Many global health issues, almost by definition, do not recognize state borders and therefore require bi-lateral, or more often multi-lateral international solutions. These latter solutions are articulated in international instruments (declarations, conventions, treaties, constitutions of international bodies, etc). However, the gap between formal adoption of such instruments by signatory states and substantive implementation of the articulated solutions can be very wide. This paper surveys a selection of international legal instruments, including those where the sought after positive outcomes have been achieved, (...) and those that have been ineffective, with little or no real progress being made. The paper looks for commonalities, both in the nature of the problems and the forms of the international legal instruments, to seek answers as to why some instruments ultimately succeeded where others failed. It also provides some guidance to law/ treaty makers to help ensure that they frame future instruments in such a way as to maximize the probability that those instruments will have a substantive positive impact on global health and health rights. (shrink)

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. (shrink)