This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
One of us (LG) was involved in the drafting of the Siracusa Principles, which have become the chief international instrument governing permissible human rights limitations during national emergencies. UN bodies and the WorldHealth Assembly should endorse the Principles, much as the ECOSOC did vis-à-vis the Siracusa Principles.
Under international human rights law, States have a positive, primary obligation to ensure that such health care services are of the highest possible quality and accessible to everyone, everywhere, and without discrimination.
By Kayum Ahmed, Julia Bleckner, and Kyle Knight In mid-May, the WorldHealth Organization officially declared the “emergency” phase of the COVID-19 pandemic over. That has created deep inequities in access to health products that can save lives. Solidarity operates at two intersecting levels.
This symposium gathers reflections from leading scholars, activists, jurists, and others from around the world with respect to the recently issued Principles. Historically, Global Health Law has been permeated with colonialism and concerned with preserving travel and trade rather than protecting human dignity, health and life.
In June 2023, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2500 (2023) on “Public health emergency: the need for a holistic approach to multilateralism and health care.” The report supports the ongoing processes taking place at the international level to transform global healthgovernance.
Soekoe and Davis, both South African lawyers involved in litigation relating to transparency in vaccine contracts between the Government and pharmaceutical companies , detail the successful vindication of the right to access to information, entrenched in the South African Constitution and legislation.
More probably, due to the lack of precise information by the Chinese government on the real extent of the disease outbreak, they opted for a conservative approach, well aware of the economic and political consequences of a PHEIC declaration for the concerned State.
While the Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Public Health Emergencies (the Principles) do not make explicit reference to infodemics, the application of digital technologies in response to a public health emergency is a clear concern.
By Tara Davis and Nicola Soekoe In January 2021, the Director General of the WorldHealth Organization (WHO) observed that the world was on the brink of a “catastrophic moral failure” if wealthier nations did not ensure the equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. This, critically, could have helped save lives.
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has declared a public health emergency. The WorldHealth Organization (WHO) has stopped short of classifying the outbreak as a pandemic, but consistently encouraged affected countries to activate their national emergency response plans.
Eswatini reduced restrictions on abortion through its 2005 constitution, broadening access in cases in which there is a danger to the mother’s life, a serious threat to the mother’s health, and on the grounds of rape, incest, or fetal impairment.
2) By acting in the manner in which he did, the judge in the first instance violated the division of powers and the constitutional and republican principle of government. The main arguments of the Chamber to support its decision can be summarized in five points: 1) The judiciary is not legitimized to design public policies.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 26,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content