China faced the arrival of COVID-19 armed with new infrastructure, tools, and personnel that it had developed as part of a nationwide overhaul of its public health system in the wake of the 2003 SARS epidemic. The country learned two major lessons from SARS: it needed to increase its scientific professionalism and transparency, and it needed to build upon the successes of its authoritarian disease control capabilities. These two lessons were on full display during China’s COVID-19 response. The goals and methods they implied were sometimes in contradiction with each other, however, and ultimately they failed to prevent a catastrophic pandemic.

South Korea and Taiwan effectively suppressed the coronavirus without the authoritarian measures imposed in China or the lockdowns used elsewhere. They responded quickly, communicated clearly and consistently about the threat. Both governments had prior experiences with contagions to prepare for an epidemic. And both states had introduced universal health care during their periods of democratization, shaping a consensus among citizens about equity, solidarity, and the role of government in protecting public health. Their strategies provide replicable and repeatable models.

While a number of nations have used high-tech surveillance, mass testing, contact tracing, and draconian stay-at-home laws to manage the ongoing pandemic, Japan’s official response has been less energetic. The country also faces tremendous challenges with an aging population, high population density, and broad use of public transportation systems. Yet it has managed to achieve strong COVID-19 outcomes, with far lower death rates than many other advanced industrial democracies. This article traces Japan's weak response and potential explanations for its pandemic miracle, focusing especially on the role of social ties and silver linings that have emerged during the pandemic.

A tradition of multilateral cooperation among the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has helped the region effectively respond to the coronavirus pandemic and curtail its spread, after early missteps by some governments. While some nations elsewhere have turned inward and have struggled to cope, ASEAN members were able to mobilize regional mechanisms to coordinate a response. ASEAN has demonstrated the advantages of a rules-based regional order capable of addressing a nontraditional threat to security.

Southeast Asia was one of the first regions hit by the spread of COVID-19. The region’s public health response varied, with some states like Vietnam proving models for the world, while others, like Indonesia and the Philippines, faltered badly. However, they have generally taken a common approach in one area: nearly all have used the pandemic to crack down on political freedoms and civil liberties.

Under Xi Jinping, China has stepped up its efforts to strip Hong Kong of its autonomous status and stamp out dissent in the territory, culminating in its moves to impose a new national security law in 2020. At the same time, Beijing has ratcheted up its pressure on Taiwan, demanding that it agree to reunification with the mainland. Chinese pressures on both fronts have provoked local resistance. Taiwan may now become a haven for pro-democracy exiles from Hong Kong.

China was once mocked by Westerners as the “Sick Man of Asia.” That caricature provided motivation for a long campaign of national rejuvenation. Now the tables are turned after China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic proved more effective than that of the United States and other Western nations.

A legal scholar’s searing critiques of Xi Jinping’s government draw much of their power from China’s rich literary language and centuries-old tradition of eloquent, principled dissent against unjust rulers.

Traditional chiefs have a special ability to organize collective responses to local problems in many communities.

Sudan's weakened legal infrastructure and its enduring respect for the rule of law remain the country's best hope for achieving sustainable peace and justice.

Africa's informal transport sector is likely to continue to drive mass mobility well into the future and remain central to urban economies and the production of new city forms.

Africa was long seen primarily as an importer of global cultural forms, but it is now on the verge of becoming a major exporter of popular culture to the world.

Decolonization has reemerged as a compelling vision of a better future.

[E]ntrenched class interests and social inequalities rooted in religion, caste, and gender have made the transition slow and uncertain.

All of these actions reflect the ideological commitments of the BJP and its desire to fundamentally alter the country's constitutional dispensation.

This introduction of religiously based citizenship is a move away from the constitutional concept of citizenship introduced in India in the mid-twentieth century.