How Environmental Treaties Contribute to Global Health Governance
In: Globalization and Health 15:47, 2019
945696 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Globalization and Health 15:47, 2019
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
The year 2016 could turn out to be a turning point for global health, new political realities and global insecurities will test governance and financing mechanisms in relation to both people and planet. But most importantly political factors such as the global power shift and "the rise of the rest" will define the future of global health. A new mix of health inequity and security challenges has emerged and the 2015 humanitarian and health crises have shown the limits of existing systems. The global health as well as the humanitarian system will have to prove their capacity to respond and reform. The challenge ahead is deeply political, especially for the rising political actors. They are confronted with the consequences of a model of development that has neglected sustainability and equity, and was built on their exploitation. Some direction has been given by the path breaking international conferences in 2015. Especially the agreement on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris agreement on climate change will shape action. Conceptually, we will need a different understanding of global health and its ultimate goals - the health of people can no longer be seen separate from the health of the planet and wealth measured by parameters of growth will no longer ensure health
BASE
In: Social Sciences: open access journal, Band 11, Heft 9, S. 417
ISSN: 2076-0760
Global Health Governance (GHG) uses a set of financial, normative, and epistemic arguments to retain and amplify its influence. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the GHG regime used its own successes and failures to prescribe more of itself while demanding further resources. However, the consistent failures of this form governance and its appeasement to a dominant neoliberal ideology lead to the following question: Is the global health governance regime failing at its goal of improving health or succeeding at other political and ideological goals that necessitate such failures? Using concepts and ideas from social theory and post-colonial studies; I examine the definitions, epistemic basis, and drivers of GHG and propose certain conditions for the legitimacy of a global health governance system. Examining historical and current cases, I find that the GHG regime currently fails to fulfil such conditions of legitimacy and instead creates spaces that limit rather than help many populations it purports to serve. Those spaces of sickness confine people and reduce them into a state of health subalternity. In being health subalterns, people's voices are neither sought nor heard in formulating the policies that determine their health. Finally, I argue that research and policymaking on global health should not be confined to the current accepted frameworks that assumes legitimacy and benevolence of GHG, and propose steps to establish an alternative, emancipatory model of understanding and governing global health.
The global health architecture is crippled by a lack of trust between stakeholders. Fragmented institutions, geopolitical tensions, and failures during the COVID-19 pandemic have weakened the international community's ability to respond to health crises. Germany, given its influence and commitment to multilateralism, is well positioned to lead efforts to rebuild trust. However, it must move beyond rhetoric and take action to strengthen the global health architecture and bridge the divide between actors.
SWP
Globalization has immersed all of humanity in a single germ pool. There are no health sanctuaries in a globalizing world. In Global Health Governance, Obijiofor Aginam explores the relevance of international law in contemporary public health diplomacy. He focuses on the concept of mutual vulnerability to explore the globalization of disease, in what is paradoxically a global village and a divided world. Drawing from a wide range of disciplines, Global Health Governance offers a holistic approach to global health governance involving a multiplicity of actors: nation-states, international organizations, civil society organizations, and private actors. Aginam articulates modest proposals under the rubric of communitarian globalism, a paradigm that strives to meet the ideals of 'law of humanity.' These proposals project a humane global health order where all of humanity is inexorably tied into a global compact and where the health of one nation-state rises and falls with the health of others.
World Affairs Online
In: Australian journal of international affairs: journal of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Band 62, Heft 1, S. 94-106
ISSN: 1035-7718
In: Neues Jahrbuch Dritte Welt 2005, S. 57-87
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 59, Heft 4, S. 773-778
ISSN: 1467-9248
In: International affairs, Band 91, Heft 6, S. 1299-1316
ISSN: 0020-5850
The World Health Organization (WHO) occupies a central place in the system of global health governance and plays a key role in the control of epidemics and pandemics. The 2014 Ebola crisis in West Africa, however, saw widespread and sustained criticism of its performance, leading many to call for its reform and even replacement. This article moves on from initial analyses of the WHO's 'failure', to argue that the crisis has led to a shift in its authority as a global governor. It argues that the WHO's traditional basis of authority was largely expert and delegated; that it provided technical advice and normative guidance, and that its authority was 'on loan' from member states, who exerted considerable influence over the WHO. Its actions during the West African Ebola outbreak remained consistent with this, but it was unable to cope with what the outbreak required. The criticisms both of the WHO and the wider system of global health governance, however, have opened up a space where the balance of authority is shifting to one based more heavily on capacity-the ability to act in a crisis. If such a shift is realized, it will create different expectations of the WHO which, if they are not fulfilled, may lead to trust in the organisation declining and its legitimacy being compromised. (International Affairs (Oxford) / SWP)
World Affairs Online
In: Peripherie: Politik, Ökonomie, Kultur, Band 23, Heft 90-91, S. 202-231
ISSN: 0173-184X
This article focuses on the interaction between the TRIPS agreement & Global Public-Private Partnerships (GPPPs) with regard to access to drugs for the poor. It is argued that TRIPS creates three types of problems for developing countries: a barrier for the development of their own technological capacities, a lack of incentive for the development of drugs for diseases of the poor, & a high price level for highly effective drugs. The possible exceptions from TRIPS like legally produced generica, parallel importing & compulsory licensing are not sufficient to cope with these problems. GPPPs in health -- which can mainly be found in the areas of R&D & Access -- can be regarded as an attempt to integrate public & private actors in global health governance & to reach a compromise between their respective interests. The neoliberal globalization process, per the main thesis of this article, led to the emergence of a global polity, in which dominant actors managed to establish their rules mainly through the WTO agreements, but in which the self-interest of these groups (legitimacy of this order, political stability, expansion of their basis of accumulation) also forces them to enter into compromises. In this context institutional forms like GPPPs have the chance to reach improvements for the poor. The respective policies & politics are not only contested but might also stimulate activities for wider reaching changes of the core structures of the "global polity.". 52 References. Adapted from the source document.
In: Peripherie: Politik, Ökonomie, Kultur, Band 23, Heft 90/91, S. 202-231
ISSN: 0173-184X
Der Beitrag versucht, die Rolle der GPPPs (globale Public-Privat-Partnership) in der Auseinandersetzung um Medikamente für den ökonomisch marginalisierten Teil der Weltbevölkerung genauer zu untersuchen. Ausgegangen wird von der folgenden These: Der neoliberale Globalisierungsprozess hat zum Entstehen eines globalen politischen Systems geführt, dessen Spielregeln zwar vor allem in den WTO- Vereinbarungen stark durch dominante Akteure geprägt sind, in dem das Eigeninteresse dieser Kräfte an einer minimalen Legitimität dieser Ordnung, an politischer Stabilität und an einer Expansion der sozialen Basis ökonomischer Entwicklung jedoch zu Kompromissen zwingt. In diesem Rahmen bieten institutionelle Formen wie die GPPPs in Einzelbereichen die Chance, konkrete Verbesserungen zugunsten der Armen durchzusetzen, wobei die konkrete Ausgestaltung dieser Politik umkämpft und mit Konflikten um weiterreichende Veränderungen der Kernstrukturen der "global polity", d.h. auch der WTO, verknüpft ist. Im Rahmen des vorliegenden Artikels wird zunächst der Zusammenhang zwischen Globalisierung, Gesundheit und der Entwicklung von Global Health Governance (GHG) skizziert und daran anschließend die Rolle der WTO und besonders des TRIPS-Abkommens in Bezug auf die Entwicklung von Medikamenten und Zugangschancen zu diesen dargestellt. Der zweite Teil beschäftigt sich anhand einiger Beispiele mit den Strukturen und der Bedeutung von GPPPs als neuen Akteuren in diesem Zusammenhang und versucht, deren Bedeutung in den Auseinandersetzungen um "globale Gesundheit" einzuschätzen. (ICA2)
In: Global policy: gp, Band 14, Heft 5, S. 782-789
ISSN: 1758-5899
AbstractThe World Economic Forum is a major player in global health governance, promoting the role of the private sector and specific public–private partnerships (PPPs). It exerts influence in three main ways: by exercising convening power, most notably in Davos where the most powerful representatives of the private sector meet with heads of governments and international organisations; by shaping ideas through its role as a think tank; by its engagement in PPPs, most recently as a founder member of CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations). But its organisational status is ambiguous, and it appears to lack accountability—even to its own members, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of such an influential organisation.
In: European journal of international relations, Band 29, Heft 4, S. 903-928
ISSN: 1460-3713
COVID-19 has exposed profound governance challenges that demand more diverse and creative approaches to global health governance moving forward. This article works towards such a pluralization of the field by foregrounding the vital role played by heterodox actors during the pandemic. Heterodox global health actors are backgrounded actors who improve health in different parts of the world, but who remain politically marginalized – and epistemically invisibilized – because they depart in crucial respects from the liberal orthodoxy pervading the field of global health governance. The article analytically foregrounds those heterodox actors through an architectural inversion – a relational approach to the study of global health governance that builds upon recent methodological insights from postcolonial studies, infrastructure studies, and science and technology studies. The article then harnesses that methodological approach to empirically investigate the COVID-19 activities of three different heterodox actors: rebel groups providing public health in the borderlands of Myanmar, a women's vigilante movement stitching face masks in the Czech Republic, and a maverick scientific platform for the international sharing of viral sequence data. Performing that architectural inversion begins to loosen the dominance of the liberal episteme within the practice and study of global health governance. It further visibilizes how that field is continually co-produced by the background activities of many such heterodox actors. It also lays conceptual foundations for a more heterodox future research agenda on global health governance – and arguably global governance more broadly – in response to the numerous unresolved challenges revealed by COVID-19.