Health governance : law, regulation and policy

This special issue of Public Health is devoted to health governance, examining the role of law, regulation and policy in safeguarding the public's health. Each of us has devoted a career to thinking carefully about the role of law as a tool to prevent injury and disease and to promote the population's health and wellbeing. 1, 2, 3 and 4 In this Guest Editorial we first explain what we mean by the term ‘governance’, as well as the role of law in a well-regulated society. Next, we explore the increasingly important, and challenging, concept of what we call national and global federalism—the inter-relationships among the various levels of governance (local, national, supranational and transnational) and among various actors in national and global health. Third, we explain the origins of this journal symposium, which arises from three conferences on the topic in Hong Kong and Sydney. Finally, we offer a brief introduction to the articles that follow.

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.

Book reviews : "Biosecurity interventions: global health and security in question"

International Relations’ engagement with global health governance has proliferated in the last decade. There are a number of excellent works that seek to understand how the relationship between politics and health shapes and informs people’s lives and governments’ policies. However, the overt securitization of health by the IR field has, Biosecurity interventions argues, remained relatively unproblematized...

Women's health and a framework convention on global health

This paper considers the role for a Framework Convention on Global Health in addressing key challenges in women’s health at a global level. Part I analyses the conceptualization of health in terms of human rights and the linking of women’s rights and human rights. Part II seeks to identify pressing issues for women’s health, articulating 10 key challenges for women’s health. Part III considers the proposal for a Framework Convention on Global Health to meet global health needs. Finally, Part IV asks whether international law can provide a valuable platform to support recognition and achievement of women’s health rights and identifies key elements for supporting and promoting women’s health.

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?

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.

Evidence-based decision making to strengthen local governance : nutritional health interventions in Bantul and Gunungkidul

Since 2001, district governments have had the main responsibility for providing public health care in Indonesia. One of the main public health challenges facing many district governments is improving nutritional standards, particularly among poorer segments of the population. Developing effective policies and strategies for improving nutrition requires a multi-sectoral approach encompassing agricultural development policy, access to markets, food security (storage) programs, provision of public health facilities, and promotion of public awareness of nutritional health. This implies a strong need for a coordinated approach involving multiple government agencies at the district level. Due to diverse economic, agricultural, and infrastructure conditions across the country, district governments’ ought to be better placed than central government both to identify areas of greatest need for public nutrition interventions, and devise policies that reflect local characteristics. However, in the two districts observed in this study—Bantul and Gunungkidul—it was clear that local government capacity to generate, obtain and integrate evidence about local conditions into the policy-making process was still limited. In both districts, decision-makers tended to rely more on intuition,anecdote, and precedent in formulating policy. The potential for evidence-based decision making was also severely constrained by a lack of coordination and communication between agencies, and current arrangements related to central government fiscal transfers, which compel local governments to allocate funding to centrally determined programs and priorities.

Evidence based decision making to strenghten local governance : nutritional health interventions

Since 2001, district governments have had the main responsibility for providing public health care in Indonesia. One of the main public health challenges facing many district governments is improving nutritional standards, particularly among poorer segments of the population. Developing effective policies and strategies for improving nutrition requires a multi-sectoral approach encompassing agricultural development policy, access to markets, food security (storage) programs, provision of public health facilities, and promotion of public awareness of nutritional health. This implies a strong need for a coordinated approach involving multiple government agencies at the district level. Due to diverse economic, agricultural,and infrastructure conditions across the country, district governments’ ought to be better placed than central government both to identify areas of greatest need for public nutrition interventions, and devise policies that reflect local characteristics. However, in the two districts observed in this study—Bantul and Gunungkidul—it was clear that local government capacity to generate, obtain and integrate evidence about local conditions into the policy-making process was still limited. In both districts, decision-makers tended to rely more on intuition,anecdote, and precedent in formulating policy. The potential for evidence-based decision making was also severely constrained by a lack of coordination and communication between agencies, and current arrangements related to central government fiscal transfers, which compel local governments to allocate funding to centrally determined programs and priorities.