McDonough Hall, Room 508, 600 New Jersey Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA; Email: gostin{at}law.georgetown.edu ' + u + '@' + d + ' '//--> Abstract As a consequence of rapid globalization, the need for a coherent system of global health law and governance has never been greater. This article explores the health hazards posed by contemporary globalization on human health and the consequent urgent need for global health law to facilitate effective multilateral cooperation (...) in advancing the health of populations equitably. It sets forth the first definition of the emerging field of "global health law." After explicating the central features identified in the definition, the article examines the "grand challenges" to reaching the full potential of global health law to advance human health in just and effective ways. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Following from sweeping law reforms across the global health landscape, there is a need to prepare the next generation to advance global health law to ensure justice for a healthier world. Educational programs across disciplines have increasingly incorporated the field of global health law, with new courses examining the law and policy frameworks that apply to the new set of public health threats, non-state actors, and regulatory instruments that structure global health. (...) Such interdisciplinary training must be expanded throughout the world to prepare future practitioners to strengthen global health law — ensuring a foundation for global health in legal studies and law and global health studies. Meeting this imperative for global health law teaching — establishing academic courses and textbooks on global legal responses to shared health threats — will be necessary to support students to address the global health challenges of the future. (shrink)

Global health law for pandemics currently lacks legal obligations to ensure distributional and reparative justice. In contrast, international environmental law contains several novel international legal mechanisms aimed at addressing the effects of colonialism and global injustices that arise from the disproportionate contributions to — and impacts of — climate change and biodiversity loss.

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly High-Level Meeting (HLM) on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) was a missed opportunity to bring high-level commitment and momentum to the global governance of health emergencies. Intended to bring much-needed attention to a policy issue that is rapidly slipping down the international agenda, the fraught diplomacy among member states, lack of consensus on key issues, and weak UN Political Declaration in New York foreshadow a difficult road ahead for upcoming negotiations under (...) the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva. This column chronicles the evolving engagement of the UN in global health governance, examines the diplomatic process leading to the UN HLM on PPPR, and assesses the contributions and missed opportunities of its resulting Political Declaration. (shrink)

This is a pivotal moment in the global governance response to pandemic threats, with crucial global health law reforms being undertaken simultaneously in the coming years: the revision of the International Health Regulations, the implementation of the GHSA Legal Preparedness Action Package, and the negotiation of a new Pandemic Treaty. Rather than looking at these reforms in isolation, it will be necessary to examine how they fit together, considering: how these reforms can complement each other to (...) support pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response; what financing mechanisms are necessary to ensure sustainable health governance; and why vital norms of equity, social justice, and human rights must underpin this new global health system. (shrink)

The emerging global climate crisis threatens human health in unprecedented ways, yet global health concerns have not been sufficiently considered within international climate change efforts. A more collaborative pathway could advance efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change while protecting public health and social justice.

While human rights law has evolved to provide guidance to governments in realizing human rights in public health emergencies, the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the foundations of human rights in global health governance. Public health responses to the pandemic have undermined international human rights obligations to realize the rights to health and life, human rights that underlie public health, and international assistance and cooperation. As governments prepare for revisions of global health law, (...) new opportunities are presented to harmonize global health law and human rights law, strengthening rights-based governance to respond to future threats. (shrink)

The connection between health and human rights continues to play a prominent role within global health law. In particular, a number of theorists rely on the claim that there is a relation of interdependence between health and human rights. The nature and extent of this relation, however, is rarely defined, developed or defended in a conceptually robust way. This paper seeks to explore the source, scope and strength of this putative relation and what role it might (...) play in developing a global health law framework. (shrink)

This paper argues that the existing definition of pandemics is not nuanced enough, because it is predicated solely on the criterion of spread, rather than on the criteria of spread and severity. This definitional challenge is what I call ‘the conflation problem’: there is a conflation of two different realities of global health, namely global health emergencies (i.e., severe communicable diseases that spread across borders) and nonemergencies (i.e., communicable or noncommunicable diseases that spread across borders and (...) that may be severe). To put this argument forth, this paper begins by discussing the existing and internationally accepted definition of pandemics, its requirements, as well as its strengths (section 1). Section 2 then considers the problem with the standard definition of pandemics (i.e., the conflation problem) and some examples of it. Finally, section 3 evaluates some practical implications of the conflation problem to then explore conceptual clarity as the adequate solution. (shrink)

Both gender and the law are significant determinants of health and well-being. Here, we put forward evidence to unpack the relationship between gender and outcomes in health and well-being, and explore how legal determinants interact and intersect with gender norms to amplify or reduce health inequities across populations. The paper explores the similarities between legal and health systems in their response to gender—both systems portray gender neutrality but would be better described as gender-blind. We conclude with (...) a set of recommendations to address both law and gender in implementing the work of the Lancet Commission on the legal determinants of health to improve health outcomes for all, irrespective of gender. (shrink)

This article introduces a special issue on the legal determinants of health, following the publication of the Lancet–O’Neill Institute of Georgetown University Commission’s report on the subject. We contextualize legal determinants as a significant and vital aspect of the social determinants of health, explain the work of the Lancet–O’Neill Commission and outline where consequent research will usefully be directed. We also introduce the papers that follow in the special issue, which together set out in greater detail the work (...) of the Commission and critically engage with different aspects of the report and the application of its findings and recommendations. (shrink)

I would like to extend my appreciation to the planning committee of this outstanding conference, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics for allowing me to have this great opportunity to share my experience in teaching and studying medical and public health law and ethics with my U.S. colleagues. This morning, USA Today is reporting that Brundtland, the Director General of the World Health Organization, finally declared that the aggressive (...) control measures have stopped SARS. I think it is a special achievement on her part as she departs the WHO in less than two weeks. The new Director General of the WHO, JW Lee, is a close friend of mine. (shrink)

I would like to extend my appreciation to the planning committee of this outstanding conference, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics for allowing me to have this great opportunity to share my experience in teaching and studying medical and public health law and ethics with my U.S. colleagues. This morning, USA Today is reporting that Brundtland, the Director General of the World Health Organization, finally declared that the aggressive (...) control measures have stopped SARS. I think it is a special achievement on her part as she departs the WHO in less than two weeks. The new Director General of the WHO, JW Lee, is a close friend of mine. (shrink)

The most common response to the challenge of protecting health through law is to focus on protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals and to enhance their access to health care. Each one of us is vulnerable or potentially vulnerable because of the fragile, existential nature of the human condition. Catastrophic and unexpected events could instantaneously transform us from a state of total independence and potential vulnerability to one of extreme vulnerability and complete dependence. Some legal provisions have the (...) potential to provide a modicum of protection when we find ourselves in those situations. There are also legal provisions that contribute to beneficial social circumstances; for example, legislation enabling universal access to medical care, and operationalizing respect for the individual’s right to health care, as advocated for by other authors in this issue. (shrink)

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. 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: developed a legal framework to map the legal attributes relevant to immunization; created an assessment tool to determine the presence of these attributes under national immunization law; and 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. (shrink)

Given the fragility of individual and population wellbeing in an interdependent world threatened by many overlapping crises, the suggestion is made that new legal mechanisms have the robust potential to reduce human vulnerability locally and globally.

The singular message in Global Health Law is that we must strive to achieve global health with justice—improved population health, with a fairer distribution of benefits of good health. Global health entails ensuring the conditions of good health—public health, universal health coverage, and the social determinants of health—while justice requires closing today’s vast domestic and global health inequities. These conditions for good health should be incorporated (...) into public policy, supplemented by specific actions to overcome barriers to equity. A new global health treaty grounded in the right to health and aimed at health equity—a Framework Convention on Global Health —stands out for its possibilities in helping to achieve global health with justice. This far-reaching legal instrument would establish minimum standards for universal health coverage and public health measures, with an accompanying national and international financing framework, require a constant focus on health equity, promote Health in All Policies and global governance for health, and advance the principles of good governance, including accountability. While achieving an FCGH is certainly ambitious, it is a struggle worth the efforts of us all. The treaty’s basis in the right to health, which has been agreed to by all governments, has powerful potential to form the foundation of global governance for health. From interpretations of UN treaty bodies to judgments of national courts, the right to health is now sufficiently articulated to serve this role, with the individual’s right to health best understood as a function of a social, political, and economic environment aimed at equity. However great the political challenge of securing state agreement to the FCGH, it is possible. States have joined other treaties with significant resource requirements and limitations on their sovereignty without significant reciprocal benefits from other states, while important state interests would benefit from the FCGH. And from integrating the FCGH into the existing human rights system to creative forms of compliance and enforcement and strengthened domestic legal and political accountability mechanisms, the treaty stands to improve right to health compliance. The potential for the FCGH to bring the right to health nearer universal reality calls for us to embark on the journey towards securing this global treaty. (shrink)

This paper reflects on Lawrence Gostin’s Global Health Law. In so doing seeks to contribute to the debate about how global health justice is best conceived and achieved. Gostin’s vision of global health is one which is communal and in which health is directly connected to other justice concerns. Hence the need for health-in-all policies, and the importance of focusing on basic and communal health goods rather than high-tech and individual ones. (...) This paper asks whether this broadly communal vision of global health justice is best served by making the right to health central to the project. It explores a number of reasons why rights-talk might be problematic in the context of health justice; namely, structurally, rights are individual and state-centric and politically, they are oppositional and better suited to single-issue campaigns. The paper argues that stripping rights of their individualist assumptions is difficult, and perhaps impossible, and hence alternative approaches, such as those Gostin endorses based on global public goods and health security, might deliver much, perhaps most, global health goods, while avoiding the problems of rights-talk. (shrink)

The recent outbreak of Ebola in West Africa has killed thousands of people, including healthcare workers. African responses have been varied and largely ineffective. The WHO and the international community’s belated responses have yet to quell the epidemic. The crisis is characteristic of a failure to properly comply with the International Health Regulations 2005. More generally, it stems from a failure of international health justice as articulated by a range of legal institutions and instruments, and it should prompt (...) us to question the state and direction of approaches to the governance of global public health. This paper queries what might be done to lift global public health as a policy arena to the place of prominence that it deserves. It argues that there are at least two critical reasons for the past, present and easily anticipated future failings of the global public health regime. After exploring those, it then articulates a new way forward, identifying three courses of action that might be adopted in realising better health outcomes and global health justice, namely value, institutional and legal reform. (shrink)

In January 2010 the Director General of the World Health Organization called for an “informal consultation on the future of financing for WHO” and in her opening remarks expressed the need to make the WHO fit for purpose given the unique health challenges of the 21st century.Margaret Chan referred to the constitutional role that WHO has to “act as the directing and co-ordinating authority on international health work” and stated clearly that global health leadership today (...) and for the future must be earned through strategic and selective engagement. She said, “WHO can no longer aim to direct and coordinate all of the activities and policies in multiple sectors that influence public health today.” This is a clear challenge that she has put to the global health community in recognition that WHO’s role must be clarified in the face of major change. (shrink)

This article explores a unique opportunity for shaping public health law and policy to reflect a greater balance between public and private goods in two areas of primary concern to human well-being: medicine and human biosecurity. This opportunity is presented both by the rapid changes likely to occur in these areas as a result of nanotechnology and the fact that multinational corporate actors have not yet had the opportunity to use their well-honed techniques of governance influence to modify public (...) health policy and law in this area to their own narrowly focused advantage. Such a rare opportunity to rethink some fundamental assumptions about a regulatory framework for globally important health issues in advance is one reason why issues concerning nanotechnology regulation in medicine and human biosecurity should have considerable interest to health law and policy scholars. (shrink)

The Lancet–O’Neill Institute/Georgetown University Commission on Global Health and Law published its report on the Legal Determinants of Health in 2019. The term ‘legal determinants of health’ draws attention to the power of law to influence upstream social and economic influences on population health. In this article, we introduce the Commission, including its background and rationale, set out its methodology, summarize its key findings and recommendations and reflect on its impact since publication. We also look (...) to the future, making suggestions as to how the global health community can make the best use of the Commission’s momentum in relation to using law and legal tools to advance population health. (shrink)

In Australia, Japan, Sweden, and Switzerland, the average life expectancy is now greater than 80 years. But in Angola, Malawi, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe, the average life expectancy is less than 40 years. The situation is even worse than these statistics suggest because average figures tend to mask inequalities within countries. What are we to make of a world with such unequal health prospects? What does justice demand in terms of global health? To address these questions, I (...) characterize justice at the local level, at the domestic or social level, and at the international or global level. Because social conditions, structures, and institutions have such a profound influence on the health of populations, I begin by focusing attention on the relationship between social justice and health prospects. Then I go on to discuss health prospects and the problem of global justice. Here I distinguish two views: a cosmopolitan view and a political view of global justice. In my account of global justice, I modify and use the political view that John Rawls developed in The Law of Peoples. I try to show why an adequate political account must include three duties: a duty not to harm, a duty to reconstruct international arrangements, and a duty to assist. (shrink)

Global Health Needs and the Short-Term Medical Volunteer: Ethical Considerations Content Type Journal Article Pages 71-78 DOI 10.1007/s10730-011-9158-5 Authors Michele K. Langowski, Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Salus Center, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette, 5th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63104-1314, USA Ana S. Iltis, Department of Philosophy and Center for Bioethics, Health and Society, Wake Forest University, P.O. Box 7332, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA Journal HEC Forum Online ISSN 1572-8498 Print ISSN 0956-2737 Journal Volume (...) Volume 23 Journal Issue Volume 23, Number 2. (shrink)

The field of global health has reached a critical juncture, where both its visibility and the complexity of its challenges are unprecedented. The World Health Organization, as the only global health actor possessing both democratic and formal legal legitimacy, is best positioned to capitalize on this new, precarious situation in public health and respond with the governance innovation that is needed to bring the increasingly chaotic network of activities and entities affecting health outcomes (...) under the fold of a centralized, standard-setting agency. One such proposed innovation to guide normative and strategic coordination in global health is the creation of a Committee C of the World Health Assembly that would promote consensus building and multi-stakeholder decision-making within the unique convening power of the World Health Organization. (shrink)

The central role of Health Care Analysis is to advance discourses between philosophy, health, and policy. Within that very wide-ranging agenda, perhaps the most complex challenges are in global health. In countries across the world, many, many populations are unable to enjoy conditions in which they can be healthy. The barriers to change are political, economic, social, regulatory, legal, and philosophical. Lawrence Gostin’s recent book on Global Health Law therefore marks a contribution of the (...) highest importance, marrying practical and philosophical agendas, and aiming at achieving global health with justice. -/- To progress the important work of Gostin’s book, the current journal issue draws together leading scholars in moral and political philosophy, economics, and law, with a shared interest in questions of global justice. In the first paper, Eric Friedman and Lawrence Gostin provide a clear overview of the practical and theoretical global health challenges and their response to these. Their analysis is followed by stimulating contributions from Norman Daniels, Jennifer Prah Ruger, Shawn Harmon, Attiya Waris and Laila Abdul Latif, Heather Widdows, and A.M. Viens, each engaging with questions raised by Global Health Law. The different papers underscore the significance of this area of inquiry, and the imperative to bring insights from scholarly work into global health practice. (shrink)

This paper considers how best to approach dilemmas posed to global health and biosecurity policy by increasing advances in practical applications of nanotechnology. The type of nano-technology policy dilemmas discussed include: expenditure of public funds, public-funded research priorities, public confidence in government and science and, finally, public safety. The article examines the value in this context of a legal obligation that the development of relevant public health law be calibrated against less corporate-infuenced norms issuing from bioethics and (...) international human rights. (shrink)

In May 2009 the World Health Assembly passed a resolution on reducing health inequities through action on the social determinants of health, based on the work of the global Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2005–2008. The Commission's genesis and findings raise some important questions for global health governance. We draw out some of the essential elements, themes, and mechanisms that shaped the Commission. We start by examining the evolving nature of global (...) health and the Commission's foundational inspiration – the universal pattern of health inequity and the imperative, driven by a sense of social justice, to make better and more equal health a global goal. We look at how the Commission was established, how it was structured internally, and how it developed external relationships – with the World Health Organization, with global networks of academics and practitioners, with country governments eager to spearhead action on health equity, and with civil society. We outline the Commission's recommendations as they relate to the architecture of global health governance. Finally, we look at how the Commission is catalyzing a movement to bring social determinants of health to the forefront of international and national policy discourse. (shrink)

Judging by their contribution to the global burden of death and disability, chronic, non-communicable diseases are the most serious health challenge facing the world today. The statistics tell a frightening story. Over 35 million people died from chronic diseases in 2005 — principally cardiovascular disease, cancer, and chronic respiratory disease. Driven by population growth and population ageing, deaths from non-communicable diseases are expected to increase by 17% over the period 2005-2015, accounting for 69% of global deaths by (...) 2030.Cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in all regions except sub-Saharan Africa, is estimated to rise from 17.1 million deaths to 23.4 million deaths. Cancer deaths will increase from 7.4 million to 11.8 million over the same period. Due to population growth, mergers and acquisitions, and the marketing of global cigarette brands in developing countries, deaths from tobacco will rise from 5.4 million per year, through 6.4 million, to 8.3 million by 2030. These figures include a doubling in tobacco deaths in low- and middle-income countries from 3.4 million to 6.8 million lives annually. By 2015, smoking will cause 50% more deaths than HIV/AIDS. (shrink)

On August 28, 2008, Michael Marmot, Chair of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health, formally handed over the Commission’s Final Report to Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. It was a significant moment. Dr. Chan addressed a hall packed with representatives of the world’s communications media in a speech that was remarkably direct. Dr. Chan reiterated the Commission’s position that to improve health and health equity (...) action needs to be taken not just across the health sector but across all social and economic policy areas, and stated, “Social deprivation is not a matter of fate. It is a marker of policy failure.” This was a bold statement from one of the world’s leading diplomats. Policy failure! The phrase echoes the Commission’s assertion that “a toxic combination of poor social policies, unfair economic arrangements and bad politics is killing people on a grand scale.” The Commission’s messages are far reaching. (shrink)

Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than the one where they sprang up.

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. 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.

Global health is a concept which in recent years has evoked a lot of interest from both academics, politicians, celebrities, and the media. The term “global health” implies a globally shared responsibility to provide health as a public good through an expansive number of initiatives. This emerging era of consciousness about our international interdependence, regardless of a problem’s geographic location or type of disease, may be a good moment for exploring the strengths and weaknesses of (...) an international law approach to global health challenges: a global health convention.The most prominent global health initiatives are the Millennium Development Goals, the 2005 Paris Declaration Process on Aid Effectiveness on the need for alignment and coordination, and the 2008 Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. These instruments have yet to prove their value, and the funds annually disbursed, approximately $25 billion in 2009, could have better effect if the negotiated principles from the PDP and the AHLF were followed. (shrink)

In February 2007, Indonesia withheld sharing H5N1 viral samples in order to compel the World Health Organization and Member States to guarantee future access to vaccines for States disproportionately burdened by infectious diseases. This article explores conceptual and temporal fallacies in the International Health Regulations and the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, as relates to global public health preparedness. Recommendations include adopting laws to facilitate non-pharmaceutical interventions; securing the rights of affected (...) populations; and fostering inter-State collaborations to promote intra-State public health capacity building. (shrink)

The problems of global health are truly terrible. Millions suffer and die from diseases like tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malaria. One way of addressing these problems is via a Global Health Impact labeling campaign. If even a small percentage of consumers promote global health by purchasing Global Health Impact products, the incentive to use this label will be substantial. One might wonder, however, whether consumers are morally obligation to purchase any these goods or (...) whether doing so is even morally permissible. This paper suggests that if the proposal is implemented, purchasing Global Health Impact labelled goods is at least morally permissible, if not morally required. Its argument should, moreover, be of much more general interest to those considering different kinds of ethical consumption. (shrink)

This paper considers how we can conceptualize a “global response” to chronic, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) – including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and tobacco-related diseases. These diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in developed countries, and also in developing countries outside sub-Saharan Africa. The paper reviews emerging and proposed initiatives for global NCD governance, explains why NCDs merit a global response, and the ways in which global initiatives ultimately benefit national health outcomes. As (...) the global response to NCDs matures, and the number of initiatives and partnerships increases, it will become increasingly important to map their respective contributions, and to evaluate progress overall. It is not yet clear what institutional mechanism, if any, will rise above the sea of surrounding initiatives to play this global role. This paper therefore aims to provide a conceptual map for making sense of what individual initiatives contribute to global governance. This map also draws attention to the distinctively “global” public health functions that a global response to NCDs should seek to discharge. (shrink)

The vision of global health with justice which Larry Gostin articulates in his book Global Health Law envisages a switch to ‘upstream’ priority-setting for expenditure on health, with a focus upon social determinants and a goal of redressing health inequalities. This article explores what is meant by this proposal and offers a critical evaluation of it. It is argued that difficulties arise in respect of the ethical and evidential bases for such an approach to (...) the setting of priorities, while significant challenges may also arise in the necessary modification of structures of governance. (shrink)

Any system for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has three main kinds of distributive effects. It will determine or influence: (a) the types of objects that will be developed and for which IPRs will be sought; (b) the differential access various people will have to these objects; and (c) the distribution of the IPRs themselves among various actors. What this means to the area of pharmaceutical research is that many urgently needed medicines will not be developed at all, (...) that the existing medicines will not be suitable for countries with a precarious health infrastructure or not target the disease variety that is prevalent in poorer regions. Such effects are commonly captured under the rubric of the “10/90 gap” in biomedical research. High prices will also restrict access to medicines as well endanger compliance to treatment schemes. IPRs are mainly held by multinational corporations situated in the developed world, which not only raises egalitarian concerns, but also severely limits the possibilities of companies in poorer countries to realize improvements on existing inventions, as they cannot financially afford to secure freedom to operate, which systematically shrinks the number of potential innovators. Those inequities lead to an enormous burden for the global poor and since no institution is willing to assume the responsibility to fulfil the right to health and the corresponding right of access to essential medicines, we have to analyse alternatives or additions to the actual intellectual property regimes in order to create new incentives to fill this gap. (shrink)