Do Economic Sanctions Work? A View From The United Nations

The question do sanctions work? can be interpreted not only as a political or legal assessment about their effects on a State, but also as an analysis of whether sanctions are designed, managed and enforced in a manner which makes them viable for an extended period of time for those who are required to implement them

Financing the World Health Organization: What Lessons for Multilateralism?

When it comes to financing the work of international organizations, voluntary contributions from both state and nonstate actors are growing in size and importance. The World Health Organization (WHO) is an extreme case from this perspective, with voluntary contributions - mostly earmarked for particular purposes - comprising more than 80 percent of its funds. Moreover, nonstate actors are by now supplying almost half of WHO’s funds, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ranking as the second-highest contributor after the United States. A number of public-health and international relations scholars have expressed alarm over these trends, arguing that heavy reliance on multilateral contributions is inconsistent with genuine multilateralism. Relying on interviews with current and former WHO officials, our study explores the causes and consequences of these trends, and recent efforts by the WHO secretariat to reconcile growing reliance on voluntary contributions with multilateral governance. We describe the headway WHO has made in mitigating the risks associated with heavy reliance on voluntary contributions—as well as the challenges that persist. Most importantly, we argue that multilateralism is not categorically incompatible with reliance on voluntary contributions from both state and nonstate actors. Collective multilateral decisionmaking is not a binary feature, either present or absent. Even if the final decision to provide voluntary contributions is up to individual donors, international institutions have opportunities to regulate them both in terms of substance and process. The more heavily regulated voluntary contributions are, the more embedded they become in collective decisions, the less tension there is between multilateralism and reliance on voluntary contributions

The Nagoya Protocol and the Legal Structure of Global Biogenomic Research

International research collaborations have been the engines of some of the most important advances in human health and nutrition over the last century. The Green Revolution, built on networks of scientists and resources drawn from the world\u27s wealthiest and poorest countries, averted critical food shortages that faced the growing world population in the 1950s and 1960s. The most promising vaccine candidates for devastating infectious diseases like Ebola and HIV have resulted from partnerships of financial resources, governments, and scientists from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Thailand. Orchestrated technology transfer and research capacity building in low- and middle-income countries have delivered advances in the ability of low-resource countries to manufacture medicines and vaccines. Scientists have worked together across borders as threats posed by infectious disease, malnutrition, and environmental degradation necessitate partnerships that match the technology and resources in wealthy countries with the knowledge and biodiversity abundant in many poorer ones

The Nagoya Protocol and the Legal Structure of Global Biogenomic Research

As life sciences technologies have advanced, so too has the potential for these international collaborations to lead to breakthrough medicines, enhance food security, and protect ecological systems. The linchpin of this progress is the development of high throughput genetic sequencing technologies. Researchers are now able to generate and compare large stretches of DNA - 1 million bases or more - from different sources quickly and inexpensively. Such comparisons can yield massive amounts of information about the role of inheritance in susceptibility to infection and illness as well as responses to environmental influences. In addition, the ability to sequence genomes more quickly and inexpensively creates enormous potential for new diagnostics and therapies. This is true not only for sequencing the human genome, but also for sequencing the genomes of simple and complex organisms that comprise the entire human environment. This Article will first provide examples of where international collaborations have led to advances in medical and agricultural benefits for populations in both rich and poor countries. It will then describe how new life sciences research collaborations, primarily using genetic sequencing technology, may detect potential human pathogens, characterize microbial life, and catalogue the unique genetic information in all wildlife species. It will situate these biogenomic projects in the context of the international access and benefit sharing law, derived from several sources, but most importantly the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Finally, this Article will analyze four of these new international collaborations to demonstrate that the common tensions that arise between generating scientific and other benefits through exploiting new research possibilities, and meeting the food and medical needs of the world\u27s population today are often reconcilable. Part I of this Article outlines the law and ethics of life sciences research partnerships as they unfolded over the course of the twentieth century. Part II analyzes how advances in genetic sequencing technology may accelerate the pace and impact of new life sciences research collaborations. Part II also examines the development of international law over the course of those technological advances, and how the law now requires or shapes partnerships to benefit all participants and to be mindful of constituencies who may or may not benefit. Part III examines four major collaborations, using these case studies to show how the international law of biodiversity is shaping their objectives and channeling their benefits and also addressing persistent ethical questions about the use and distribution of scarce resources. Part IV sets out the conclusions

Implementation, compliance, and pandemic legal obligations : negotiations ought not focus on enforcement and sanction

Member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) are undertaking ambitious governance reforms to prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemics by concurrently negotiating both a new international legal instrument (henceforth called “the Pandemic Treaty”) and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). We therefore find ourselves at a critical juncture in global health governance, with the opportunity to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response through international law. One issue being given considerable prominence in each of these negotiations is how compliance by member states with their obligations can best be achieved. We argue that any efforts to ensure compliance with these instruments should be seen as part of broader efforts to ensure effective and equitable implementation, as opposed to being overly focused on formal compliance mechanisms and the possibility of punitive action in response to noncompliance

Pathogens and Equity in the Pandemic Treaty - Key Takeaways for Negotiators

Pathogens are essential ingredients to monitor the spread of disease, and for developing and producing the vaccines we use to fight infectious disease. Under international law, pathogens are not a resource freely available for use for the greater good. Instead, countries have sovereign rights over the pathogens isolated within their territories, and access can only be provided with the prior informed consent of the country of origin, subject to mutually agreed terms. Under this international system, access to pathogens should be accompanied by the sharing of benefits such as access to medical countermeasures. Such a system has been presented as a tool to counter global inequality in a pandemic. In response to the widespread inequity witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, Member States of the World Health Organisation (WHO) are currently negotiating a new international legal instrument, intended to prevent pandemics and mitigate associated inequalities – the Pandemic Accord or the Pandemic Treaty. Negotiations on this Treaty launched in March 2022 and are set to conclude by May 2024; a remarkably short time frame in international law terms. The new instrument is intended to be grounded in equity, with equity positioned as both an objective and as an operational output. The Pandemic Treaty is intended to prevent future pandemics, improve pandemic response, mitigate associated inequalities (such as inequitable vaccine access), and improve compliance with international law during infectious disease emergencies. One option currently being explored in the negotiations for a Pandemic Treaty to operationalise equity is the establishment of a complex system of ABS for pathogens of pandemic potential, under the auspices of the WHO. On 19th July 2023, and with the assistance of funding received from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, project leads Dr Stephanie Switzer (University of Strathclyde) and Dr Mark Eccleston-Turner (King’s College, London), organised an event with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on pathogen sharing and equity under the Pandemic Treaty, with a particular focus on vaccine inequity during the COVID-19 public health emergency. This event was convened by Anthony Wenton, Research Fellow in Public International Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), moderated by Dr Stephanie Switzer, with contributions from Professor Gian Luca Burci of the Graduate Institute Geneva, Prof Elisa Morgera, One Ocean Hub, University of Strathclyde, Dr Mark Eccleston-Turner, King’s College London, Dr Michelle Rourke, Griffith University, Australia and Professor John Harrington, University of Cardiff. Harry Upton of King’s College London acted as rapporteur for the event. In the below briefing document, we provide an overview of discussions at the event, accompanied by key reflections, tools, and takeaways for negotiators to the Pandemic Treaty

The World Health Organization was born as a normative agency: Seventy-five years of global health law under WHO governance

The World Health Organization (WHO) was born as a normative agency and has looked to global health law to structure collective action to realize global health with justice. Framed by its constitutional authority to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health, WHO has long been seen as the central actor in the development and implementation of global health law. However, WHO has faced challenges in advancing law to prevent disease and promote health over the past 75 years, with global health law constrained by new health actors, shifting normative frameworks, and soft law diplomacy. These challenges were exacerbated amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as states neglected international legal commitments in national health responses. Yet, global health law reforms are now underway to strengthen WHO governance, signaling a return to lawmaking for global health. Looking back on WHO’s 75th anniversary, this article examines the central importance of global health law under WHO governance, reviewing the past successes, missed opportunities, and future hopes for WHO. For WHO to meet its constitutional authority to become the normative agency it was born to be, we offer five proposals to reestablish a WHO fit for purpose: normative instruments, equity and human rights mainstreaming, sustainable financing, One Health, and good governance. Drawing from past struggles, these reforms will require further efforts to revitalize hard law authorities in global health, strengthen WHO leadership across the global governance landscape, uphold equity and rights at the center of global health law, and expand negotiations in global health diplomacy

The Stellenbosch Consensus on the International Legal Obligation to Collaborate and Assist in Addressing Pandemics: Clarifying Article 44 of the International Health Regulations

The International Health Regulations (IHR), of which the World Health Organization is custodian, govern how countries collectively promote global health security, including prevention, detection, and response to potential global health emergencies such as the ongoing covid-19 pandemic. While Article 44 of this binding legal instrument requires countries to collaborate and assist each other in meeting their respective obligations, recent events demonstrate that the precise nature and scope of these legal obligations are ill-understood. A shared understanding of the level and type of collaboration legally required by the IHR is a necessary step in ensuring these obligations can be acted upon and fully realized, and in fostering global solidarity and resilience in the face of future pandemics. In this consensus statement, public international law scholars specializing in global health consider the legal meaning of Article 44 using the interpretive framework of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

The World Health Organization was born as a normative agency: Seventy-five years of global health law under WHO governance

The World Health Organization (WHO) was born as a normative agency and has looked to global health law to structure collective action to realize global health with justice. Framed by its constitutional authority to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health, WHO has long been seen as the central actor in the development and implementation of global health law. However, WHO has faced challenges in advancing law to prevent disease and promote health over the past 75 years, with global health law constrained by new health actors, shifting normative frameworks, and soft law diplomacy. These challenges were exacerbated amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as states neglected international legal commitments in national health responses. Yet, global health law reforms are now underway to strengthen WHO governance, signaling a return to lawmaking for global health. Looking back on WHO’s 75th anniversary, this article examines the central importance of global health law under WHO governance, reviewing the past successes, missed opportunities, and future hopes for WHO. For WHO to meet its constitutional authority to become the normative agency it was born to be, we offer five proposals to reestablish a WHO fit for purpose: normative instruments, equity and human rights mainstreaming, sustainable financing, One Health, and good governance. Drawing from past struggles, these reforms will require further efforts to revitalize hard law authorities in global health, strengthen WHO leadership across the global governance landscape, uphold equity and rights at the center of global health law, and expand negotiations in global health diplomacy