Global Health Security

Global (public) health security is defined by the World Health Organization as the activities required, both proactive and reactive, to minimize the danger and impact of acute public health events that endanger people’s health across geographical regions and international boundaries. This definition is normative in that it tells us how global health security ought to be done. It does not explain how “activities” should be enacted, or what should be done to “minimize” the danger and impact of public health events across geographical regions and international boundaries. The literature below is a sample of the rich research that has tried to grapple with the how and what questions of global health security. This entry includes research from a range of disciplines, including public health, political science, law, economics, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy. It is just a small sample but there are thematic continuities across the literature that led to the selection of the sections identified below. A large part of the literature providing General Overviews, in the 1990s and 2000s, examined the evolution of the definition of “global health security” as an extension of, or distinct from, national health security. The marriage of global health and security became the subject of much debate. In particular, what events constitute Securitization, which is the second theme of literature examined below? The evolution of Biosecurity literature emerged at the same time. Securitization literature is quite different from biosecurity literature in that biosecurity literature does not engage, for the most part, with discussions about the protection of peoples (as defined under global health security). This literature has been concerned primarily with the protection of states. The consequence of two health security literatures running at different tracks of inquiry is different approaches, interests, and prioritization of global health security. This has led to the proliferation of Multidisciplinary usage of the term “global health security” from a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives. However, gaps remain practice and research. A consistently neglected area of global health security is Inequalities. Who are the “peoples” in global health security practice and research? Finally, this entry examines the events where global health security is (or is not) “applied” to health threats, which is examined in the Outbreaks section.

Author(s):  
Heath J Benton

This chapter traces the normative challenges underlying the legal framework for health security. Today’s challenges can be understood as the result of three successive stages of development in global health law. First was the securitization of global public health, whereby a diffuse group of international and national health officials, outside experts, and advocates worked to redefine infectious disease outbreaks as a critical national and international security issue. Secondly, this concept of global health security was inscribed in law through the 2005 revisions to the International Health Regulations, which adopted a governance framework that appeared to be deliberately modelled on domestic emergency powers regimes. Thirdly, this development, rather than settling the World Health Organization’s (WHO) authority in health emergencies, has in turn set off waves of contestation that concern the nature of global health security and how it should be institutionalized. This includes contestation about the internal governance arrangements within the WHO; external conflicts of jurisdiction between the WHO and other institutions; and disagreement about the normative orientation and scope of the WHO’s emergency power.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 568-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick M. Burkle

AbstractIf the Ebola tragedy of West Africa has taught us anything, it should be that the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) Treaty, which gave unprecedented authority to the World Health Organization (WHO) to provide global public health security during public health emergencies of international concern, has fallen severely short of its original goal. After encouraging successes with the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic, the intent of the legally binding Treaty to improve the capacity of all countries to detect, assess, notify, and respond to public health threats has shamefully lapsed. Despite the granting of 2-year extensions in 2012 to countries to meet core surveillance and response requirements, less than 20% of countries have complied. Today it is not realistic to expect that these gaps will be solved or narrowed in the foreseeable future by the IHR or the WHO alone under current provisions. The unfortunate failures that culminated in an inadequate response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa are multifactorial, including funding, staffing, and poor leadership decisions, but all are reversible. A rush by the Global Health Security Agenda partners to fill critical gaps in administrative and operational areas has been crucial in the short term, but questions remain as to the real priorities of the G20 as time elapses and critical gaps in public health protections and infrastructure take precedence over the economic and security needs of the developed world. The response from the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network and foreign medical teams to Ebola proved indispensable to global health security, but both deserve stronger strategic capacity support and institutional status under the WHO leadership granted by the IHR Treaty. Treaties are the most successful means the world has in preventing, preparing for, and controlling epidemics in an increasingly globalized world. Other options are not sustainable. Given the gravity of ongoing failed treaty management, the slow and incomplete process of reform, the magnitude and complexity of infectious disease outbreaks, and the rising severity of public health emergencies, a recommitment must be made to complete and restore the original mandates as a collaborative and coordinated global network responsibility, not one left to the actions of individual countries. The bottom line is that the global community can no longer tolerate an ineffectual and passive international response system. As such, this Treaty has the potential to become one of the most effective treaties for crisis response and risk reduction worldwide. Practitioners and health decision-makers worldwide must break their silence and advocate for a stronger Treaty and a return of WHO authority. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:568–580)


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
Syed Kadri ◽  
Saleem-ur Rehman ◽  
Kausar Rehana ◽  
Ailbhe Brady ◽  
Vijay Chattu

Mumps is a public health problem on a global scale caused by mumps virus, a member of family paramyxoviridae. An effective form of vaccination exists and is incorporated into routine immunization schedules in over 100 countries, usually in the form of the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. This is not the case in India, as mumps is not viewed as a significant enough public health problem by the government to warrant such an intervention. This original research paper discusses about outbreaks of mumps in Kashmir, India and aims to add to the body of literature to support the routine immunization with the mumps vaccine. From July to September 2017, there were 15 outbreaks and 260 cases of mumps recorded in the region by the Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP). We conclude that the Indian Government should include the MMR vaccination in the Universal Immunization Programme. This would result in clinical and economic benefits by reducing outbreaks and associated morbidity of mumps, in addition to tackling the recognized morbidity and mortality of rubella and measles. To support the global health security, there is a great need to strengthen surveillance, adhere to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (IHRs), and pay attention to emerging and re-emerging infectious agents, including paramyxovirus group.


Economies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Noura Eissa

The motive behind this article is investigating alternative indicator measures for the effectiveness of public health expenditure on pandemic preparedness, to explain the reasons behind country variations in containing crises such as Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose is to analyse the shortcomings in the relationship between global public health expenditure and pandemic preparedness. The research methodology includes a macro-analysis of global health spending patterns, empirical and theoretical literature on global health expenditure, global health security indexes, and country case studies pre- and post-crisis. The results show that gaps in pandemic preparedness were already existent pre-COVID-19, calling for a new mind-set in the way public health expenditure is structured. Healthcare sustainability indicators should transition from traditional measures such as economic growth rates, public health expenditure rates, revenue coming from the healthcare sector, and rankings in the global health security index, to new awareness indicators. Public health expenditure, a facilitator of pandemic preparedness, coupled with the resilience of healthcare systems, could be used in conjunction with the traditional factors, along with the time element of a quick response to pandemic through preparedness schemes, the progress towards achieving sustainable health through the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and investment in national healthcare capital to ensure efficient resource allocation. The policy recommendations are the restructuring of public expenditure to expand the absorptive capacities of healthcare institutes, eventually leading to sustainability and universal health insurance.


Author(s):  
Roojin Habibi ◽  
Steven J. Hoffman ◽  
Gian Luca Burci ◽  
Thana Cristina de Campos ◽  
Danwood Chirwa ◽  
...  

Abstract The International Health Regulations (ihr), of which the World Health Organization is custodian, govern how countries collectively promote global health security, including prevention, detection, and response to global health emergencies such as the ongoing covid-19 pandemic. Countries are permitted to exercise their sovereignty in taking additional health measures to respond to such emergencies if these measures adhere to Article 43 of this legally binding instrument. Overbroad measures taken during recent public health emergencies of international concern, however, reveal that the provision remains inadequately understood. A shared understanding of the measures legally permitted by Article 43 is a necessary step in ensuring the fulfillment of obligations, and fostering global solidarity and resilience in the face of future pandemics. In this consensus statement, public international law scholars specializing in global health consider the legal meaning of Article 43 using the interpretive framework of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsion Berhane Ghedamu ◽  
Benjamin Mason Meier

Immunization plays a crucial role in global health security, preventing public health emergencies of international concern and protecting individuals from infectious disease outbreaks, yet these critical public health benefits are dependent on immunization law. Where public health law has become central to preventing, detecting, and responding to infectious disease, public health law reform is seen as necessary to implement the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). This article examines national immunization laws as a basis to implement the GHSA and promote the public's health, analyzing the scope and content of these laws to prevent infectious disease across Sub-Saharan Africa. Undertaking policy surveillance of national immunization laws in 20 Sub-Saharan African countries, this study: (1) developed a legal framework to map the legal attributes relevant to immunization; (2) created an assessment tool to determine the presence of these attributes under national immunization law; and (3) applied this assessment tool to code national legal landscapes. An analysis of these coded laws highlights legal attributes that govern vaccine requirements, supply chains, vaccine administration standards, and medicines quality and manufacturer liability. Based upon this international policy surveillance, it will be crucial to undertake legal epidemiology research across countries, examining the influence of immunization law on vaccination rates and disease outbreaks.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 261-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Solomon ◽  
Claudia Nannini

Participation in the World Health Organization (WHO) is a multifaceted matter and should be understood as not only referring to the governance of WHO, but also to its scientific and technical work as well as its collaborative efforts towards advancing global public health more generally. The article is concerned, in particular, with the legal and political framework surrounding attendance and participation of states and various entities in the governing bodies of the Organization, at the global and regional level. It shows that participation in the governance of WHO is still today a domain reserved to the determination of its Member States. At the same time, solutions have been found and continued efforts are necessary to take into account geopolitical considerations and to ensure a meaningful and inclusive participation of all relevant actors in global health discussions.


2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen L Roberts ◽  
Stefan Elbe

How do algorithms shape the imaginary and practice of security? Does their proliferation point to a shift in the political rationality of security? If so, what is the nature and extent of that shift? This article argues that efforts to strengthen global health security are major drivers in the development and proliferation of new algorithmic security technologies. In response to a seeming epidemic of potentially lethal infectious disease outbreaks – including HIV/AIDS, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), pandemic flu, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Ebola and Zika – governments and international organizations are now using several next-generation syndromic surveillance systems to rapidly detect new outbreaks globally. This article analyses the origins, design and function of three such internet-based surveillance systems: (1) the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases, (2) the Global Public Health Intelligence Network and (3) HealthMap. The article shows how each newly introduced system became progressively more reliant upon algorithms to mine an ever-growing volume of indirect data sources for the earliest signs of a possible new outbreak – gradually propelling algorithms into the heart of global outbreak detection. That turn to the algorithm marks a significant shift in the underlying problem, nature and role of knowledge in contemporary security policy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-19
Author(s):  
Christopher Lowbridge ◽  
May Chiew ◽  
Katherine Russel ◽  
Takuya Yamagishi ◽  
Babatunde Olowokure ◽  
...  

In the World Health Organization’s Western Pacific Region, event-based surveillance has been conducted for more than a decade to rapidly detect and assess public health events. This report describes the establishment and evolution of the Western Pacific Region’s event-based surveillance system and presents an analysis of public health events in the Region. Between July 2008 and June 2017, a total of 2396 events were reported in the Western Pacific Region, an average of 266 events per year. Infectious diseases in humans and animals accounted for the largest proportion of events recorded during this period (73%, 1743 events). Maintaining and strengthening this well-established system is critical to support the rapid detection, assessment and response to public health events to sustain regional health security.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document