Articles for category: AAA General

One Health – One Welfare – One Rights

The projected WHO Pandemic Agreement, as currently under negotiation, will most likely contain a detailed prescription of a One Health approach (Art. 1(d) and Art. 5 of the INB negotiating text of 30 October 2023). This contribution examines the legal potential of a One Health approach for laws and policies towards animals raised, kept, and slaughtered for providing meat, milk, fur, and other body products for human consumption. My main argument will be that, taken seriously, the idea of One health defies a hierarchy between the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems. The inner logic of One Health is to exploit the positive feedback loops between safeguarding human, animal, and ecosystem health. This approach should modify the still prevailing unreflected and unchecked prioritisation of measures in favour of human health at the expense of and to the detriment of animal health and life. I will illustrate my claim with two policy examples.

As Good as It Gets

Contrasting the constitutional limitations on the freedom to establish political parties in Italy and Germany brings out two quite different conceptions of militant democracy: one is particularistic, retrospective, and provisional – preoccupied with the transition to democracy; the other is universalistic, prospective, and enduring – concerned with the degeneration of democracy. The Portuguese Constitution, true to its eclectic character and multiple influences, steers a seemingly middle course between these polar options.

The Future of Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing under International Law

The sharing of pathogen samples and their associated genetic sequence data (GSD) is crucial for global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. It enables global surveillance, risk assessment and the research and development of pandemic-related products. The sharing of related benefits is also seen as key to ensuring more equitable global access to the fruits of science. These issues, collectively known as Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS), remain a major point of contention in the ongoing Pandemic Agreement negotiations. In this post, I explore potential scenarios regarding the establishment or absence of the new PABS System, and their implications under international law.

A Supremely Complex Decision

On March 28, 2024, a majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation held that Canada’s constitutional bill of rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”), applied against an Indigenous government’s residency requirements for election to the government’s Council.  However, the majority also held that a section of the Charter that offers some protective effect for Indigenous governments would protect this residency requirement from a challenge under the Charter. The case reaches significant determinations but with some messy splits amongst the seven justices who sat on the case.

The Kovačević Case Revisited

On 20 March 2023 the Council of the European Union gave Bosnia and Hercegovina green light to start accession negotiations. However, despite this political endorsement, BiH must fulfill the conditionality criteria, including a series of six judgments by the ECtHR relating to the predetermined ethnic keys. The last case, Kovačević v. BiH, was referred to the Grand Chamber in December 2023. If the Court follows its previous case law, this should force the mono-ethnic political parties and their leaders as well as the EU institutions to insist on de-blocking the constitutional impasse for any realistic steps towards European integration.

Power and Distribution in Global Health Governance

Since at least the 1980s, private actors and market-based mechanisms have played an increasingly important role in the provision of public goods and services and the pursuit of public policy objectives in general. A market approach is also widely used in the field of public health. In effect, the PPP approach, as illustrated by COVAX, can work to structurally protect the interests of (a majority) of the high-income countries. While PPPs in global health may do a lot of good things, their private law, contractualist nature and structures safeguard formal state sovereignty and voluntarism, predominantly benefitting high-income donor countries

Beyond the Blocs

On Monday, 25 March, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and the immediate release of hostages, as well as emphasizing the need to increase the provision and distribution of humanitarian aid. The Resolution was adopted 14-0, with the United States the only member to abstain. As the Security Council website announces, this Resolution ended a “months-long deadlock”. The recent Resolution is not perceived by Israeli actors as binding. And yet, I argue that the fact that the US and Russia are now essentially voting together on the need to end this war could lead to significant further ramifications that may shape the region and beyond.

Closing the Accountability Gap

In their latest ‘WHO transformation’ (which began in 2017), the WHO hired at least six consulting firms, praised by the Director-General as the ‘best firms in the world’. Despite their prominent role in WHO processes and reform efforts, there is a clear accountability gap in their role at WHO. Consultant engagement contributes to a trend towards informal governance and public-private collusions in an organization that looks less and less like a public authority.

Rejecting Lip Service or Validating 1930s Family Values?

On 8th March 2024, the Irish people rejected two separate constitutional referendums on family and care in an overwhelming no vote. These amendments aimed to update a conservative and gendered ideal of family found in Article 41. The family and care referendums involved more abstract statements of directive constitutional values. The result of the referendums is a win for voter confusion, anger towards the government and the NoNo campaign. It is also a loss for political constitutionalism.

The Silent Disintegration of Global Health Governance?

With an estimated 6,9 million deaths and with its enormous scale of economic, social and political collateral damages, the COVID-19 Pandemic has created excessive momentum for re-considering the rules and procedures governing global health – or has it? In this blog contribution, I will discuss the promises and pitfalls of current law-making and law-amending efforts that seek to strengthen pandemic governance post COVID-19 by reflecting on three distinct features of global health as an area of international cooperation.