Articles for category: International Pandemic Lawmaking

Editorial: Can a Pandemic Law-Making Exercise Promote Global Health Justice?

Amid the unfolding „moral catastrophe“ of COVID-19, and across the entries in this symposium, we see a clamor for any pandemic law-making exercise to promote more justice in global health. However, this universally-embraced imperative masks a wide array of divergent views about the nature and sources of inequalities in global health, and in turn what should be done if we were to think beyond a narrow pragmatism of the moment.

The Covid-19 Pandemic, the Failure of the Binary PHEIC Declaration System, and the Need for Reform

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised unprecedented challenges for the global health framework and its long-term consequences are not yet in full sight. The alarm mechanism based on the declaration of Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), in particular, has been severely tested. As underlined by some scholars, a reform of the PHEIC’s mechanism would not solve the core issues of the alert and response system behind the IHRs, that do have mainly a political dimension.

Pandemics without Borders?

Any future international treaty or instrument on pandemic preparedness and response should refrain from further perpetuating an understanding of international borders that is primarily based on considerations of territoriality – rather, it should ensure that borders are no longer a constitutive element determining the international community’s effort of fighting the spread of dangerous diseases.

Towards Member-driven International Pandemic Lawmaking

The COVID-19 pandemic has blatantly exposed the flaws of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its International Health Regulations (IHR) in addressing cross-border communicable diseases. We argue that the IHR is ill-designed: its rules and mechanisms are disproportionately tied to the Director General’s (DG) exercise of power, rendering insufficient member access to and participation in core decision-making and greater tendency of regulatory capture.

The Right to Participation in Global Health Governance

Considering the unprecedented suffering caused by COVID-19, any future pandemic lawmaking should be informed by public consultations that prioritize hearing the experiences of people most affected by the crisis, and that facilitate their identifying the redress and reforms they want. Such a process will be critical to rebuilding trust in public institutions.

A Shared Responsibility Model

Piecemeal and fragmented policymaking during Covid-19 underscored the need for an equity-focused global health agenda. Yet, most responses were nationally-focused, lacked global commitment and solidarity, failed to notify the WHO of novel outbreaks, and were non-compliant with its professional recommendations.

Webinar: Addressing Scientific Innovation through Pandemic Lawmaking

Amid contention that global governance was unprepared and incapacitated in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this November, a special session of the World Health Assembly will convene to discuss a potential international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response. As part of the "International Pandemic Lawmaking: Conceptual and Practical Issues" symposium which is publishing critical insights and recommendations for this potential pandemic treaty each day on Bill of Health and Verfassungsblog, this is the second webinar examines the issues, challenges and opportunities related to scientific innovation.

Addressing IP Barriers in the Context of a Pandemic Treaty

By relying on the private sector in the context of COVID-19, many countries are struggling to secure adequate personal protective equipment, testing kits, and, more importantly. life-saving vaccines. A radical paradigm shift is needed from a market-based paradigm to one that encourages more scientific collaboration transcending national, regional, and global levels.