Search

WHO has determined a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) seven times, and beyond this nomenclature declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), and through their operationalisation in the joint external evaluation (JEE), governments are urged to create suitable legislation to be able to enact a response to a public health emergency. Whether the pandemic declaration had a greater effect than a PHEIC in encouraging goverments to act, however, remains conjecture, as there is no systemic analysis of what each term means in practice and whether either has meaningful legal implications at the national level. We undertook a legal scoping review to assess the utilisation of PHEIC and pandemic language within national legislation in 28 WHO member states. Data were collected from national websites, JEE reviews, COVID Analysis and Mapping of Policies Tool, Natlex, and Oxford Compendium of National Legal Responses to COVID-19. We found that only 16% of countries have any reference to the PHEIC in national legislation and 37·5% of countries reference the term pandemic. This finding paints a weakened picture of the IHR and PHEIC mechanisms. Having such legalese enshrined in legislation might enhance the interaction between WHO determining a PHEIC or declaring a pandemic and resulting action to mitigate transnational spread of disease and enhance health security. Given the ongoing negotiations at WHO in relation to the amendments to the IHR and creation of the pandemic accord, both of which deal with this declaratory power of the PHEIC and pandemic language, negotiators should understand the possible implications of any changes to these proclamations at the national level and for global health security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During health emergencies, neglect of gender experiences and needs can compromise the outbreak response. Ebola in West Africa and Zika in Latin America had gendered effects that were evident during the crises, yet governments and international organizations failed to prioritize a gender-inclusive response. There is the same risk that gender-inclusive responses and knowledge will continue to be neglected during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we examine the drivers of gender exclusion in health emergency response. We ask: where can we locate institutional responsibility for taking gender seriously to inform and improve sustainable disease control? The article addresses this question by turning to feminist institutional theory to explain why gender inclusion in decision-making processes is vital for effective response and post-crisis recovery. We argue that the institutional responsibility to recognize gender within the global health emergency regime lies with the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO has neglected to mainstream gender in the policies and practices that it promotes for the prevention and detection of, and response to, infectious disease outbreaks. WHO is in a position to support gender-inclusive practices, but this requires the technical agency to recognize the value of having a gender-inclusive framework to inform outbreak response, financial models, and recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In November 2021, the World Health Assembly (WHA) is hosting a special session to discuss the proposed plans for a pandemic treaty. Despite the fact that there are scant details concerning the treaty, the proposal has gained considerable support in both the academic community, and at the international level. While we agree that in the wake of the numerous governance failures during COVID-19, we need to develop appropriate global solutions to be able to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from future global health crises—and that such mechanisms should be rooted in global equity—we disagree, however, that this pandemic treaty, currently, is the most appropriate way in which to achieve this. Indeed, notions of global community, solidarity, fairness are far removed from the reality that we have seen unfolding in the actions of states responding to the pandemic. This is the crux of the tension with the proposed treaty: the balance between the ideal cosmopolitan worldview held by those in power in global health, and the practice of national security decision-making witnessed in the last 18 months. Indeed, we do not believe that a pandemic treaty will deliver what is being extolled by its proponents, and it will not solve the multiple problems of global cooperation in global health that supporters believe it will. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]