Articles for category: Focus

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.

Wehrhafte Demokratie light oder doch Verbotsverfahren?

Die Debatte um Parteiverbote scheint festgefahren. Auf der einen Seite stehen jene, die Parteiverbote grundsätzlich ablehnen. Auf der anderen Seite stehen jene, die dringend ein Parteiverbot fordern, möglicherweise verbunden mit einem Verfahren auf Grundrechtsverwirkung gegen einzelne Politiker. Sinnvoll erörtern lässt sich die Frage der Parteiverbote aber letztlich nur im Kontext mit anderen Strategien und Mechanismen.

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.

Die Fallstricke der wehrhaften Demokratie

Die in Westdeutschland populäre Formulierung „Keine Toleranz den Feinden der Toleranz“ ist eine kurze Synthese von Zitaten Karl R. Poppers und des deutschen Politikwissenschaftlers Dolf Sternberger. Sie gehört seit den fünfziger Jahren zum Sprachschatz der wehrhaften Demokratie. Gegenwärtig erlebt sie eine neue Renaissance. Getrieben wird sie dieses Mal nicht von Konservativen, sondern paradoxerweise von jenem grün-linken Lager, das in den siebziger Jahren selbst Objekt illiberaler Observierung und beruflicher Diskriminierung war.

Paradoxien und Anpassungsbedarf im BVerfGG

Die Diskussion um ein Parteiverbot ist begleitet von politischen Bedenken vor allem hinsichtlich eines Scheiterns, das bei einem Antrag gegen die Gesamtpartei zumindest nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann. Doch bereits wenige Anpassungen im BVerfGG könnten ermöglichen, dass ein Verbotsantrag auch hinsichtlich der Teilorganisation einer Partei gestellt werden kann. Dasselbe gilt für den Ausschluss von der staatlichen Finanzierung.

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

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.

Party Bans and Populism in Europe

In the latest episode in a decades-long conversation about militant democracy, the growing electoral success and radicalization of Alternative for Germany have relaunched debates about the appropriateness of restricting the political rights of those who might use those rights to undermine the liberal democratic order. While it is typical for dictatorships to ban parties, democracies also do so, but for different reasons and with compunction. Party bans respond to varying rationales which have evolved over time. However, a ban on the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany would be out of step with more general patterns of opposition to such parties in Europe.

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.