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]

Global health security is an increasingly complex regime. The failures of global governance and norms of cooperation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the re-entrenchment to nationalist policy-making have created impetus for new governance arrangements, institutions and policy development. These changes include amendments to the International health regulations (IHR), development of a pandemic convention or accord, convening of the High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Preparedness and Response, establishment of the Pandemic Fund, and development of the medical countermeasures platform, among others. These various developments claim to be in synergy with each other, but understanding of regime complexes and forum shifting from international relations reveal the power dyna mics which underlie these processes. I use these concepts to demonstrate how states are transferring negotiations from one institutional location to another in search of more favourable outcomes, or are creating strategic uncertainty within negotiations to avoid future accountability. I further highlight three risks posed by these developments: (i) an increasingly complex landscape for global health security; (ii) erosion of the World Health Organization's authority in global health security; and (iii) dominance of high-income state positions within these negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the state of the literature on the politics of global health governance and associated political dynamics of actors involved in this issue space. We identify seven eras in the field, beginning with the period of empire and colonialism and ending with the COVID-19 outbreak. The field of global health has long had a focus on infectious disease, often rooted within a state-centered approach to transnational global health problems with recurrent debates about whether and how restrictions on trade and travel should be imposed in the wake of disease outbreaks. This statist focus is in tension with more cosmopolitan visions of global health, which require broader health system strengthening. In the mid-2000s, a golden age emerged with the influx of new financing and political attention to addressing HIV/AIDS and malaria, as well as reducing the risk posed by infectious disease outbreaks to economies of the Global North. Despite increased awareness of noncommunicable diseases and the importance of health systems, events of recent years (including but not limited to the COVID-19 outbreak) reinforced the centrality of states to global health efforts and the primacy of infectious diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]