定。由於學界對於「扈從」在理論解釋與個案運用上的解讀不同，其實際上涵蓋了積極扈從(順從)與消極扈從(屈從)兩種相反的概念，吾人若僅從「制衡」與「扈從」兩種分類便欲判斷何者在國際關係中較為盛行，則易..
Stephen M. Walt proposed his theory of alliances, focusing mainly on the concept of balance-of-threat. His statement challenged the prevailing concept of balance-of-power theory of traditional realism, thereby receiving criticizisms of “balance-of-interest” and “buck-passing.” This article re- examines the debates, and finds out that the major controversy is in fact how to circumscribe “balancing” and “bandwagoning”. When using the concept of “bandwagoning”, scholars..
Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.