Intervening on Behalf of the Human Right to Health: Who, When, and How?

Kathryn Muyskens

doi:10.1007/s12142-021-00620-6

Abstract

A common understanding of the political function of human rights is as a trigger for international intervention, with states typically understood to be duty bound by these rights claims. The unique character of the human right to health raises some complications for these conventional views. In this paper, I will argue that because of the unique character of the human right to health, intervention on its behalf can be justified not only in response to outright violation, but also due to unmet needs of populations. As a secondary goal of this paper, I will attempt to respond to some of the worries about cultural imperialism in human rights and cross-cultural humanitarian interventions, specifically in the context of global health justice.

Highlights

One common understanding of human rights is as a trigger for intervention
Human rights exist to motivate institutions to respond when the fundamental components of what makes life worth living are threatened, and in the case of health, threats can arise from human action as well as natural forces
When the primary duty holders are unable to meet those minimum standards, the obligation diffuses to other capable bodies, which can include humanitarian organizations and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs)

Summary

Introduction

One common understanding of human rights is as a trigger for intervention (see Beitz 2009, Buchanan 2010). To avoid accusations of hypocrisy and to effectively defend the value of health, any intervention (especially if carried out by a non-state actor) must take every available precaution to ensure that the intervention itself does not make the supposed beneficiaries worse off Because of this unique character of the human right to health, INGOs are often in a better position to accomplish this than official state agencies. States can violate the right to health along several patterns: (1) through negligence and mismanagement of resources, (2) through systemic bias that unfairly privileges or disadvantages members of certain groups within the society, (3) through the refusal of aid, and (4) through active persecution Each of these patterns of injury requires a different kind of response from the international community and justify different kinds of interventions (and from different kinds of duty bearers). Once a critical mass is reached, the reasons for holding on to the practice will be gone

A Rule of Rescue

Conclusion