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...

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...

What does it mean to 'securitize' infectious diseases?

This paper seeks to explain how the selective securitization of infectious disease arose, and to analyze the policy successes from this move. It is argued that despite some success, such as the revised International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, there remain serious deficiencies in the political outputs from the securitization of infectious disease.

Conclusion

In his January 2009 report, ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted that the protection of refugees and the internally displaced were important goals tied to R2P. 1 The Secretary General has suggested that the time has come for the international community to translate R2P from words to deeds. It would seem that the improvement of the protection of displaced persons ought to be a central component of this task. How useful a concept is R2P for advancing the protection of refugees and IDPs? What challenges confront attempts to reconcile R2P and the protection of the displaced? How might these challenges be overcome? These are the kinds of questions that have motivated the contributors to this volume. The volume has brought together some of the leading thinkers and practitioners on refugee, IDP and R2P issues in order to examine the relationship between R2P and the protection of the displaced, and to consider the conceptual and practical challenges that confront the international community if R2P is to add value to efforts to protect displaced persons.

Introduction

"The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a major new international principle, adopted unanimously in 2005 by Heads of State and Government. Whilst it is broadly acknowledged that the principle has an important and intimate relationship with international law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights and armed conflict, there has yet to be a volume dedicated to this question. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law fills that gap by bringing together leading scholars from North America, Europe and Australia to examine R2P’s legal content. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law focuses on questions relating to R2P’s legal quality, its relationship with sovereignty, and the question of whether the norm establishes legal obligations. It also aims to introduce readers to different legal perspectives, including feminism, and pressing practical questions such as how the law might be used to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, and punish the perpetrators."--publisher website

Conclusion

"The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a major new international principle, adopted unanimously in 2005 by Heads of State and Government. Whilst it is broadly acknowledged that the principle has an important and intimate relationship with international law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights and armed conflict, there has yet to be a volume dedicated to this question. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law fills that gap by bringing together leading scholars from North America, Europe and Australia to examine R2P’s legal content."--publisher website