scholarly journals A pandemic treaty, revised international health regulations, or both?

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Labonté ◽  
Mary Wiktorowicz ◽  
Corinne Packer ◽  
Arne Ruckert ◽  
Kumanan Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Health ◽  
Global South ◽  
World Health ◽  
Main Body ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Pandemic Preparedness ◽  
Member States ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Vaccine Distribution ◽  
Health Regulations

Abstract Background A special session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) will be convened in late 2021 to consider developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response – a so-called ‘Pandemic Treaty’. Consideration is given to this treaty as well as to reform of the International Health Regulations (IHR) as our principal governing instrument to prevent and mitigate future pandemics. Main body Reasons exist to continue to work with the IHR as our principal governing instrument to prevent and mitigate future pandemics. All WHO member states are party to it. It gives the WHO the authority to oversee the collection of surveillance data and to issue recommendations on trade and travel advisories to control the spread of infectious diseases, among other things. However, the limitations of the IHR in addressing the deep prevention of future pandemics also must be recognized. These include a lack of a regulatory framework to prevent zoonotic spillovers. More advanced multi-sectoral measures are also needed. At the same time, a pandemic treaty would have potential benefits and drawbacks as well. It would be a means of addressing the gross inequity in global vaccine distribution and other gaps in the IHR, but it would also need more involvement at the negotiation table of countries in the Global South, significant funding, and likely many years to adopt. Conclusions Reform of the IHR should be undertaken while engaging with WHO member states (and notably those from the Global South) in discussions on the possible benefits, drawbacks and scope of a new pandemic treaty. Both options are not mutually exclusive.

scholarly journals Developing a multisectoral National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) to implement the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) in Tanzania

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e000600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janneth M Mghamba ◽  
Ambrose O Talisuna ◽  
Ludy Suryantoro ◽  
Grace Elizabeth Saguti ◽  
Martin Muita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Action Plan ◽  
International Health ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Health Security ◽  
National Action Plan ◽  
Health Regulations

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa precipitated a renewed momentum to ensure global health security through the expedited and full implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) in all WHO member states. The updated IHR (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was shared with Member States in 2015 with one mandatory component, that is, States Parties annual reporting to the World Health Assembly (WHA) on compliance and three voluntary components: Joint External Evaluation (JEE), After Action Reviews and Simulation Exercises. In February 2016, Tanzania, was the first country globally to volunteer to do a JEE and the first to use the recommendations for priority actions from the JEE to develop a National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) by February 2017. The JEE demonstrated that within the majority of the 47 indicators within the 19 technical areas, Tanzania had either ‘limited capacity’ or ‘developed capacity’. None had ‘sustainable capacity’. With JEE recommendations for priority actions, recommendations from other relevant assessments and complementary objectives, Tanzania developed the NAPHS through a nationwide consultative and participatory process. The 5-year cost estimate came out to approximately US$86.6 million (22 million for prevent, 50 million for detect, 4.8 million for respond and 9.2 million for other IHR hazards and points of entry). However, with the inclusion of vaccines for zoonotic diseases in animals increases the cost sevenfold. The importance of strong country ownership and committed leadership were identified as instrumental for the development of operationally focused NAPHS that are aligned with broader national plans across multiple sectors. Key lessons learnt by Tanzania can help guide and encourage other countries to translate their JEE priority actions into a realistic costed NAPHS for funding and implementation for IHR (2005).

scholarly journals Intergovernmental working group to take forward revision of the International Health Regulations

2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (22) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Working Group ◽  
International Health ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Member States ◽  
World Health Assembly ◽  
Health Regulations

The 56th World Health Assembly, which convened 19-28 May 2003, has decided to establish and intergovernmental working group open to all member states to review and recommend a draft revision of the International Health Regulations (1, 2).

scholarly journals (Non) Compliance with the International Health Regulations of the WHO from the Perspective of the Law of International Responsibility

Global Jurist ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Spagnolo
Keyword(s):  
International Health ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Viable Solution ◽  
Travel Restrictions ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Health Regulations

Abstract International Health Regulations (IHR) of the World Health Organization (WHO) are fundamental to ensure an adequate response of the international community to health emergencies such as the spread of the virus Ebola in 2014. This notwithstanding, WHO's Member States appear reluctant to comply with the IHR and in particular they violate the ban on unnecessary trade and travel restrictions. After having presented the lack of compliance with the IHR, the present article analyses the means at the disposal of the WHO for sanctioning the behaviour of its Member States, both from the perspective of WHO's internal rules and from the perspective of the law of international responsibility, evaluating if countermeasures might represent a viable solution. The conclusions will offer a broad reflection on the codification process of the rules on the responsibility of international organisations concluded by the International Law Commission in 2011.

scholarly journals Review of measles-related events recorded by the National IHR Focal Point in Poland in the years 2016-2018

2019 ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulina Maria Nowicka ◽  
Radosław Izdebski ◽  
Wioleta Kitowska ◽  
Janusz Janiec ◽  
Joanna Bogusz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focal Point ◽  
International Health ◽  
World Health ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Time Period ◽  
International Importance ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Health Regulations

Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO), in accordance with the requirements of the International Health Regulations (2005), were obliged to establish National Focal Points for International Health Regulations (IHR NFP), whose task is, among others, consolidating information on public health events of international importance that occur abroad or in the country. The aim of this article is to review information on measles-related events posted on the Event Information Site for IHR National Focal Points, in the Early Warning and Response System (EWRS), received by email directly from other IHR National Focal Points located in WHO member states, and from all organs of the State Sanitary Inspectorate in Poland in the years 2016-2018. In this time period, the IHR NFP recorded 92 measles-related events of which 38 related to individual cases, 37 to outbreaks of the disease, and 17 involved exposure to a measles case. 36% of reported events were aviationrelated. The number of events in 2018 has tripled compared to 2017 and increased eightfold in comparison to 2016. The current situation indicates the need to take appropriate actions, including implementation of the National Vaccination Program as well as introducing vaccination interventions.

scholarly journals Implementing the International Health Regulations (2005) in Europe

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 3-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Rodier ◽  
M Hardiman ◽  
B Plotkin ◽  
B Ganter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
International Health ◽  
World Health ◽  
Intersectoral Collaboration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Public Health Response ◽  
Member States ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Health Regulations

The adoption of the International Health Regulations (2005) (also referred to as IHR(2005) or the revised Regulations) provides a remarkable new legal tool for the protection of international public health. Upon entry into force on 15 June 2007, Article 2 (‘Purpose and scope‘) provides that the overall focus of the efforts of States Parties (and World Health Organization's efforts) under the revised Regulations will be to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with the public health risks and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic. Health measures under the revised Regulations will be implemented with respect for travellers’ human rights, with several specific new requirements in this area. To comply with the IHR (2005), States Parties (WHO member states that will be bound by the IHR(2005)) will have to have core public health capacities in disease surveillance and response, as well as additional capacities at designated international ports, airports and land crossings. This unique collective commitment will require close collaboration between WHO and the States Parties, but also intersectoral collaboration within the States themselves, including collaboration among different administrative or governmental levels, a particular issue for federal states, and horizontally across ministries and disciplines. Collaboration among States Parties is a key aspect of the revised Regulations, whether among neighbours, or with trading partners, members of regional economic integration organisations or other regional groups, or simply members of the international community. This collaboration is particularly relevant for the Member States of the European Union.

scholarly journals New International Health Regulations come into force

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (23) ◽  
Author(s):  
Collective Editorial team
Keyword(s):  
World Health Organization ◽  
International Health ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Member States ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Health Regulations

On 15 June 2007, the revised International Health Regulations (IHR) will come into force. Agreed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005, the revised IHR provide a multilateral legal framework for how the WHO’s 193 Member States handle disease outbreaks and other emergencies.

scholarly journals European Web-Based Platform for Recording International Health Regulations Ship Sanitation Certificates: Results and Perspectives

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 1833
Author(s):  
Varvara Mouchtouri ◽  
Diederik Van Reusel ◽  
Nikolaos Bitsolas ◽  
Antonis Katsioulis ◽  
Raf Van den Bogaert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Information System ◽  
Data Exchange ◽  
International Health ◽  
Water Quality Monitoring ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
World Health ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
International Health Regulations ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Health Regulations

The purpose of this study was to report the data analysis results from the International Health Regulations (2005) Ship Sanitation Certificates (SSCs), recorded in the European Information System (EIS). International sea trade and population movements by ships can contribute to the global spread of diseases. SSCs are issued to ensure the implementation of control measures if a public health risk exists on board. EIS designed according to the World Health Organization (WHO) “Handbook for Inspection of Ships and Issuance of SSC”. Inspection data were recorded and SSCs issued by inspectors working at European ports were analysed. From July 2011–February 2017, 107 inspectors working at 54 ports in 11 countries inspected 5579 ships. Of these, there were 29 types under 85 flags (including 19 EU Member States flags). As per IHR (2005) 10,281 Ship Sanitation Control Exception Certificates (SSCECs) and 296 Ship Sanitation Control Certificates (SSCCs) were issued, 74 extensions to existing SSCs were given, 7565 inspection findings were recorded, and 47 inspections were recorded without issuing an SSC. The most frequent inspection findings were the lack of potable water quality monitoring reports (23%). Ships aged ≥12 years (odds ratio, OR = 1.77, 95% confidence intervals, CI = 1.37–2.29) with an absence of cargo at time of inspection (OR = 3.36, 95% CI = 2.51–4.50) had a higher probability of receiving an SSCC, while ships under the EU MS flag had a lower probability of having inspection findings (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.66–0.79). Risk factors to prioritise the inspections according to IHR were identified by using the EIS. A global information system, or connection of national or regional information systems and data exchange, could help to better implement SSCs using common standards and procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document