scholarly journals Military Spending: Global Health Threat or Global Public Good?

Author(s):  
Raymond R. Hyatt Jr.
Global Jurist ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nerina Boschiero

Abstract The article deals with the current debate about COVID-19 Vaccines as global public/common goods. After a brief introduction on the global epidemiological and economic implication of the pandemic, the problem of the correct characterization of either vaccine or immunization/herd immunity as global public/common good, according to the necessary characteristics outlined by the pertinent economic theories, is addressed. The conclusion is that the term “global public good”/global common goods” has been extensively used in the last two years by policy makers, political leaders, academics, economists, international organizations, NGOs and others health groups, in a sort of “loose way”. Substantially, in order to underscore that equitable access to health products, including vaccines, health and biomedical technologies, medical services, medical devises, whose availability, accessibility, acceptability, affordability to the world is fundamental to tackling the pandemic. The current legal proprietary regime applied to vaccines, extensively covered by IPRs, has transformed an intrinsically non-excludable common/public good (the vaccines, due to their nature and characteristics) in something excludable and rival in consumption. Consequently, the article argues that what is needed is a swift in their legal governance. The current legal discipline of vaccines and health technologies must be changed to bring it into line with the non-excludable nature of these goods. The richest countries in the world, in pursuit of their “vaccine nationalisms”, have already collectively preordered 8.8 billion doses of vaccine, far in excess of need, thus obliging billions of people in the Global South to wait years to be vaccinated. In this respect, the article investigates the EU vaccines strategy and analyzes the Advanced Purchase Agreements signed by the European Commission with the major vaccine producers, enlightening the untenable secrecy and opacity with which the European Union’s executive has handled COVID-19 vaccine supply contracts, and how it has simply paid no more than lip-service to the concept of global common/public good by attributing a broad “private governance” to the pharmaceutical companies. Then, the various arguments, for and against, the Waiver Proposal to several sections of the WTO TRIPS agreement, introduced by India and South Africa on the TRIPS Council on October 2020, have been briefly summarized, accounting the current luck of needed consensus among the various members of the WTO. The article however describes an important number of new global and collaborative efforts already put in place by a myriad public and private actors to allow efficient development and production of vaccines in order to enhance a global access to vaccines. The article concludes by stressing the major developments in the U.S. patent’s landscape and in the Biden Administration’s attitude towards the current global health crisis, that leave hope for “extraordinary measures” to be agreed by the international community in near future. The auspice is that the time has finally arrived for the international community to develop reliable and long term solutions to tackle future global pandemic, preferably by the negotiation of a new WHO global health treaty, to secure universal fair access to essential technologies and vaccines and protecting them as global public/common goods.


Author(s):  
Jennifer Prah Ruger

The global health governance (GHG) literature frames health variously as a matter of security and foreign policy, human rights, or global public good. Divergence among these perspectives has forestalled the development of a consensus vision for global health. Global health policy will differ according to the frame applied. Fundamentally, GHG today operates on a rational actor model, encompassing a continuum from the purely self-interest-maximizing position at one extreme to a more nuanced approach that takes others’ interests into account when making one’s own calculations. Even where humanitarian concerns are clearly and admirably at play, however, the problem of motivations remains. Often narrow self-interest is also at work, and actors obfuscate this behind altruistic motives.


2021 ◽  
pp. 209660832110096
Author(s):  
Daya Reddy

This work addresses the issue of scientific literacy and its connection to the responsibility of scientists in relation to public engagement. The points of departure are, first, the notion of science as a global public good, and, second, developments in the past few decades driven largely by the digital revolution. The latter lend a particular urgency to initiatives aimed at promoting scientific literacy. Arguments are presented for reassessing approaches to public communication. The particular example of genome editing is provided as a vehicle for highlighting the challenges in engagement involving the scientific community, policymakers and broader society.


2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 279-286
Author(s):  
Usha R. Balakrishnan ◽  
Lisa Troyer ◽  
Edwin Brands

Technology licensing office managers often need to evaluate profitability and commercial potential in their decision making. However, increased consideration of important global public health goals requires forging new collaborative relationships, incorporating creative licensing practices and embracing global public good within the academic and research communities. The authors conducted a survey to identify and document opportunities and barriers in the management of discoveries and inventions arising from global health research outcomes at US and Canadian academic and research institutions.


The Lancet ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 374 (9694) ◽  
pp. 973-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indur M Goklany

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document