scholarly journals A Consideration on International Organizations in Global Governance in the field of International Public Health: WHO and the EU

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (31) ◽  
pp. 124-143
Author(s):  
Jun INOUE
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hu Zhang

Public health events, as the common concern faced by the international community, call for the joint response from all mankind. The outbreak of the COVID-19 has highlighted the problems confronting the global governance of international public health, such as limited functions of international organizations and difficulties in achieving objectives, poor collaboration between governance subjects and their limited performance, overlapping legal basis of governance and blurred core function, and lack of solutions to special problems. The corresponding approaches can be taken to improve the efficiency of the governance of global public health, including supporting the role of international organizations to achieve the objectives, enhancing coordination among international governance subjects to form synergy, promoting the compliance with IHR2005 to avoid conflict of law application and upholding the vision of a community with a shared future for mankind to jointly respond to the special problems.


2013 ◽  
pp. 4-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Grigoryev ◽  
A. Kurdin

The coordination of economic activity at the global level is carried out through different mechanisms, which regulate activities of companies, states, international organizations. In spite of wide diversity of entrenched mechanisms of governance in different areas, they can be classified on the basis of key characteristics, including distribution of property rights, mechanisms of governance (in the narrow sense according to O. Williamson), mechanisms of expansion. This approach can contribute not only to classifying existing institutions but also to designing new ones. The modern aggravation of global problems may require rethinking mechanisms of global governance. The authors offer the universal framework for considering this problem and its possible solutions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1980-1996
Author(s):  
T.S. Malakhova

Subject. Foreign economic and trade ties among countries are getting tighter and less predictable in the early 21st century. This directly stems from a growing disparity of partners, especially if it goes about their future cooperation as part of integration groups or international organizations. Communities of experts suggest using various approaches to locally adjusting integration phases, especially implementing the two-speed integration in the European Union. Objectives. The study is an attempt to examine an improvement of foreign economic cooperation and suggest its implementation steps for the European Union. This all is due to considerable inner controversies and problems within the EU, which grow more serious year by year. Methods. The methodological framework comprises the historical logic, dialectical principles, scientific abstraction method. The process and system approach was especially important for justifying the implementation of the above steps. It was used to examine foreign economic relations of partners in the European Union. Results. The article sets forth the theoretical and methodological framework for the geostrategic economic bloc, including a conceptual structure model. I present steps to implement a foreign economic cooperation of partners in the EU in terms of its form. Conclusions and Relevance. Should the form of the foreign economic relations among the EU countries be implemented, counties at the periphery of the EU will be able to become active parties to the integration group.


Author(s):  
Antoine Vandemoorteele

This article analyzes the role of the European Union (EU) and Canada in the promotion of Security Sector Reforms (SSR) activities in two regional organizations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The concept of SSR seeks to address the effective governance of security in post-conflict environment by transforming the security institutions within a country in order for them to have more efficient, legitimate and democratic role in implementing security. Recent debates within the EU have led to the adoption of an SSR concept from the Council and a new strategy from the European Commission on the SSR activities. Within the framework of the ESDP, the EU has positioned itself as a leading actor, in this domain, including in its crisis management operations. On the other hand, Canada, through its whole-of government and human security programs has also been an important actor in the promotion of SSR activities. Yet, even though several international organizations (including the United Nations, the OSCE and NATO) are effectively doing SSR activities on the ground, there does not exist a common framework within any of these organizations despite the role of the EU and Canada. As such, it is surprising to found no global common policy for SSR while this approach is precisely holistic in its foundations. Taking these elements into consideration, this paper analyzes two specific aspects : a) the absence of a common policy framework within international organizations and b) the major differences between the approaches of the OSCE and NATO in the domain of SSR and the implications for the EU and Canada’ roles.   Full extt available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v3i2.186


Author(s):  
Mary Robinson

Institutions matter for the advancement of human rights in global health. Given the dramatic development of human rights under international law and the parallel proliferation of global institutions for public health, there arises an imperative to understand the implementation of human rights through global health governance. This volume examines the evolving relationship between human rights, global governance, and public health, studying an expansive set of health challenges through a multi-sectoral array of global organizations. To analyze the structural determinants of rights-based governance, the organizations in this volume include those international bureaucracies that implement human rights in ways that influence public health in a globalizing world. Bringing together leading health and human rights scholars and practitioners from academia, non-governmental organizations, and the United Nations system, this volume explores: (1) the foundations of human rights as a normative framework for global health governance, (2) the mandate of the World Health Organization to pursue a human rights-based approach to health, (3) the role of inter-governmental organizations across a range of health-related human rights, (4) the influence of rights-based economic governance on public health, and (5) the focus on global health among institutions of human rights governance. Contributing chapters map the distinct human rights activities within a specific institution of global governance for health. Through the comparative institutional analysis in this volume, the contributing authors examine institutional efforts to operationalize human rights in organizational policies, programs, and practices and assess institutional factors that facilitate or inhibit human rights mainstreaming for global health advancement.


Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter

This book describes the expansion of EU power in health care and public health and analyses the implications of this expansion on EU health values and rights. The main conclusion of the book is that the EU is de facto balancing fundamental rights and values relating to health, implicitly taking on obligations for safeguarding fundamental rights in the field of health and affecting individuals’ rights sometimes without an explicit legal competence to do so. This brings to light instances where EU health policy has implications for fundamental rights and values without the possibility to challenge the exercise of power of the EU in human health. This begs the question of whether subsidiarity is still the most relevant legal principle for the division of powers and tasks among the Member States, particularly when EU policy and law involves the politically sensitive areas of health care and public health. This question draws out the parameter for continuing the debate on the role of the European Union in promoting its own values and the wellbeing of its peoples, in light of its ever-growing role in human health issues.


Author(s):  
Panagiotis Delimatsis

Secrecy and informality rather than transparency traditionally reign trade negotiations at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels. Yet, transparency ranks among the most basic desiderata in the grammar of global governance and has been regarded as positively related to legitimacy. In the EU’s case, transparent trade diplomacy is quintessential for constitutional—but also for broader political—reasons. First, even if trade matters fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, the EU executive is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to inform the European Parliament, the EU co-legislator, in regular intervals. Second, transparency at an early stage is important to address public reluctance, suspicion, or even opposition regarding a particular trade deal. This chapter chronicles the quest for and turning moments relating to transparency during the EU trade negotiations with Canada (CETA); the US (TTIP), and various WTO members on services (TiSA).


Author(s):  
Gisela Hirschmann

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? Political scientists and legal scholars have shed a much-needed light on the limits of traditional accountability when it comes to complex global governance. However, conventional studies on IO accountability fail to systematically analyze a related, puzzling empirical trend: human rights violations that occur in the context of global governance do not go unnoticed altogether; they are investigated and sanctioned by independent third parties. This book puts forward the concept of pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. We can expect pluralist accountability to evolve if a competitive environment stimulates third parties to enact accountability and if the implementing actors are vulnerable to human rights demands. Based on a comprehensive study of UN-mandated operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the European Union Troika’s austerity policy, and global public–private health partnerships in India, this book demonstrates how competition and human rights vulnerability shape the evolution of pluralist accountability in response to diverse human rights violations, such as human trafficking, the violation of the rights of detainees, economic rights, and the right to consent in clinical trials. While highlighting the importance of studying alternative accountability mechanisms, this book also argues that pluralist accountability should not be regarded as a panacea for IOs’ legitimacy problems, as it is often less legalized and might cause multiple accountability disorder.


Author(s):  
Tyler Pratt

Abstract Why do states build new international organizations (IOs) in issue areas where many institutions already exist? Prevailing theories of institutional creation emphasize their ability to resolve market failures, but adding new IOs can increase uncertainty and rule inconsistency. I argue that institutional proliferation occurs when existing IOs fail to adapt to shifts in state power. Member states expect decision-making rules to reflect their underlying power; when it does not, they demand greater influence in the organization. Subsequent bargaining over the redistribution of IO influence often fails due to credibility and information problems. As a result, under-represented states construct new organizations that provide them with greater institutional control. To test this argument, I examine the proliferation of multilateral development banks since 1944. I leverage a novel identification strategy rooted in the allocation of World Bank votes at Bretton Woods to show that the probability of institutional proliferation is higher when power is misaligned in existing institutions. My results suggest that conflict over shifts in global power contribute to the fragmentation of global governance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document