The Healthy Trends of International Relations Research

As the end of the Cold War approached in 1989, Caroline Thomas argued: “It is important that the discipline [International Relations, IR] should address the issue of disease and more broadly, health, not simply to facilitate containment of disease transmission across international borders but also because central notions of justice, equity, efficiency and order are involved” (1989:273).1 Ten years later, Craig Murphy echoed these sentiments. Murphy (2001: 352) proposed that IR had yet to grapple with the political consequences of growing inequality between the world’s rich and poor, and areas such as health—where these inequalities were most stark—should become the field’s core business. How IR’s theories and methods would approach these issues was less clear. Bettcher and Yach (1998) cautioned that IR would be unable to develop progressive research projects that explored global health diplomacy as a global public good without adopting new perspectives and methods. Others warned that the expansion of security studies into areas such as global health would weaken the intellectual coherency of the field (Walt 1991:213). Taking its cue from the recent Ng and Prah Ruger (2011) study, this paper returns to these concerns to briefly explore key trends and potential future concerns of research in IR on health...

The challenge to know and control: Disease outbreak surveillance and alerts in China and India

Since the revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, much attention has been turned to how states, particularly developing states, will address core capacity requirements. The question often examined is how states with poor health systems can strengthen their capacity to identify and verify public health emergencies of international concern. A core capacity requirement is that by 2012 states will have a surveillance and response network that operates from the local community to the national level. Much emphasis has turned to the health system capacity required for this task. In this article, I seek to understand the political capacity to perform this task. This article considers how the world's two most populous states,1 1. For the purposes of this paper, I use the word ‘state’ as a shorthand for the nation-state of China and India, or member state as used by the United Nations. View all notes China and India, have sought to communicate outbreak events in times of crisis and calm. I consider what this reporting performance tells us of their capacity to meet their IHR obligations given the two countries differing political institutions.

Duty in the time of epidemics : what China and Zimbabwe teach us

In November 2002, a man with ‘atypical pneumonia’ treated in Foshan hospital, Guangdong Province, in the People's Republic of China, was the first known case of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). However, it was not until April 2003 that the Chinese government admitted to the full scale of ‘atypical pneumonia’ cases infected with SARS, two months after the disease had rapidly spread across the world with initial infections in Hong Kong and Vietnam sourced to Guangdong. In 2008, Zimbabwe experienced one of the biggest outbreaks of cholera ever recorded. By February 2009, the disease had spread across all of Zimbabwe's 10 provinces and to neighbouring countries—Botswana, South Africa, Zambia and Mozambique—causing thousands of infections amongst their populations. This article seeks to examine what duties the Chinese and Zimbabwe states had to protect their citizens and the international community from these outbreaks. The article refers to the findings of the International Law Commission's study into the role of states and international organisations in protecting persons in the event of a disaster to consider whether there is an international duty to protect persons from epidemics. The article concludes that both cases reveal a growing concept of protection that entails an international duty to assist individuals when an affected state proves unwilling or unable to assist its own population in the event of a disease outbreak.

Engendering the responsibility to protect : women and the prevention of mass atrocities

This article explores the relationship between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the pursuit of the so-called ‘Women, Peace and Security’ (WPS) agenda at the UN. We ask whether the two agendas should continue to be pursued separately or whether each can make a useful contribution to the other. We argue that while the history of R2P has not included language that deliberately evokes the protection of women and the promotion of gender in preventing genocide and mass atrocities, this does not preclude the R2P and WPS agendas becoming mutually reinforcing. The article identifies cross-cutting areas where the two agendas may be leveraged for the UN and member states to address the concerns of women as both actors in need of protection and active agents in preventing and responding to genocide and mass atrocities, namely in the areas of early warning.

The duty to report disease outbreaks : of interest or value? Lessons from H5N1

Since the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003, it has been argued that there has been a substantial revision to the norm dictating the behaviour of states in the event of a disease outbreak. This article examines the evolution of the norm to ‘report and verify’ disease outbreaks and evaluates the extent to which this revised norm has begun to guide state behaviour. Examination of select East Asian countries affected by human infections of the H5N1 (avian influenza) virus strain reveals the need to further understand the mutually constitutive relationship between the value attached to prompt reporting against the capacity to report, and how states manage both in fulfilling their duty to report.

The responsibility to protect in the Asia-Pacific region

In 2005, governments around the world unanimously agreed to the principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P), which holds that all states have a responsibility to protect their populations from genocide and mass atrocities, that the international community should assist them to fulfil this duty, and that the international community should take timely and decisive measures to protect populations from such crimes when their host state fails to do so. Progressing R2P from words to deeds requires international consensus about the principle’s meaning and scope. To achieve a global consensus on this, we need to better understand the position of governments around the world, including in the Asia-Pacific region, which has long been associated with an enduring commitment to a traditional concept of sovereignty. The present article contributes to such an endeavour through its three sections. The first part charts the nature of the international consensus on R2P and examines the UN secretary-general’s approach. The second looks in detail at the positions of the Asia-Pacific region’s governments on the R2P principle. The final part explores the way forward for progressing the R2P principle in the Asia-Pacific region.

Redundant or essential? How politics shaped the outcome of the 1967 Protocol

The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees has been described as an unnecessary addendum to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, if the 1967 Protocol was superfluous, why did the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the early 1960s insist on its development? This article seeks to establish that the 1967 Protocol was originally intended to encompass the broader concerns of African and Asian states concerning refugee populations in their region. However, the political influence upon the development of international refugee law radically altered the UNHCR's endeavour to make the 1951 Convention universally accessible.

Securitizing infectious disease

Over the past decade there has been an increased awareness in the field of international relations of the potential impact of an infectious disease epidemic on national security. While states’ attempts to combat infectious disease have a long history, what is new in this area is the adoption at the international level of securitized responses regarding the containment of infectious disease. This article argues that the securitization of infectious disease by states and the World Health Organization (WHO) has led to two key developments. First, the WHO has had to assert itself as the primary actor that all states, particularly western states, can rely upon to contain the threat of infectious diseases. The WHO's apparent success in this is evidenced by the development of the Global Outbreak Alert Response Network (GOARN), which has led to arguments that the WHO has emerged as the key authority in global health governance. The second outcome that this article seeks to explore is the development of the WHO's authority in the area of infectious disease surveillance. In particular, is GOARN a representation of the WHO's consummate authority in the area of coordinating infectious disease response or is GOARN the product of the WHO's capitulation to western states’ concerns with preventing infectious disease outbreaks from reaching their borders and as a result, are arguments expressing the authority of the WHO in infectious disease response premature?

Twentieth Anniversary Special Issue – International relations: an Oceanic perspective

In his sweeping survey of the Australian study of international relations, Martin Indyk1 claimed that ‘a common set of assumptions tends to underpin the work of almost all Australian scholars in the discipline’. If that assertion could have been plausibly extended to the whole region one generation ago, it certainly cannot now. The International Relations scholarship emanating from the Oceanic region regales in a diversity of theoretical, methodological and ethical assumptions. This diversity certainly emerged before the first Oceanic Conference on International Studies (OCIS) was convened in Canberra in 2004, however, subsequent conferences in Melbourne (2006) and Brisbane (2008) have galvanised and enriched that diversity. The state of the discipline in the region is as strong and healthy now as it has ever been, as is its integration into the global discipline, something we believe is reflected in the contributions collected in this Special Issue of Global Change, Peace and Security....

Natural disasters and the responsibility to protect

The International Law Commission (ILC) study on the protection of persons in the event of disasters has been ongoing since 2006. During this period, there has been continuous debate in the literature and in consultations with States as to whether the study should explore the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) persons in the event of natural disasters. In this article, the rationale for this continuing argument is explored considering that the ILC has repeatedly stated since 2008 that the study’s topic – assistance in the event of natural disasters – has no legal relationship with the R2P principle. In the final section it is proposed that the real knowledge gap in the ILC discussion and study is the positive affirmation of the rights of those most affected by natural disasters – women.

The international politics of disease reporting : towards post-Westphalianism?

Since the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, there has been much discussion about whether the international community has moved into a new post-Westphalian era, where states increasingly recognize certain shared norms that guide what they ought to do in responding to infectious disease outbreaks. In this article I identify this new obligation as the ‘duty to report’, and examine competing accounts on the degree to which states appreciate this new obligation are considered by examining state behaviour during the H5N1 human infectious outbreaks in East Asia (since 2004). The article examines reporting behaviour for H5N1 human infectious cases in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam from 2004 to 2010. The findings lend strong support to the claim that East Asian states have come to accept and comply with the duty to report infectious disease outbreaks and that the assertions of sovereignty in response to global health governance frameworks have not systematically inhibited reporting compliance.

Is there an international duty to protect persons in the event of an epidemic?

In 2006, the International Law Commission began a study into the role of states and international organizations in protecting persons in the event of a disaster. Special Rapporteur Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina was appointed to head the study, and in 2011 the findings of the study will be presented to the United Nations General Assembly. Of interest to this paper has been the inclusion of “epidemics” under the natural disaster category in all of the reports detailing the Commission’s program of work on the protection of persons. This paper seeks to examine the legal and political ramifications involved in including “epidemic” into the concept of protection by exploring where sovereign responsibility for epidemic control begins and ends, particularly in light of the revisions to the International Health Regulations by the World Health Assembly in 2005. The paper will first analyze the findings already presented by the Special Rapporteur, examining the existing “responsibilities” of both states and international organizations. Then, the paper will consider to what extent the concept of protection entails the duty to assist individuals when an affected state proves unwilling or unable to assist their own population in the event of a disease outbreak. In an attempt to answer this question, the third part of the paper will examine the recent cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe.

What contribution can International Relations make to the evolving global health agenda?

This article presents two approaches that have dominated International Relations in their approach to the international politics of health. The statist approach, which is primarily security-focused, seeks to link health initiatives to a foreign or defence policy remit. The globalist approach, in contrast, seeks to advance health not because of its intrinsic security value but because it advances the well-being and rights of individuals. This article charts the evolution of these approaches and demonstrates why both have the potential to shape our understanding of the evolving global health agenda. It examines how the statist and globalist perspectives have helped shape contemporary initiatives in global health governance and suggests that there is evidence of an emerging convergence between the two perspectives. This convergence is particularly clear in the articulation of a number of UN initiatives in this area—especially the One World, One Health Strategic Framework and the Oslo Ministerial Declaration (2007) which inspired the first UN General Assembly resolution on global health and foreign policy in 2009 and the UN Secretary-General's note ‘Global health and foreign policy: strategic opportunities and challenges'. What remains to be seen is whether this convergence will deliver on securing states’ interest long enough to promote the interests of the individuals who require global efforts to deliver local health improvements.

OCIS and Beyond: International Relations in Australia: Introduction

The Oceanic Conference for International Studies (OCIS) has grown from a small, mostly Australian and New Zealand, affair to an international biennial gathering of scholars from North America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific. Established by a small organising committee drawn from universities across Australia and New Zealand, the principal aim of OCIS was to bring together the Oceanic International Relations (IR) community in an organic and inclusive fashion. There would be no secretariat, minimal bureaucracy, costs would be kept as low as possible, and assistance provided to graduate students. The first OCIS, held at the Australian National University in 2004, proved more successful than the organisers had envisaged. The conference continued to grow at its subsequent meetings at the University of Melbourne (2006) and the University of Queensland (2008). With each conference, a new organising committee was established to take carriage of OCIS. At the 2008 meeting, the question of creating a permanent organising meeting and beginning the transition towards a professional association was discussed in detail. If the transition happens at all, it will be gradual, organic, inclusive, and will prioritise the maintenance of the sense of community OCIS has helped establish. Whilst OCIS itself has flourished, associated initiatives such as OCIS working groups and the OCIS newsletter and listserv have withered on the vine, confirming the original organising committee’s view that endeavours such as this will only prosper to the extent that they are derived and driven from the community as a whole. In 2010, OCIS will hold its first conference in New Zealand, hosted by the University of Auckland...