• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Front Public Health . A study of Chinese law on restricting personal liberty for public health protection: taking the COVID-19 epidemic as the entry

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Front Public Health


. 2025 Oct 21:13:1670119.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1670119. eCollection 2025. A study of Chinese law on restricting personal liberty for public health protection: taking the COVID-19 epidemic as the entry point

Tengfei Liu[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Zhongwu Ma[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, China adopted restrictive measures such as mandatory quarantine, health code management, and community lockdowns. These actions were effective in containing the epidemic but often lacked clear legal authorization or procedural safeguards, raising concerns about excessive restrictions on personal liberty. From a legal and policy perspective, this paper examines the statutory framework that enabled such measures, focusing on the Law on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases and the Emergency Response Law. It argues that vague authorization and weak procedural constraints left space for local governments to exercise discretionary overreach, exemplified by excessive lockdowns and misuse of digital tools. Building on constitutional principles, the study highlights how legality, necessity, and proportionality should be fundamental limits on emergency powers. It shows that the absence of detailed procedures and rights-protection mechanisms undermined these principles, leading to conflicts between public health and human rights. The paper contributes to Chinese public health law scholarship by clarifying these institutional weaknesses and by proposing reforms to strengthen procedural guarantees, judicial oversight, and regulation of digital surveillance tools. In doing so, it advances understanding of how to balance civil liberties with collective security in future public health crises.

Keywords: COVID-19; administrative enforcement; personal freedom; principle of proportionality; public health.

 
Back
Top