International Public Health Law Research Articles

On the Legitimacy and Effectivity of the World Bank and Its Pandenic Emergency Financing Facility (‘PEF’) at the Time of the covid-19 Outbreak

Abstract Pandemic financing has in the current climate of disruption and turmoil of an ongoing global pandemic become the most highly debated and controversial issue within the field of international public health law and policy. From the perspective of international public health law and policy, a precondition for success is that financial resources and funds are employed in an effective manner. Whether the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (‘World Bank’ or ‘WB’) and the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (‘PEF’) – a financing mechanism housed at the WB – may be perceived as effective public health players shall be established by referring to their mandates, their inherent capacity for enhancing accepted global legal standards and rules on public health and their funding methods and practices. After the affirmation and consolidation of its role in the public health sector in the early 1990s, the WB has rapidly accredited itself as the most active intergovernmental institution dealing with pandemic and epidemic financing. Its direct involvement in public health trust funds, such as the Avian Flu Trust Fund Facility and the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Multi-Donor Fund (the HEPRF), and its lending practices and internal policies and procedures were of crucial significance in this respect. Considering that acceptance of international institutions, including international financial institutions, has always been conditioned by their acknowledgment as legally legitimate, legitimacy is regarded as closely connected to effectiveness. The criteria for establishing legitimacy in relation to international financial institutions are increasingly, amongst others, the respect and promotion of rule of law standards in the recipient states. From this perspective, the WB’s functional and management structures, but not the PEF’s structures and management, have made noteworthy progress, and notwithstanding some deficiencies and peculiarities they present several elements of legitimate decision-making.

The Legal System Application Affect Factors in Preventing HIV / AIDS Transmission in Bali

The issue of HIV/AIDS as a human rights issue in relation to public health has in principle become a topic of conversation in international public health law. In 1946, the World Health Organization (WHO) proclaimed that the highest success of a goal of public health standards was success in the treatment of HIV/AIDS as a fundamental issue of human rights. According to the last data of November 2019, Bali was ranked in the top five cases of HIV/AIDS with the number of PEOPLE with HIV/AIDS reaching 22,034 people. Of the number of cases nationally, Bali ranks number five after DKI Jakarta and West Java, even if reviewed from the average percentage compared to the population, Bali ranks in the top two nationally after Papua. The data when compared to the previous two years data is very different, where in 2017, Bali is still ranked sixth nationally. This article reviews Factors that affect the application of the legal system in preventing the transmission of HIV / AIDS in Bali Province. This research is a normative juridical research. Designed using the statute approach and conceptual approach. The results showed that Factors that affect the application of the legal system in preventing the transmission of HIV / AIDS in Bali Province are Multi-interpretation due to conflict norms in various cases about HIV/AIDS in Indonesia.. However, it needs Immediately formulate improvements or spelled out in the Regulation of the Governor of Bali to be more synergistic fundamentally in terms of HIV/AIDS Prevention, especially its transmission management and elimination namely to The Regional Regulation of Bali Province No. 6 of 2014 on Child Protection; Local Regulation of Bali Province No. 4/2019 on Indigenous Villages and Local Regulations of Bali Province No. 3/2006 on HIV/AIDS Prevention, as well as adjusting the Laws and Regulations on it.Keywords: HIV/AIDS, Legal System Application, Bali

Synergising International Public Health Law and International Disaster Law

There is no time more opportune to review the workings of the International Health Regulations (IHR) than the present COVID-19 crisis. This article analyses the theoretical and practical aspects of international public health law (IPHL), particularly the IHR, to argue that it is woefully unprepared to protect human rights in times of a global public health crisis. To rectify this, the article argues that the IHR should design effective risk reduction and response strategies by incorporating concepts from international disaster law (IDL). Along similar lines, this article suggests that IDL also has a lot to learn from IPHL in terms of greater internationalisation and institutionalisation. Institutionalisation of IDL on par with IPHL will provide it with greater legitimacy, transparency and accountability. This article argues that greater cross-pollination of ideas between IDL and IPHL is necessary in order to make these disciplines more relevant for the future.

The Global Tobacco Epidemic, the Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products, and the World Trade Organization

In response to complaints by Ukraine, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Indonesia, the government of Australia has defended the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco products in the World Trade Organization. This article focuses upon the legal defence of Australia before the WTO Panel. A key part of its defence has been the strong empirical evidence for the efficacy of plain packaging of tobacco products as a legitimate health measure designed to combat the global tobacco epidemic. Australia has provided a convincing case that plain packaging of tobacco products is compatible with the TRIPS Agreement 1994, particularly the clauses relating to the aims and objectives of the agreement; the requirements in respect of trade mark law; and the parallel measures in relation to access to essential medicines. Australia has also defended the consistency of plain packaging of tobacco products with the TBT Agreement 1994. Moreover, Australia has provided clear reasons for why the plain packaging of tobacco products is compatible with GATT. The position of Australia has been reinforced by a number of third parties — such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, Canada, and others — which have also been pioneers in tobacco control and public health. Australia’s leadership in respect of tobacco control and plain packaging of tobacco products is further supported by larger considerations in respect of international public health law, human rights, and sustainable development.

Planning for Pandemics: Lessons From the Past Decade.

It is now 10 years since the disease we now know as SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—caused more than 700 deaths around the world and made more than 8,000 people ill. More recently, in 2009 the global community experienced the first influenza pandemic of the 21st century—the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. This paper analyses the major developments in international public health law relating to infectious diseases in the period since SARS and considers their implications for pandemic planning.

Quarantine Powers, Biodefense, and Andrew Speaker

In January 2007, “Andrew Speaker (“Speaker”) underwent a chest X-ray and CT scan, which revealed an abnormality in his lungs.” However, tests results indicated that he did not have tuberculosis (“TB”). In March 2007, Fulton County officials informed Andrew Speaker that he was diagnosed with a form of non-infectious form of tuberculosis. He was prescribed a regimen of “first-line anti-TB drugs.” Fulton County officials confirmed the positive TB result, and further tests were ordered. These tests indicated that Speaker had MDR-TB. Fulton County officials told Speaker not to travel abroad for his upcoming wedding in Europe; however, he ignored them. Unbeknownst to any health official, Speaker departed Atlanta for Europe on May 12, 2007. Two weeks later, the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) informed him that his diagnosis had changed and that he had a drug-resistant form of tuberculosis named XDR-TB. Speaker was in Rome at the time. CDC officials directed him to turn himself into Italian authorities for isolation and asked that he not return home on commercial airlines. Speaker was even placed on a no fly list by the CDC. Again, Speaker ignored CDC officials and returned to the United States via Canada. From Prague, Speaker flew back to Montreal on two commercial aircrafts, and on May 25, 2007, Speaker entered the United States from Canada by car. “Despite being aware of the border alert, the border guard allowed Speaker into the United States.” Once in the United States, CDC officials served Speaker with an isolation order and hospitalized him at Bellevue Hospital in New York City. CDC officials placed him in a secure part of the hospital, where he underwent a medical evaluation to determine the status of his TB. Speaker was then allowed to return to Atlanta, where he faced intense media scrutiny. He then was transferred to the National Jewish Medical Center in Denver for further treatment of his XDR-TB. Eventually, however, officials downgraded his diagnosis to MDR-TB as they had originally. Speaker had surgery to remove the lung infected with MDR-TB at the end of July, and he was declared non-contagious.Clearly, Speaker sparked significant interest in public health on both the national and international levels. Speaker’s initial disregard for United States authority created an opportunity for criticism of local, state, and federal public health laws, while Speaker’s subsequent disregard of authorities while abroad allowed for questioning of international public health law and in particular, the effectiveness of the International Health Regulations. This overview explains certain areas of national and international public health law, and Speaker’s impact on these areas.

International public health law: not so much WHO as why, and not enough WHO and why not?

To state the obvious, "health matters", but health (or its equitable enjoyment) is neither simple nor easy. Public health in particular, which encompasses a broad collection of complex and multidisciplinary activities which are critical to the wellbeing and security of individuals, populations and nations, is a difficult milieu to master effectively. In fact, despite the vital importance of public health, there is a relative dearth of ethico-legal norms tailored for, and directed at, the public health sector, particularly at the international level. This is a state of affairs which is no longer tenable in the global environment. This article argues that public health promotion is a moral duty, and that international actors are key stakeholders upon whom this duty falls. In particular, the World Health Organization bears a heavy responsibility in this regard. The article claims that better health can and must be better promoted through a more robust interpretation of the WHO's role, arguing that neither the WHO nor international law have yet played their necessary part in promoting health for all.

International Public Health Law

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.