s.Two Implementation and Accountability, 7 Monitoring and Review to Assess Human Rights Implementation

Author(s):  
Meier Benjamin Mason ◽  
Huffstetler Hanna ◽  
Bueno de Mesquita Judith

This chapter analyzes the fundamental importance of monitoring and review procedures to assess the implementation of human rights to advance public health. Recognizing monitoring and review as central to human rights accountability, the evolving functions of human rights monitoring highlight the range of national, regional, and international review mechanisms that provide oversight to support the realization of health-related human rights. While these mechanisms often do not have judicial powers—their recommendations are advisory rather than legally binding—the interpretive role entrusted to these review procedures has endowed their health-related recommendations with legitimacy in clarifying human rights treaty provisions and reviewing state efforts to meet treaty obligations. Assessing the implementation of international human rights law through national practice, monitoring institutions can facilitate human rights accountability for public health promotion and operationalize public health data to press governments to implement rights.

Author(s):  
Benjamin Mason Meier ◽  
Hanna Huffstetler ◽  
Judith Bueno de Mesquita

This chapter analyzes the fundamental importance of monitoring and review procedures to assess the implementation of human rights to advance public health. Recognizing monitoring and review as central to human rights accountability, the evolving functions of human rights monitoring highlight the range of national, regional, and international review mechanisms that provide oversight to support the realization of health-related human rights. While these mechanisms often do not have judicial powers—their recommendations are advisory rather than legally binding—the interpretive role entrusted to these review procedures has endowed their health-related recommendations with legitimacy in clarifying human rights treaty provisions and reviewing state efforts to meet treaty obligations. Assessing the implementation of international human rights law through national practice, monitoring institutions can facilitate human rights accountability for public health promotion and operationalize public health data to press governments to implement rights.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Chetail

This paper is assessing the legality of border closures decided by a vast number of countries with the view of limiting the spread of Covid-19. Although this issue has raised diverging interpretations in relation to International Health Regulations and regional free movement agreements, international human rights law provides a clear-cut answer: the rule of law stops neither at the border nor in times of emergency. Against this normative framework, border control can and must be carried out with the twofold purpose of protecting public health and individual rights, whereas border closure is unable to do so because it is by essence a collective and automatic denial of admission without any other form of process. This paper argues that blanket entry bans on the ground of public health are illegal under international human rights law. They cannot be reconciled with the most basic rights of migrants and refugees, including the principle of non-refoulement and access to asylum procedures, the prohibition of collective expulsion, the best interests of the child and the principle of non-discrimination. The paper concludes on the ways to better integrate at the borders public health and human rights imperatives in due respect with the rule of law. In both law and practice, public health and migrant's rights are not mutually exclusive. They can reinforce each other within a comprehensive human rights based approach to health and migration policies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-213
Author(s):  
Jolyon Ford

Abstract Data-driven technologies (such as mobile phone-based tracing apps) have been at the forefront of public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we have also seen high-level expressions of concern about how state actions ostensibly in pursuit of public health goals have in fact greatly accelerated existing human rights concerns about newer technologies, especially increased state and corporate surveillance. This article explores issues at the nexus of COVID-19 public health responses, civil-political rights under international human rights law, and the responsible governance of data-driven technologies. In particular, it offers a framework to evaluate the human rights compatibility of tech-assisted COVID-related state measures. The articles also explore analogies between COVID-related measures and post-2001 counter-terrorism actions taken by states in the name of public security. It cautions against exceptional measures becoming hardwired in ways that may unreasonably impact on pre-COVID freedoms. The article argues that the blurring of state and corporate surveillance and data-gathering and the often symbiotic relationship between tech firms and governments (the ‘state-corporate complex’) complicate efforts to assert clear frames of responsibility.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  

Abstract The 21st century has been marked by trans-national epidemics of SARs, MERS, Ebola and most recently COVID-19. In spite of WHO advice to the contrary, some States have responded by closing their borders to persons travelling from certain countries. International human rights law permits restrictions of movement to protect public health, subject to strict tests of necessity and proportionality. To a potentially unprecedented degree, however, the spread of COVID-19 has brought to the fore the use of social distancing measures, and a surge in demand for health care, both of which raise significant questions of equity given disparities in wealth and income within and across populations. This panel discussion will explore how a human rights-based approach supports evidence-based responses to epidemics of infectious diseases, and why a human rights-based response may be more effective than other measures in addressing these global threats. Issues covered will include: Advantages and possible limitations of a human rights-based approach to infectious epidemics.Emerging questions of human rights, distributive justice, regulatory authority and efficacy associated with sustained social distancing measures and the management of health care access in a time of surging demand.Early evidence of the health and social impact of legal responses to COVID-19. Key messages States have both obligations and limitations under international human rights law in preventing and responding to infectious epidemics. The large-scale application of social distancing approaches can create acute pressure on poorer people and poses legal, moral and practical questions about the social burdens of disease control.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document