A Critical Appraisal of the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (2005) in Times of Pandemic: It Is Time for Revision

Morten BROBERG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.26

2020-04-03

European Journal of Risk Regulation

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS1867299X20000264/resource/name/firstPage-S1867299X20000264a.jpg

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) vs COVID-19 Uncertainty

Astrid Stuckelberger,Manuel Urbina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i2.9626

2020-05-11

Abstract:One of WHO primary function is to control and monitor internationally the spread of infectious diseases of the common killers. After SARS-COV, the International Health Regulations (IHR) was adopted in 2005 by all 194 member states to set up national preparedness for an efficient "early alert and response system". COVID-19 is a novel virus with an unpredictable course and many uncertainties about its biological, clinical and epidemiological characteristics. COVID-19 is a game changer and calls for a revision of IHR as well as a more biological, clinical and community-cantered preparedness strategy.
The International Health Regulations (2005), the threat of populism and the COVID-19 pandemic

Kumanan Wilson,Sam Halabi,Lawrence O. Gostin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00600-4

2020-07-28

Globalization and Health

Abstract:Abstract The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare weaknesses and major challenges in the international approach to managing public health emergencies. Populist sentiment is spreading globally as democratic nations are increasing their support for or electing governments that are perceived to represent “traditional” native interests. Measures need to be taken to proactively address populist sentiment when reviewing the IHR (2005) effectiveness in the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss how populism can impact the IHR (2005) and conversely how the IHR (2005) may be able to address populist concerns if the global community commits to helping states address public health threats that emerge within their borders.

public, environmental & occupational health
[International health regulations--evaluation and trends]

A Vessereau

Abstract:The current International Health Regulations (IHR) were adopted by the Twenty-second World Health Assembly in 1969 and amended in 1973 and 1981. They are a revised and consolidated version of the International Sanitary Regulations which were adopted by the Fourth World Health Assembly in 1951, themselves based on the previous International Sanitary Conventions. The purpose of the IHR is to ensure maximum security against the international spread of diseases with a minimum interference to world traffic. Over the years the IHR included cholera, yellow fever, plague, smallpox, typhus and relapsing fever, and then dropped the last three as a result of the global eradication of smallpox and the decline of typhus and relapsing fever as international threats. The IHR have played and still play an important part with respect to the diseases for which they were drawn up. The international spread of yellow fever has been contained by the application of a highly effective vaccine to travellers, and of plague by the inspection of ships and aircrafts for rats, and improvements in the design of air and sea cargo carriers to make them increasingly uninhabitable for rats. The role of the IHR was questioned as far as smallpox and cholera are concerned by arguing that smallpox was eradicated by rigorous national local vaccination programmes and cholera must be defeated by improved environmental sanitation. However, one must not lose sight of the fact that an important element of the IHR is the obligation to notify cases of the diseases listed, together with as much epidemiological information as possible, in order to permit other countries to take appropriate action.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
A Contemporary View of Disrespecting the International Health Regulations During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Why

Fikri Fahmi Fahruqi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/seajalgov.v1i1.9924

2024-04-30

Abstract:This paper discusses an analysis of the legal framework of the 2005 International Health Regulations, specifically Article 43 in relation with the concept of “Additional Health Measures” and seeing how this Article, which currently lacks sufficient jurisprudence, is supposed to be applied within practice especially during pandemics such as COVID-19. The purpose of such is to form a guideline for States parties to this Regulation in its implementation, as is often seen within reality that there exists inconsistent application of it during pandemics, causing a considerable amount of its violation. Hence, because of the lack of jurisprudence for the Regulation, this paper will attempt to use a doctrinal method in interpreting the key terms of the Regulation, with additionally using other sources of law in support to find a meaning. It will be found later in the paper the usage of the 1994 World Trade Organization Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement can be used to understand the technicalities of the Regulation as many of its terms were inspired by said agreement. After understanding the technicalities of Article 43, an assessment of its implementation will be done where we will find how countries like China, which has made restrictive health measures of the extreme, has violated the provision of the Regulation and how countries like New Zealand which has achieved its goal of reducing COVID cases by taking less restrictive measures, has complied with the Regulation.
The International Health Regulations, COVID-19, and bordering practices: Who gets in, what gets out, and who gets rescued?

Adam Ferhani,Simon Rushton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1771955

IF: 5.719

2020-05-30

Contemporary Security Policy

Abstract:It is often said that "diseases know no borders," but COVID-19 has once again shown that policy responses certainly do. Governments have implemented bordering practices in a variety of ways to ensure that their own citizens are protected, even when in direct contravention to the International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005. The IHR and the World Health Organization (WHO) have a strong preference for borders to remain open. Yet, we argue here, non-compliance by WHO member states is not the only problem with the IHR's treatment of borders. Bringing insights from critical border studies and exploring the varied ways in which the response to the COVID-19 crisis has been "bordered," we argue that a much broader understanding of "borders" is required in the IHR and by the WHO, given that much of the exclusionary bordering we find takes place away from physical points of entry.

political science,international relations
Why the COVID-19 response needs International Relations

Sara E Davies,Clare Wenham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa135

IF: 4.985

2020-09-01

International Affairs

Abstract:Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic affects all countries, but how governments respond is dictated by politics. Amid this, the World Health Organization (WHO) has tried to coordinate advice to states and offer ongoing management of the outbreak. Given the political drivers of COVID-19, we argue this is an important moment to advance International Relations knowledge as a necessary and distinctive method for inclusion in the WHO repertoire of knowledge inputs for epidemic control. Historical efforts to assert technical expertise over politics is redundant and outdated: the WHO has always been politicized by member states. We suggest WHO needs to embrace the politics and engage foreign policy and diplomatic expertise. We suggest practical examples of the entry points where International Relations methods can inform public health decision-making and technical policy coordination. We write this as a primer for those working in response to COVID-19 in WHO, multilateral organizations, donor financing departments, governments and international non-governmental organizations, to embrace political analysis rather than shy away from it. Coordinated political cooperation is vital to overcome COVID-19.

international relations
The precariousness of political management of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic in the search for scientific answers: Calling for prudence in public health emergencies

Tiago Correia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3253

2021-05-24

The International Journal of Health Planning and Management

Abstract:It is obvious that the low- and medium-income countries were left out of international management of the pandemic. Once again, good intentions and good will have lost out in political decision-making. But the high-income countries must not forget a recent past that they are trying not to repeat. The situation is still far from ideal. For now, the way to move forward in policy design and planning should take into account prudence in the following principles: <ul class="rlist hanging"><li>– It is not prudent to relax border management until the country's epidemiological situation is under control and the vaccination of priority groups has been completed. The negative impacts of restricting international travel are not as great as in-country mobility to prevent possible collapse of health services, more avoidable deaths, partial or general lockdowns and higher unemployment.</li><li>– In view of global imbalances in vaccination rates and vaccine availability, it is not prudent to open borders without keeping up epidemiological vigilance within borders, due to the potential risk of unexpected effects. This includes pharmacovigilance of vaccines and genomic studies of variants.</li><li>– It is not prudent to say, like at the end of the first wave, that it is all over, because there are still doubts about individual and herd immunity. Science needs more time.</li><li>– A pandemic cannot be beat within a club of countries. Worldwide cooperation is a vital condition of success.</li></ul>

public, environmental & occupational health,health policy & services
The potential effectiveness of the WHO International Health Regulations capacity requirements on control of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of 114 countries

Martin CS Wong,Junjie Huang,Sunny H Wong,Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076821992453

2021-02-09

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Abstract:Objectives We examined if the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) capacities were associated with better COVID-19 pandemic control. Design Observational study. Setting Population-based study of 114 countries. Participants General population. Main outcome measures For each country, we extracted: (1) the maximum rate of COVID-19 incidence increase per 100,000 population over any 5-day moving average period since the first 100 confirmed cases; (2) the maximum 14-day cumulative incidence rate since the first case; (3) the incidence and mortality within 30 days since the first case and first COVID-19-related death, respectively. We retrieved the 13 country-specific International Health Regulations capacities and constructed linear regression models to examine whether these capacities were associated with COVID-19 incidence and mortality, controlling for the Human Development Index, Gross Domestic Product, the population density, the Global Health Security index, prior exposure to SARS/MERS and Stringency Index. Results Countries with higher International Health Regulations score were significantly more likely to have lower incidence (β coefficient −24, 95% CI −35 to −13) and mortality (β coefficient −1.7, 95% CI −2.5 to −1.0) per 100,000 population within 30 days since the first COVID-19 diagnosis. A similar association was found for the other incidence outcomes. Analysis using different regression models controlling for various confounders showed a similarly significant association. Conclusions The International Health Regulations score was significantly associated with reduction in rate of incidence and mortality of COVID-19. These findings inform design of pandemic control strategies, and validated the International Health Regulations capacities as important metrics for countries that warrant evaluation and improvement of their health security capabilities.

medicine, general & internal
Global Health Security Demands a Strong International Health Regulations Treaty and Leadership From a Highly Resourced World Health Organization

Frederick M. Burkle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2015.26

IF: 5.556

2015-02-18

Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness

Abstract:Abstract If the Ebola tragedy of West Africa has taught us anything, it should be that the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) Treaty, which gave unprecedented authority to the World Health Organization (WHO) to provide global public health security during public health emergencies of international concern, has fallen severely short of its original goal. After encouraging successes with the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic, the intent of the legally binding Treaty to improve the capacity of all countries to detect, assess, notify, and respond to public health threats has shamefully lapsed. Despite the granting of 2-year extensions in 2012 to countries to meet core surveillance and response requirements, less than 20% of countries have complied. Today it is not realistic to expect that these gaps will be solved or narrowed in the foreseeable future by the IHR or the WHO alone under current provisions. The unfortunate failures that culminated in an inadequate response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa are multifactorial, including funding, staffing, and poor leadership decisions, but all are reversible. A rush by the Global Health Security Agenda partners to fill critical gaps in administrative and operational areas has been crucial in the short term, but questions remain as to the real priorities of the G20 as time elapses and critical gaps in public health protections and infrastructure take precedence over the economic and security needs of the developed world. The response from the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network and foreign medical teams to Ebola proved indispensable to global health security, but both deserve stronger strategic capacity support and institutional status under the WHO leadership granted by the IHR Treaty. Treaties are the most successful means the world has in preventing, preparing for, and controlling epidemics in an increasingly globalized world. Other options are not sustainable. Given the gravity of ongoing failed treaty management, the slow and incomplete process of reform, the magnitude and complexity of infectious disease outbreaks, and the rising severity of public health emergencies, a recommitment must be made to complete and restore the original mandates as a collaborative and coordinated global network responsibility, not one left to the actions of individual countries. The bottom line is that the global community can no longer tolerate an ineffectual and passive international response system. As such, this Treaty has the potential to become one of the most effective treaties for crisis response and risk reduction worldwide. Practitioners and health decision-makers worldwide must break their silence and advocate for a stronger Treaty and a return of WHO authority. ( Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:568–580)

public, environmental & occupational health
Infectious Disease Outbreak Response: Mind the Rights Gap

Sara E. Davies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwx011

2017-01-01

Medical Law Review

Abstract:The international organization responsible for international coordinated response to disease outbreaks-the World Health Organization (WHO)-was given permission to receive reports from sources other than the state in revisions to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005. However, the organization struggles to protect its corresponding right to receive reports from non-state actors on outbreak events. This article examines the consequences of this implementation gap between what is stated in the IHR-the right of WHO to receive reports from non-state actors on outbreak events-and the reality that states remain able and willing to act to ensure that this right is not exercised. The article examines two recent cases: the first detection of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak in Saudi Arabia, and the first months of the Ebola outbreak in Guinea. Both cases demonstrate how the WHO has struggled to balance states' concern with managing risk communication against WHO's right to receive reports from non-state actors. The article argues that to realize the full potential of a transparent disease outbreak reporting process, there is a need for a human rights framework that expressly articulates its right to receive reports and outlines appropriate behaviour for the WHO, states, and non-state actors.

law,medicine, legal
The WHO Disease Outbreak News during the Covid-19 pandemic

Ciara M. Weets,Colin J. Carlson,Hailey Robertson,Kate Toole,Lauren McGivern,Ellie Graeden,Rebecca Katz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.19.24303038

2024-02-20

Abstract:During the Covid-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) was faced with the task of regular public updating—about both the pandemic itself, and hundreds or potentially thousands of other health emergencies. Here, we examined the 242 reports published in the WHO Disease Outbreak News (DON) during the first four years of the Covid-19 pandemic (2020 to 2023), and document the diseases and regions that were reported. We find that multinational epidemics of diseases like Ebola virus and MERS-CoV continue to dominate the DON. However, recent years have also seen more reports of climate-sensitive infectious diseases, as well as a state shift in influenza outbreak reporting in both China and the rest of the world. Surprisingly, the DON was only minimally used to document the Covid-19 pandemic and the global mpox epidemic, almost exclusively before the declaration of a public health emergency of international concern. Notably, inconsistent reporting related to Covid-19 variants of concern speaks to the ongoing evolution of the DON as a resource, and potentially, to its complicated relationship with international travel and trade restrictions. We suggest that researchers should continue to exercise caution when treating the DON as a global record of outbreak history, but that the DON is a compelling record of the WHO itself, including the process it uses to assess outbreak risk.

Public and Global Health
The amended international health regulations: Implications and challenges for domestic legal frameworks

Sarah Emami,Cedric Aperce

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3853

2024-10-16

The International Journal of Health Planning and Management

Abstract:The World Health Organisation's International Health Regulations were amended in May 2024, with a number of implications for countries to amend their legal and institutional frameworks. This perspective highlights two key areas of focus in the amendments—the importance of multisectoral coordination and subnational work ‐ and explores their links to health security challenges and to concrete country experiences. National legal and institutional frameworks constitute a key enabling mechanism for effective public health systems capable of preventing, detecting, and responding promptly to public health events and emergencies, and the recent IHR amendments provide a new impetus for WHO Member States to make these changes.

public, environmental & occupational health,health policy & services
The Implementation of the International Health Regulations on Vector-Borne Diseases: A Scoping Review of the Qualitative Evidence Performed Worldwide

Ana Margarida Alho,Carlos Quelhas,Inês Subtil,Tiago Adrego,José Durão

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000531752

2023-09-06

Abstract:Introduction: The International Health Regulations were created by the World Health Organization with the purpose of preventing the international spread of diseases. The 196 signatory countries are bound by this international agreement. In this article, we conducted a scoping review of the literature concerning the implementation and operationalization of measures at both the continental and national levels to prevent the spread of vector-borne diseases. The purpose was to understand the main strategies and policies adopted, as well as how they have been operating. Methods: Out of an initial search on PubMed™, SCOPUS™, and Web of Science™ using combinations of "International Health Regulations" and "vector-borne diseases", 75 references were obtained, of which 27 were included after careful qualitative analysis. Results: Publication dates of included articles ranged from 1996 to 2022. Four major categories of measures were identified: (a) surveillance and epidemic intelligence; (b) Declaration of Public Health Emergency of International Concern; (c) measures in Points of Entry; and (d) vaccination status. Implemented measures were found in all continents: Africa, Oceania (Australia), Asia (China, India, Taiwan), Europe (Ireland, the Netherlands, and Mediterranean countries), North America (USA), and South America (Brazil). Yellow fever, Zika, Dengue, and Chikungunya were the most cited vector-borne diseases but Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Japanese encephalitis, Lyme disease, Malaria, Leishmaniasis, Tick-borne encephalitis, and West Nile fever were also mentioned. Conclusion: There are severe asymmetries across countries on the implementation of international regulations with regards to vector-borne diseases, particularly on the issue of surveillance systems. State Parties should consider the lessons learned from the pandemic and perfect their core capacities to prevent future outbreaks of infectious diseases.
TOPIC: SECURITIZATION OF GLOBAL HEALTH PANDEMIC AND REITERATING THE RELEVANCE OF 2005 INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS: COVID-19 AND HUMAN SECURITY IN AFRICA.

Osaji Nsagha Nkang,Okon Bassey Bassey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet3.1.4

2022-07-07

African Journal of Empirical Research

Abstract:The Copenhagen school of security changed the long-standing traditional thinking of security that was state-centered. Thus security, from a state-centric view was a Westphalian doctrine that centered on issues of war, interstate rivalry, boundary disputes, foreign policy, arms race, alliance, protection of state and its leaders, etc. The integration of non-military threats like health, disease, poverty, terrorism, environmental degradation, etc. into security discourse was adopted as serious security threats of global proportion. The securitization of health pandemics like COVID-19 was also given a boost by the 2005 International Health Regulation-IHR. The IHR-2005 tends to prevent, protect against, control, detect with surveillance using an early warning system, and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade restrictions. Yet countries and the African continent were not swift in tracking the COVID-19 unleashed unbearable global suffering in the form of the heavy death toll, unemployment, denial of human rights to movement, assembly, worship, and a decline in the global economy, halting international travel and international economy/business. The paper, therefore, examined the success of the IHR-2005, in terms of African continent compliance with IHR-2005 and the impact of COVID-19 on human security in Africa. The paper is content analysis-based in methodology as data was obtained from mainly secondary sources, such as textbooks, journal publications, internet materials, magazines, etc. the human security theory was explored to buttress the paper. It was discovered that, despite the International and Regional regulations, to track and curb the spread and devastating impact of health pandemic as COVID-19, the African continent still suffered severely, with death tolls, job loss, human and Civil rights abuses, etc. the work, therefore, recommends: equipping the various states, not just financially, but with skilled and trained manpower in areas of health emergencies, ensuring various states implement such regulations with strict monitoring.
An analysis of International Health Regulations Emergency Committees and Public Health Emergency of International Concern Designations

Lucia Mullen,Christina Potter,Lawrence O Gostin,Anita Cicero,Jennifer B Nuzzo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002502

IF: 8.056

2020-06-01

BMJ Global Health

Abstract:Introduction Nine events have been assessed for potential declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). A PHEIC is defined as an extraordinary event that constitutes a public health risk to other states through international spread and requires a coordinated international response. The WHO Director-General convenes Emergency Committees (ECs) to provide their advice on whether an event constitutes a PHEIC. The EC rationales have been criticised for being non-transparent and contradictory to the International Health Regulations (IHR). This first comprehensive analysis of EC rationale provides recommendations to increase clarity of EC decisions which will strengthen the IHR and WHO’s legitimacy in future outbreaks. Methods 66 EC statements were reviewed from nine public health outbreaks of influenza A, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, polio, Ebola virus disease, Zika, yellow fever and coronavirus disease-2019. Statements were analysed to determine which of the three IHR criteria were noted as contributing towards the EC’s justification on whether to declare a PHEIC and what language was used to explain the decision. Results Interpretation of the criteria were often vague and applied inconsistently. ECs often failed to describe and justify which criteria had been satisfied. Discussion Guidelines must be developed for the standardised interpretation of IHR core criteria. The ECs must clearly identify and justify which criteria have contributed to their rationale for or against PHEIC declaration. Conclusion Striving for more consistency and transparency in EC justifications would benefit future deliberations and provide more understanding and support for the process.

public, environmental & occupational health
A survey of International Health Regulations National Focal Points experiences in carrying out their functions

Corinne Packer,Sam F Halabi,Helge Hollmeyer,Salima S Mithani,Lindsay Wilson,Arne Ruckert,Ronald Labonté,David P Fidler,Lawrence O Gostin,Kumanan Wilson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00675-7

2021-03-06

Global Health

Abstract:Background: The 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) require States Parties to establish National Focal Points (NFPs) responsible for notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) of potential events that might constitute public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), such as outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Given the critical role of NFPs in the global surveillance and response system supported by the IHR, we sought to assess their experiences in carrying out their functions. Methods: In collaboration with WHO officials, we administered a voluntary online survey to all 196 States Parties to the IHR (2005) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and North America, from October to November 2019. The survey was available in six languages via a secure internet-based system. Results: In total, 121 NFP representatives answered the 56-question survey; 105 in full, and an additional 16 in part, resulting in a response rate of 62% (121 responses to 196 invitations to participate). The majority of NFPs knew how to notify the WHO of a potential PHEIC, and believed they have the content expertise to carry out their functions. Respondents found training workshops organized by WHO Regional Offices helpful on how to report PHEICs. NFPs experienced challenges in four critical areas: 1) insufficient intersectoral collaboration within their countries, including limited access to, or a lack of cooperation from, key relevant ministries; 2) inadequate communications, such as deficient information technology systems in place to carry out their functions in a timely fashion; 3) lack of authority to report potential PHEICs; and 4) inadequacies in some resources made available by the WHO, including a key tool - the NFP Guide. Finally, many NFP representatives expressed concern about how WHO uses the information they receive from NFPs. Conclusion: Our study, conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates key challenges experienced by NFPs that can affect States Parties and WHO performance when outbreaks occur. In order for NFPs to be able to rapidly and successfully communicate potential PHEICs such as COVID-19 in the future, continued measures need to be taken by both WHO and States Parties to ensure NFPs have the necessary authority, capacity, training, and resources to effectively carry out their functions as described in the IHR.
A holistic view of human rights and its application in the context of infectious disease pandemics

Weiqi Chen,Linbin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29963

IF: 3.776

2024-04-19

Heliyon

Abstract:Under the new coronavirus epidemic, the implementation of public health measures has generated some resistance in countries around the world. The essence of examining the human rights claims of those who oppose the epidemic is that they have a too narrow understanding of individual human rights and ignore the obligation implications of human rights itself. From the historical point of view, health and epidemic prevention is the objective necessity of the survival and development of human society; From the ethical point of view, the joint fight against the epidemic is the moral obligation of the coordinated development of individuals and society. From the normative point of view, the management of infectious diseases is the basic consensus established by many international conventions. To correct the narrow understanding of individual human rights concept, the global human rights concept should be established in pandemic governance, and the concept of human health community should be shaped in the pandemic convention to build governance consensus, implement the same health concept to clarify the scope of governance, implement the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and strengthen the participation of individuals and communities in public health governance to improve governance paths. To shape a more reasonable and effective pandemic governance order.
How an outbreak became a pandemic: a chronological analysis of crucial junctures and international obligations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic

Sudhvir Singh,Christine McNab,Rose McKeon Olson,Nellie Bristol,Cody Nolan,Elin Bergstrøm,Michael Bartos,Shunsuke Mabuchi,Raj Panjabi,Abraar Karan,Salma M Abdalla,Mathias Bonk,Margaret Jamieson,George K Werner,Anders Nordström,Helena Legido-Quigley,Alexandra Phelan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01897-3

2021-12-04

Abstract:Understanding the spread of SARS-CoV-2, how and when evidence emerged, and the timing of local, national, regional, and global responses is essential to establish how an outbreak became a pandemic and to prepare for future health threats. With that aim, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response has developed a chronology of events, actions, and recommendations, from December, 2019, when the first cases of COVID-19 were identified in China, to the end of March, 2020, by which time the outbreak had spread extensively worldwide and had been characterised as a pandemic. Datapoints are based on two literature reviews, WHO documents and correspondence, submissions to the Panel, and an expert verification process. The retrospective analysis of the chronology shows a dedicated initial response by WHO and some national governments, but also aspects of the response that could have been quicker, including outbreak notifications under the International Health Regulations (IHR), presumption and confirmation of human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2, declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and, most importantly, the public health response of many national governments. The chronology also shows that some countries, largely those with previous experience with similar outbreaks, reacted quickly, even ahead of WHO alerts, and were more successful in initially containing the virus. Mapping actions against IHR obligations, the chronology shows where efficiency and accountability could be improved at local, national, and international levels to more quickly alert and contain health threats in the future. In particular, these improvements include necessary reforms to international law and governance for pandemic preparedness and response, including the IHR and a potential framework convention on pandemic preparedness and response.
Has Global Health Law Risen to Meet the COVID-19 Challenge? Revisiting the International Health Regulations to Prepare for Future Threats

Lawrence O. Gostin,Roojin Habibi,Benjamin Mason Meier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3598165

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Global health law is essential in responding to the infectious disease threats of a globalizing world, where no single country, or border, can wall off disease. Yet, the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic has tested the essential legal foundations of the global health system. Within weeks, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has circumnavigated the globe, bringing the world to a halt and exposing the fragility of the international legal order. Reflecting on how global health law will emerge in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, it will be crucial to examine the lessons learned in the COVID-19 response and the reforms required to rebuild global health institutions while maintaining core values of human rights, rule of law, and global solidarity in the face of unprecedented threats.
International Health Regulations and Role of State to Protect Health in India with Special Reference to International Health Regulation 2005: a Critical Study

Dr. Kashinath Suryabhan Neharkar -

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i02.15531

2024-03-23

International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

Abstract:The apt observation by the great philosopher of India, Mahatma Gadhi emphasizes the importance of health and healthy person. The health of any nation is dependent on health of individual and society. The protection of public health is responsibility of state. It ensures the physical and mental wellbeing of individual to enjoy the life to fullest extent. The ill health is root cause for many problems including dirt, disease, poverty etc. The right to health is one of the cherished rights recognized and protected at national and international level. It is responsibility of state to enable every individual to protect health of individual.. There are several international instruments provided for regulation of regulation of health of individual. The International Health Regulations 2005 is adopted by World Health Assembly. It specifically provides for responsibility of state to develop capacity to detect, protect and to respond the public health crisis and risks. It also requires the state to coordinate with WHO on any issue on concern on public health which may create danger to world health. The recent example of CORONA emerged as challenge before the public health which is tackled with coordination and cooperation The present research explores the international health regulation and duties of state with special reference to public health in India. The International treaties and pacts are binding on state once it is signed by state. The signatory state shall implement the obligations created by it. India is signatory to many instruments. This research further explored the laws and measures and health system provided by India for implementation of international health standard as provided by international health regulation. The research critically examined the loopholes in implementation of such regulations. The research concludes that IHR is crucial initiative by WHO to disease surveillance and prevent disease outbreak endangering world health. It suggests that government must strengthen public health system in coordination with organizations like WHO.

A Critical Appraisal of the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (2005) in Times of Pandemic: It Is Time for Revision

WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) vs COVID-19 Uncertainty

The International Health Regulations (2005), the threat of populism and the COVID-19 pandemic

[International health regulations--evaluation and trends]

A Contemporary View of Disrespecting the International Health Regulations During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Why

The International Health Regulations, COVID-19, and bordering practices: Who gets in, what gets out, and who gets rescued?

Why the COVID-19 response needs International Relations

The precariousness of political management of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic in the search for scientific answers: Calling for prudence in public health emergencies

The potential effectiveness of the WHO International Health Regulations capacity requirements on control of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of 114 countries

Global Health Security Demands a Strong International Health Regulations Treaty and Leadership From a Highly Resourced World Health Organization

Infectious Disease Outbreak Response: Mind the Rights Gap

The WHO Disease Outbreak News during the Covid-19 pandemic

The amended international health regulations: Implications and challenges for domestic legal frameworks

The Implementation of the International Health Regulations on Vector-Borne Diseases: A Scoping Review of the Qualitative Evidence Performed Worldwide

TOPIC: SECURITIZATION OF GLOBAL HEALTH PANDEMIC AND REITERATING THE RELEVANCE OF 2005 INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS: COVID-19 AND HUMAN SECURITY IN AFRICA.

An analysis of International Health Regulations Emergency Committees and Public Health Emergency of International Concern Designations

A survey of International Health Regulations National Focal Points experiences in carrying out their functions

A holistic view of human rights and its application in the context of infectious disease pandemics

How an outbreak became a pandemic: a chronological analysis of crucial junctures and international obligations in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic

Has Global Health Law Risen to Meet the COVID-19 Challenge? Revisiting the International Health Regulations to Prepare for Future Threats

International Health Regulations and Role of State to Protect Health in India with Special Reference to International Health Regulation 2005: a Critical Study