2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Pratik DIXIT

There is no time more opportune to review the workings of the International Health Regulations (IHR) than the present COVID-19 crisis. This article analyses the theoretical and practical aspects of international public health law (IPHL), particularly the IHR, to argue that it is woefully unprepared to protect human rights in times of a global public health crisis. To rectify this, the article argues that the IHR should design effective risk reduction and response strategies by incorporating concepts from international disaster law (IDL). Along similar lines, this article suggests that IDL also has a lot to learn from IPHL in terms of greater internationalisation and institutionalisation. Institutionalisation of IDL on par with IPHL will provide it with greater legitimacy, transparency and accountability. This article argues that greater cross-pollination of ideas between IDL and IPHL is necessary in order to make these disciplines more relevant for the future.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 445-454
Author(s):  
Stefania Negri

Author(s):  
Allyn Taylor

The evolution of United Nations treaties in the domain of public health over the last two decades is one of the most significant developments in public international law. Although public health is one of the earliest fields of international legal cooperation and one of the first domains in which an intergovernmental organization was created, the scope of international legal cooperation in public health was, until recently, highly limited. This chapter provides an overview of the contribution of United Nations treaties in the evolving field of international health law. It examines the historical origins and the factors contributing to its contemporary evolution. In addition, the chapter briefly reviews the contribution of UN organizations, especially the World Health Organization, to the codification efforts in this realm.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Klein

Cruise ships have contributed to the spread of covid-19 around the world and State responses to the pandemic have needed to account for the presence of these ships in their ports and the medical treatment of both passengers and crew on board. This contribution outlines the key bodies of international law that must be brought to bear in deciding on State action in response to cruise ships and their covid-19 cases: the law of the sea, international health law, shipping conventions and especially treaties protecting the rights of seafarers, international human rights law and laws relating to consular assistance. While these laws tend to reinforce each other, it is argued that the need for humanitarian considerations to feature strongly in State decision-making is challenged by systemic weaknesses.


2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Wilson ◽  
Abdallah S. Daar

In this paper we review selected international legal instruments, the effect, if any, that they have had on global health, and how these instruments might have contributed to the realization of health rights. We consider a number of instruments from the international health law field as well as two from the field of international environmental law.1 The latter two, in addition to the considerable link between health and climate/environment, are considered with the purpose of drawing more generalized lessons about what contributes to the success or failure of an international legal instrument; the lessons are then applied to our analysis of the health law instruments that are the primary focus of our paper.


Author(s):  
Jennifer Prah Ruger

WHO’s establishment in 1948 marked a new era, and “Health for All” became the hope. For decades, WHO was prominent in GHG, coordinating worldwide efforts against smallpox, handling international reporting, and managing disease outbreaks through the IHR. Still today, the world community expects WHO to solve global health governance problems, and maintain its unique coordinating function. It is the only agency with authority to develop and implement international health law. But today’s WHO is a weakened institution, riddled with budgetary problems, power politics, and diminished reputation. WHO’s failings in the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak demonstrated that it lacks the capacity to prevent and contain pandemics. Nor does it have coordination capacity, accountability, a master global health plan, or reliable compliance mechanisms. WHO’s vision of “Health for All” remains unfulfilled. Other UN agencies have important health functions but present vexing issues of their own.


2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme Laurie

The right not to know is a contested matter. This can be because the inversion of the normal framing of entitlement to information about one's own health is thought to be illogical and inconsistent with self-authorship and/or because the very idea of claiming a right not to know information is an inappropriate appeal to the discourse of rights that places impossible responsibilities on others. Notwithstanding, there has been a sustained increase in this kind of appeal in recent years fueled in large part by the rise and rise of the importance of personal autonomy in health care ethics, and by domestic and international health law. The right not to know has been acknowledged in at least two important international legal instruments. For example, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997), Article 5c provides: “The right of every individual to decide whether or not to be informed of the results of genetic examination and the resulting consequences should be respected.”


2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 588-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dhrubajyoti Bhattacharya

H5N1 avian influenza has reportedly claimed the lives of 186 persons worldwide, 77 of whom resided in Indonesia. On February 7, 2007, the government of Indonesia announced that it would withhold strains of H5N1 avian influenza virus from the World Health Organization (WHO). On the same day, Indonesia signed a memorandum of agreement with Baxter Healthcare, a United States-based company, to purchase samples and presumably ensure access to subsequent vaccines at a discount.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document