Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association

Draft Committee Report for Athens 2024 ILA Conference

Draft Committee Report for Athens 2024 ILA Conference

INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION

2024 Report

GLOBAL HEALTH LAW

draft text of February 20, 2024

FIFTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

 

ILA COMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH LAW

 

NOTE ON THE NEGOTIATION OF A PANDEMIC ACCORD AND AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS

 

March 30, 2023

 

In this Note, the Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Associations offers some observations in response to the negotiation of a pandemic instrument and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). It observes that the two instruments address overlapping subject matters, such as the pursuit of One Health Measures. This raises complex questions around the interaction of the regimes. The Committee’s main aim in this brief Note is to encourage the negotiating member states to prioritize a set of allocation principles or methodologies for placing subject matter into one or the other negotiating basket.

 

The challenges of parallel negotiations

 

The negotiation of a new pandemic instrument (the “Pandemic Accord”) and of amendments to the IHR are proceeding in parallel.  The dynamics of the two processes are very different: the Pandemic Accord is being negotiated starting from a “zero draft” prepared by the bureau of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) based on an extensive bottom-up consultation process.  The IHR process, on the other hand, has as a starting point a large number of proposed amendments that would extend and modify IHR subject matter and significantly expand its scope. Member states of the WHO have indicated that the resulting two instruments should be complementary and not duplicative or conflicting.

 

This interaction between the Pandemic Accord and IHR’s different regimes raises complex questions, both for the drafting phase and when it comes time to implement and operationalize. The questions are both institutional and substantive. Parallel regimes regulating the same or similar matters in different silos would exacerbate the fragmentation of international law, as addressed by the International Law Commission, various international tribunals, and a host of international legal scholars.

 

WHO member states appear to recognize the challenge inherent in pursuing negotiations in parallel, with proposals addressing: the pursuit of a One Health approach to prevent spillover of animal pathogens to humans; a dedicated framework for pathogen- and associated benefit-sharing; the strengthening of health systems; developing and implementing improved mechanisms for transfer of technology; production and distribution of medical (including pharmaceutical) products (referred to as “countermeasures”) – and associated issues involving intellectual property rights (IPRs); the building-up of financial resources, as well as governance issues such as ensuring compliance and accountability and building an institutional mechanism to promote effective implementation.

 

Historical precedent, such as the multiyear negotiating process resulting in the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, suggests that negotiating substantive and governance rules for such a substantial basket of subject matter issues will be difficult within the timelines presently contemplated by the member states of the WHO (both the Pandemic Accord and the amended IHR should be adopted by the 77th WHA in May 2024). Two sets of negotiations over substantially similar subject matter taking place in parallel in different internal WHO groupings is likely to make the process slower because both negotiating groups will be covering substantially overlapping, and broad, agendas. Ultimately the groups will be required to engage in a coordination or synchronization effort that itself may prove quite difficult and time-consuming to conclude.

 

As member states attempt to coordinate the substance and working of the two agreements, they will be faced with choices not only of placement of issues in either instrument but also about which substantive rules take precedence in particular circumstances and how processes will be sequenced, such as to define when certain obligations or action items are “triggered”. Sequencing is particularly important because the future Pandemic Accord would in principle apply to “pandemics” while the IHR will continue to apply to a broader range of events, risking questions of process and scope precisely when clarity and speed are most required.  Adding to the complexity is the fact that the subject matters being proposed for negotiation in the two instruments in several cases overlap with the instruments, rules and competencies of other international bodies, tribunals and organizations and may arguably fall outside WHO’s constitutional competence (e.g., questions of animal health).

 

Allocating negotiation of a Pandemic Accord & IHR amendments

The Committee observes that both instruments will form part of public international law. New instruments and regimes should align with existing systems so as not to undermine coherence. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) offers a framework for integrating new treaties and instruments, including through Articles 31 and 32, and with particular regard to its “systemic integration” clause in Article 31.3.(c) VCLT.

 

The Committee recommends that the drafters take close account of overarching principles such as equity and the protection of human rights, which should form a part of each regime. When implementing these principles, the consistency and interaction with existing human rights treaties should be taken into account. Similarly, existing international obligations with respect to matters such as protection of biodiversity, intellectual property, trade and investment should be considered.

 

Financing necessarily needs to be addressed for operationalizing any new agreements. This will very likely demand cooperation and coordination with other international institutions and may raise challenging questions about financing from outside sources such as the newly created “Pandemic Fund” at the World Bank.

 

We do not attempt to make recommendations about any particular subject matter. Instead, we encourage the negotiating member states to focus initially on a set of allocation principles or methodologies for placing subject matter into one or the other negotiating basket. Various approaches could be considered. For example, the IHR has historically addressed the response to the international spread of infectious diseases, and it has made provision for the sharing of information with WHO and among member states to allow appropriate precautionary and reactive measures, as well as their coordination and harmonization, to be considered promptly. Sharing of pathogens and related genetic sequences and information to permit rapid development of countermeasures may appear a logical “fit” within the IHR’s set of immediate emergency response concerns. Similarly, addressing issues concerned with adoption of travel and trade restrictions would appear to require immediate attention; so too issues associated with risk communication and guidance on appropriate preventive or control measures. The substantive scope of the IHR and related adoption processes are informed by Articles 21 and 22 of the WHO Constitution.

 

Subject matters such as implementing the One Health approach to control zoonotic spillover, the strengthening of health systems capacity, and improving the global framework for the development, production and distribution of countermeasures (and associated technology transfer) will require some period of time to implement and are more regulatory and transactional in nature than the issues mentioned in the previous paragraph. This should not depend on whether the IHR are triggered in a particular circumstance. This may argue in favor of placing these subject matters in the Pandemic Accord basket. Moreover, WHO member states taking on a scope of obligations currently contemplated by Pandemic Accord negotiating proposals may find it necessary or appropriate to obtain parliamentary approval for ratification of a resulting agreement. Space for this is provided by Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, whereas the amendments to the IHR will enter into force after a defined and relatively short deadline for all member states that do not “opt out”.

 

Throughout the dialogue at WHO, member state negotiators no doubt will be mindful that proposals to delegate important decision-making authorities to international institutions may encounter resistance at the national approval stage. The decision-making processes and authorities proposed under the instruments may be a significant factor when they are reviewed within the member states, and this should be closely considered by the negotiators.

 

Allocation of Pandemic Accord and IHR amendment subject matter should accommodate the complex negotiating environment with a view to effective implementation.

 

 

PDF link here

 

ILA Lisbon 80th Biennial - Parallel Panel

ILA Lisbon 80th Biennial - Parallel Panel

 

Global Health Law in a Deteriorating Environment

 Tuesday June 21, 2022 - 9:30-11 am

 

 

 

The world is facing a series of tremendous challenges that include a pandemic outbreak, deteriorating climate conditions, war in Europe and consequential disruption of food supplies and mass migration, each of which is impacting public health in significant ways. This panel examined the role of global health law in preparing for, addressing and mitigating the consequences of this deterioration in the international environment.

Photo from left to right: Gregory Messenger, Associate Professor of Law, University of Bristol, UK; Elsa Tsioumani, Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellow, School of International Studies, University of Trento, Italy; Moderator, Frederick Abbott, Co-Chair Global Health Law Committee, Prof. at Florida State University College of Law, USA; Brigit Toebes, Co-Chair Global Health Law Committee, Prof. and Chair, Health Law in a Global Context, University of Groningen, Netherlands; Dr. Anita Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, India; Maya Prabhu, M.D., LL.B., Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Dept. of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine and Clinical Associate Professor (Adjunct) of Law, Yale Law School, USA

Members of the Global Health Law Committee join in condemning Russia's violation of the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine, which violation will have a substantial negative impact on the life and health of the Ukrainian people, and which raises wider risks for people around the world. We urge the immediate cessation of this act of aggression, and the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine.

Statement by Committee Members of February 24, 2022

ILA Statement on the Ongoing and Evolving Aggression In and Against Ukraine

3 March 2022

As an Association committed to the international rule of law the International Law Association (ILA) deplores the flagrant violation of international law by Russia in its military action in and against Ukraine, a sovereign state and member of the United Nations.

Further to the statement issued by the Executive Chair of the ILA on 25th February 2022, the Association affirms its commitment to the rules of international law relating to the use of force including the legal obligation upon all states to comply with the principles set out in the United Nations Charter, especially article 2 (4) relating to the prohibition of the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state without a mandate from the Security Council, or in lawful self-defence.

The actions of the Russian Federation manifestly do not come within the exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force and as such are in breach of these peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation is permissible. Nor can political arguments detract from legal obligation.

Apart from being responsible for an internationally wrongful act – the unlawful use of force - the Russian Federation must also comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Failure to do so may constitute international crimes for which there is individual criminal responsibility as well as state responsibility under the Geneva Conventions, the laws and customs of war and human rights treaties. The Association welcomes the decision of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to investigate the possible commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It is evident that compliance with the law will not of itself safeguard international peace and security. Without it, however, not only is the stability of the international order threatened but so too are the lives and security of millions of civilians. The ILA joins with others for calling for an end to the use of force in Ukraine, for a peaceful settlement with meaningful participation by civil society, and for immediate humanitarian and other assistance to those displaced, injured and otherwise harmed, as well as long term justice.

Draft Committee Report for Lisbon 2022 ILA Conference

Draft Committee Report for Lisbon 2022 ILA Conference

INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION

2022 Report

GLOBAL HEALTH LAW

draft text of May 15, 2022

FOURTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

 

Open Session to Present and Discuss Report

ILA 80th Biennial Conference, June 21, 2022

Lisbon, Portugal

 

Global Governance and World Health Organization Reform in the Wake of COVID-19

Global Governance and World Health Organization Reform in the Wake of COVID-19

Panel sponsored by the ILA Global Health Law Committee

YouTube Video of Session herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6c8UHBktw&feature=emb_logo

INTERNATIONAL LAW WEEKEND

99th Annual Meeting of the American Branch of the International Law Association (Oct. 28-30, 2021)

October 29, 2001, 9:00-10:15 am (EST)

 

Global Governance and World Health Organization Reform in the Wake of COVID-19

While policy and public health input is critically important to managing global health emergencies, without sufficiently robust institutional and legal structures in place, states will develop responses that are not well coordinated, leaving gaps that can make it difficult to stop the global spread of an epidemic or address other health challenges in a coordinated and effective manner. Legal rules developed through universal international organizations like the WHO not only create a level playing field, as all States have input, but allow for the monitoring of treaty obligations as well as negotiation and coordination of disputes between States that may arise. This panel will discuss recommendations for reforming the WHO, and the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005, including the work of the WHO's Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, and perspectives an international agreement on pandemic response.

Moderator:

● Frederick Abbott, Edward Ball Eminent Scholar Professor of International Law, Florida State University College of Law; Co-Chair, ILA Global Health Law Committee

Panelists:

● Gian Luca Burci, Adjunct Professor, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva; former Legal Counsel, World Health Organization

● Hélène De Pooter, Senior Lecturer in Law, Bourgogne Franche-Comté University (France)

● Precious Matsoso, Member, WHO Independent Panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response; former Director-General, South Africa’s Department of Health; former Chair, WHO

Executive Board

● Pedro Villarreal, Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

International Law Association Resolution No. 2/2020 - Global Health Law

International Law Association Resolution No. 2/2020 - Global Health Law

International Law Association

 

Resolution No. 2/2020

GLOBAL HEALTH LAW

 

The 79th Kyoto Conference of the International Law Association, held online, 29 November - 13 December 2020:

HAVING CONSIDERED the Statement of the Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association regarding the COVID-19 pandemic adopted by the Committee on 5 April 2020;

OBSERVING that developments since the adoption by the Committee of that Statement have reinforced the importance of its subject matter and recommendations;

TAKING NOTE of the Work Program and Reports of the Global Health Law Committee addressing preparedness and response to global health emergencies;

ADOPTS this Statement regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic.

 

Statement regarding the COVID-19 pandemic

 

The potential for virus-based pandemic outbreaks has long been anticipated by public-health specialists as well as by the World Health Organization (WHO). During the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak attention was drawn to gaps in the preparedness of local health systems, to the scientific challenges of developing new treatments, vaccines and diagnostics in a sufficiently rapid manner to effectively confront large-scale virus outbreaks, and to the special difficulties confronted by low-resource environments in addressing pandemic outbreaks. In February 2015 the Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association convened a meeting on Global Health Security in Geneva at which a substantial number of interested stakeholders shared concerns about these gaps. Following detailed preparatory work, the World Health Assembly met in May 2015 and decided that additional resources should be directed toward prevention of and response to pandemic outbreaks. Although the precise contours and the magnitude of the COVID-19 outbreak could not be foreseen at that time, the potential for such an event was widely understood, as was the need for further advance investment to address it.

Taking note of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the International Law Association wishes to restate fundamental principles and rules of international law important to containing and ending the pandemic, safeguarding the rights of individuals and groups, and ultimately returning international society to a normal functioning state:

 

1. Cooperation. The International Law Association stresses the importance of cooperation among states and international institutions in addressing pandemic outbreaks. A pandemic outbreak is an opportunity to demonstrate the value of pooling scientific ingenuity and of open cooperation among scientists and research institutions, for coordinating logistic and manufacturing capacity, for making available the financial resources necessary to purchase and distribute necessary health products (including vaccines, diagnostics, treatments and personal protective equipment), and for attempting to assure that individuals throughout the world have access to life-sustaining support, including adequate nutrition. A pandemic outbreak is not an occasion for seeking political or economic advantage. Uncoordinated travel and trade restrictions and, more generally, the perception that states can effectively protect themselves from a pandemic in isolation or competing with other states for limited resources, are counterproductive. Actions taken on such premises threaten to destabilize the existing multilateral regime and its institutions with long-term adverse consequences. The world needs more cooperation, coordination and solidarity at this critical time. The International Law Association therefore welcomes the United Nations General Assembly resolutions of 2 April 2020 (A/RES/74/270), 20 April 2020 (A/RES/74/274) and 11 September 2020 (A/RES/74/306 and A/RES/74/307) affirming its commitment to international cooperation and multilateralism. The International Law Association stresses the importance of universal participation in the United Nations system. Universality and inclusive dialogue are essential to comprehensively addressing the global transboundary threat posed by COVID-19.

2. Support to the World Health Organization. The WHO was established in substantial measure to provide a forum where the world community could meet and agree on the processes and substantive measures necessary to address international public health emergencies. It is critical that states support the central role of WHO in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and in preparing for and confronting future public health crises. To this end, respecting the independence of the Secretariat and of the experts and enhancing financial support for WHO in a sustainable, predictable and flexible manner through voluntary contributions as well as a long-term increase of its assessed contributions are crucial. Even though the current state of the pandemic arguably exceeds the scope of the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), it still has an important role to play as the global legal framework to channel data and information and facilitate the coordination of response measures. Member states must pay due consideration to the recommendations made by WHO’s Director-General on the advice of the IHR Emergency Committee and should avoid weakening the IHR through the proliferation of unilateral uncoordinated measures and comply with their obligations, in particular with regard to notifications, provision of information, mutual assistance and cooperation and refraining from restrictive measures not supported by a proper risk assessment.

3. Independent evaluation. The International Law Association welcomes the establishment of the Independent Panel for pandemic preparedness and response as called for by World Health Assembly Resolution WHA73.1, and it commends the Panel Co-Chairs for the steps already taken, as detailed in their report to the WHO Executive Board (EBSS/5/3). The International Law Association also welcomes the establishment by the WHO Director- General, further to WHA73.1, of the Review Committee on the Functioning of the International Health Regulations (2005) during the COVID-19 Response. This Committee is reviewing the functioning of the IHR during the COVID-19 response, as well as the status of implementation of the relevant recommendations of previous IHR Review Committees. The results of the work of the IHR Review Committee, including its recommendations, should be the subject of in-depth consideration by WHO member states as potential improvements in the functioning of the IHR are important to containing and addressing future disease outbreaks. The International Law Association reaffirms that the independence and impartiality of the Independent Panel and the IHR Review Committee must be guaranteed, that they must be permitted to pursue their duties without external political interference, and that their work should be undertaken in as transparent a manner as possible. 

4. Fundamental human rights. The rights to life, to health, to an adequate standard of living and to food are fundamental. As treatments, vaccines and diagnostics are introduced to address the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that the international community focus on assuring equitable access to all people, at all levels of income, wherever they may be located. The response to this pandemic must be grounded in the principle of nondiscrimination. The International Law Association calls attention to the need for governments and international organizations to address violence against women that has intensified as a consequence of the pandemic, constituting a deprivation of the human rights to personal security and equality, among others. It further affirms the importance of maintaining adequate funding and support for mental health services that have been severely disrupted during the course of the pandemic. 

5. Food security and trade. The Committee applauds the joint statement by the heads of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the WHO and the World Trade Organization (WTO) of 31 March 2020 calling on states, as they move to enact measures aiming to halt the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic, to minimize potential impacts on the food supply or unintended consequences on global trade and food security. The Committee also welcomes the declaration by the G20 leaders to avoid unnecessary disruptions and interferences in international trade. 

6. Pooling and availability of technologies. Exclusive rights to technologies such as those afforded by patents and regulatory-based market exclusivity may be useful in ordinary circumstances to promote the aggregation of capital necessary for private enterprise to engage in research and development (R&D). In the extraordinary circumstance of a global pandemic, however, where rapid, general and equitable access to treatments, vaccines and diagnostics is vital, technologies must be shared so that production, distribution and access are maximized. Technology should be pooled and made available at low cost. Exclusive intellectual property rights must not act as a constraint on access, especially as regards COVID-19 in a circumstance of ongoing international emergency. On 22 March 2020, the Global Health Law Committee joined with other stakeholders in supporting a proposal from Costa Rica to the WHO Director General to create a broad technology pooling arrangement to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Law Association recognizes that there are a number of collaborative projects underway directed toward the financing, development and testing, acquisition and distribution of health technologies and products needed to protect against, diagnose and treat COVID-19, including the ACT-Accelerator, the COVAX Facility and the C-TAP initiative. The International Law Association encourages strong support for these initiatives, including financial support from governments with adequate resources, as well as support for other initiatives being made by governments and groups to promote and assure timely and affordable access to health technologies and products to address COVID-19. The Global Health Law Committee should continue its role in developing and supporting proposals to further innovation and to assure equitable access. 

7. Temporary restrictions to rights and freedoms. Some measures to curb the COVID-19 pandemic, including quarantines, are inherently at tension with a range of rights and freedoms guaranteed under human rights law, including the right to privacy and physical integrity, and freedom of movement. These measures must have a legal basis and be proportionate. They should be designed to minimize interference with human rights. Should a State decide to temporarily 'derogate' from human rights, such derogation should be formally proclaimed and notified to the competent international organizations and treaty bodies. Derogation requires careful monitoring to ensure that rights are not set aside unnecessarily. These extraordinary restrictions and derogations should be temporary and great caution and attention must be taken to assure they are lifted as soon as they become unnecessary and do not persist after the public health emergency has passed. A pandemic must not provide an ongoing basis for heightened and indefinite government intrusion in personal spheres of activity. International monitoring bodies should hold states accountable for how they have implemented limitations and derogations to their human rights obligations as part of their fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, while fully taking into account the exceptional nature of the situation. 

8. Humanitarian assistance. The Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) is the humanitarian coordination forum of the UN system. It brings together the executive heads of 18 UN and non-UN organizations and programs (including WHO, FAO, UNICEF and UNHCR) to ensure the coordination of humanitarian assistance during emergencies. After the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, IASC adapted its procedures to ensure a more effective response to infectious disease events. We welcome the adoption of the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan launched on 25 March 2020. This plan is to be implemented by the IASC partners in selected vulnerable States already facing humanitarian crises because of conflict or natural disasters. It is thus essential that all member states of the United Nations, especially developed states, fully support the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan through additional funding that should not be diverted from ongoing humanitarian operations. As requested in the plan, donor funding should maximize flexibility (across the board rather than project by project) to enable rapid adjustments of the response. The Committee notes that funding for the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan will be complementary to the financing instrument launched by the UN Secretary General on 31 March 2020 for responding to the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic. The International Law Association acknowledges that the scale of financing needed for emergency humanitarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic reflects a wider struggle to end poverty everywhere to secure economic and social rights and to achieve UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1. The pandemic has set back meaningful progress already made toward SDG 1. Sustained increases in financial and other support will be needed to move efforts to end poverty back in the direction of achieving that goal. 

9. Ongoing conflicts. Parties to ongoing conflicts, whether internal or international, should immediately pursue ceasefires as requested by the UN Secretary-General so as to avoid magnifying the scale of human suffering. The United Nations organs such as the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as the UN Secretary General, should demand that hostilities be suspended to stem the spread of the pandemic. Health has historically served as a humanitarian consideration during armed conflicts, including “days of tranquility” agreed between opposing combatants to allow for child vaccination. WHO, the UN, the ICRC and other international institutions should build on the value of health at this moment both to enable urgent health operations as well as to pursue de-escalation of current conflicts. 

10. Limitations to economic sanctions. As part of the elementary considerations of humanity, unilateral and collective countermeasures (“sanctions”) should not interfere with access to food and should not prevent the circulation, export, import and purchase of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as medicines and medical devices. 

11. UN Security Council role. The United Nations Security Council has discussed in the past the possible implications of certain diseases on international security, notably HIV-AIDS and Ebola. Given the unprecedented magnitude of the current crisis, the International Law Association considers that the Security Council has a central role to play in managing the political effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the Security Council can and should monitor and address the impact of the pandemic on current crises and conflicts, peacekeeping operations and request cooperation and coordination among states and other actors when warranted by health considerations. The International Law Association welcomesadoption by the Security Council on 1 July 2020 of Resolution 2532 (2020) (S/RES/2532 (2020)) that acknowledges likely threats to international peace and security associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and demands the cessation of hostilities that jeopardize human health and humanitarian operations and that impose exceptional hardship on the most vulnerable populations. 

12. Combatting corruption. The International Law Association takes note that weakened governmental oversight and inadequate transparency during the COVID-19 pandemic regrettably has presented opportunity for corruption that is diverting substantial resources from those in need, undermining public trust and interfering with protection of fundamental rights. It supports the UN Secretary General’s Statement of 15 October 2020 on Corruption in the Context of COVID-19 urging “all governments and all leaders to be transparent and accountable, and to use the tools provided by the United Nations Convention against Corruption”. 

13. International financial institutions. International financial institutions are positioned to attenuate the more vulnerable situation of developing countries facing economic shocks due to the pandemic. The International Law Association welcomes the recent announcements by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to authorize additional funding to developing countries aimed at mitigating the multidimensional economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case of the IMF, the International Law Association takes note of its close collaboration with the WHO, which resulted in doubling the amount of available emergency response funds for strengthening healthcare systems. The International Law Association also notes the authorization by the World Bank of multiple projects for Emergency Health Support. It encourages review of existing mechanisms such as the World Bank’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility to identify gaps in pandemic response, and to address those gaps as appropriate. 

 

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2020 ILA Kyoto Biennial

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2020 ILA Kyoto Biennial

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2020 International Law Association Kyoto Biennial

Third Report (2020) of the Committee, ILA Kyoto Biennial, as adopted

December 3, 2020

 

 Statement of the Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association 

regarding the COVID-19 pandemic

adopted by the Committee on 5 April 2020

The Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association observes that the potential for virus-based pandemic outbreaks has long been anticipated by public-health specialists as well as by the World Health Organization (WHO). During the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak attention was drawn to gaps in the preparedness of local health systems, to the scientific challenges of developing new treatments, vaccines and diagnostics in a sufficiently rapid manner to effectively confront large-scale virus outbreaks, and to the special difficulties confronted by low-resource environments in addressing pandemic outbreaks. In February 2015 the Committee convened a meeting on Global Health Security in Geneva at which a substantial number of interested stakeholders shared concerns about these gaps. Following detailed preparatory work, the World Health Assembly met in May 2015 and decided that additional resources should be directed toward prevention of and response to pandemic outbreaks. Although the precise contours and the magnitude of the COVID-19 outbreak could not be foreseen at that time, the potential for such an event was widely understood, as was the need for further advance investment to address it.

Taking note of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Global Health Law Committee wishes to restate fundamental principles and rules of international law important to containing and ending the pandemic, safeguarding the rights of individuals and groups, and ultimately returning international society to a normal functioning state:

1. Cooperation. The Committee stresses the importance of cooperation among states and international institutions in addressing pandemic outbreaks. A pandemic outbreak is an opportunity to demonstrate the value of pooling scientific ingenuity and of open cooperation among scientists and research institutions, for coordinating logistic and manufacturing capacity, for making available the financial resources necessary to purchase and distribute necessary health products (including vaccines, diagnostics, treatments and personal protective equipment), and for attempting to assure that individuals throughout the world have access to life-sustaining support, including adequate nutrition. A pandemic outbreak is not an occasion for seeking political or economic advantage. Uncoordinated travel and trade restrictions and, more generally, the perception that states can effectively protect themselves from a pandemic in isolation or competing with other states for limited resources, are counterproductive. Actions taken on such premises threaten to destabilize the existing multilateral regime and its institutions with long-term adverse consequences. The world needs more cooperation, coordination and solidarity at this critical time. The Committee therefore welcomes the United Nations General Assembly resolution of 2 April 2020 affirming its commitment to international cooperation and multilateralism.

2. Support to the World Health Organization. The WHO was established in substantial measure to provide a forum where the world community could meet and agree on the processes and substantive measures necessary to address international public health emergencies. It is critical that states support the central role of WHO in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and in preparing for and confronting future public health crises. To this end, respecting the independence of the Secretariat and of the experts and enhancing financial support for WHO in a sustainable, predictable and flexible manner through voluntary contributions as well as a long-term increase of its assessed contributions are crucial. Even though the current state of the pandemic arguably exceeds the scope of the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR), it still has an important role to play as the global legal framework to channel data and information and facilitate the coordination of response measures. States parties should avoid weakening the IHR through the proliferation of unilateral uncoordinated measures and comply with their obligations, in particular with regard to notifications, provision of information, mutual assistance and cooperation and refraining from restrictive measures not supported by a proper risk assessment.

3. Fundamental human rights. The rights to life, to health and to food are fundamental. As treatments, vaccines and diagnostics are introduced to address the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that the international community focus on assuring equitable access to all people, at all levels of income, wherever they may be located. The response to this pandemic must be grounded in the principle of nondiscrimination.

4. Food security and tradeThe Committee applauds the joint statement by the heads of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),the WHO and the World Trade Organization (WTO) of 31 March 2020 calling on states, as they move to enact measures aiming to halt the accelerating COVID-19 pandemic, to minimize potential impacts on the food supply or unintended consequences on global trade and food security. The Committee also welcomes the declaration by the G20 leaders to avoid unnecessary disruptions and interferences in international trade.

5. Pooling and availability of technologies. Exclusive rights to technologies such as those afforded by patents and regulatory-based market exclusivity may be useful in ordinary circumstances to promote the aggregation of capital necessary for private enterprise to engage in research and development (R&D). The higher prices facilitated by such exclusive rights may in ordinary times be acceptable as a trade-off between future research and prompt access, though in ordinary times prices must be reasonable. In the extraordinary circumstance of a global pandemic, however, where rapid access to treatments, vaccines and diagnostics is vital, technologies must be shared so that production, distribution and access are maximized. Technology should be pooled and made available at low cost. Exclusive intellectual property rights must not act as a constraint on access. On 22 March 2020, the Committee joined with other stakeholders in supporting a proposal from Costa Rica to the WHO Director General to create a broad technology pooling and licensing arrangement to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee will continue its role in developing and supporting proposals to further innovation and to assure equitable access.

6. Temporary restrictions to rights and freedoms. Some measures to curb the COVID-19 pandemic, including quarantines, are inherently at tension with a range of rights and freedoms guaranteed under human rights law, including the right to privacy and physical integrity, and freedom of movement. These measures must have a legal basis and be proportionate. They should be designed to minimize interference with human rights. Should a State decide to temporarily 'derogate' from human rights, such derogation requires careful monitoring to ensure that rights are not set aside unnecessarily. These extraordinary restrictions and derogations should be temporary and great caution and attention must be taken to assure they are lifted as soon as they become unnecessary and do not persist after the public health emergency has passed. A pandemic must not provide an ongoing basis for heightened and indefinite government intrusion in personal spheres of activity. International monitoring bodies should hold states accountable for how they have implemented limitations and derogations to their human rights obligations as part of their fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, while fully taking into account the exceptional nature of the situation.

7. Humanitarian assistance. The Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) is the humanitarian coordination forum of the UN system. It brings together the executive heads of 18 UN and non-UN organizations and programs (including WHO, FAO, UNICEF and UNHCR) to ensure the coordination of humanitarian assistance during emergencies. After the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, IASC adapted its procedures to ensure a more effective response to infectious disease events. We welcome the adoption of the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan launched on 25 March 2020. This plan is to be implemented by the IASC partners in selected vulnerable States already facing humanitarian crises because of conflict or natural disasters. It is thus essential that all member states of the United Nations, especially developed states, fully support the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan through additional funding that should not be diverted from ongoing humanitarian operations. As requested in the plan, donor funding should maximize flexibility (across the board rather than project by project) to enable rapid adjustments of the response. The Committee notes that funding for the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan will be complementary to the financing instrument launched by the UN Secretary General on 31 March 2020 for responding to the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic.

8. Ongoing conflicts. Parties to ongoing conflicts, whether internal or international, should immediately pursue ceasefires as requested by the UN Secretary-General so as to avoid magnifying the scale of human suffering. The United Nations organs such as the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as the UN Secretary General, should demand that hostilities be suspended to stem the spread of the pandemic. Health has historically served as a humanitarian consideration during armed conflicts, including “days of tranquility” agreed between opposing combatants to allow for child vaccination. WHO, the UN, the ICRC and other international institutions should build on the value of health at this moment both to enable urgent health operations as well as to pursue de-escalation of current conflicts.

9.  Limitations to economic sanctions. As part of the elementary considerations of humanity, unilateral and collective countermeasures (“sanctions”) should not interfere with access to food and should not prevent the circulation, export, import and purchase of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as medicines and medical devices.

10. UN Security Council role. The United Nations Security Council has discussed in the past the possible implications of certain diseases on international security, notably HIV-AIDS and Ebola. Given the unprecedented magnitude of the current crisis, the Committee believes that the Security Council has a role to play in managing the political effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, it could monitor and address the impact of the pandemic on current crises and conflicts, peacekeeping operations and request cooperation and coordination among states and other actors when warranted by health considerations.

11. International financial institutions. International financial institutions are positioned to  attenuate the more vulnerable situation of developing countries facing economic shocks due to the pandemic. The Committee welcomes the recent announcements by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to authorize additional funding to developing countries aimed at mitigating the multidimensional economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case of the IMF, the Committee takes note of its close collaboration with the WHO, which resulted in doubling the amount of available emergency response funds for strengthening healthcare systems. The Committee also notes the authorization by the World Bank of multiple projects for Emergency Health Support. The Committee encourages review of existing mechanisms such as the World Bank’s Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility to identify gaps in pandemic response, and to address those gaps as appropriate.

 

Global Health Law Committee of the International Law Association

Frederick Abbott, Co-Chair, Edward Ball Eminent Scholar Professor, Florida State University College of Law, USA

Brigit Toebes, Co-Chair, Professor and Chair, Health Law in a Global Context, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Ellen ‘t Hoen, Co-Rapporteur, Director Medicines Law & Policy and University Medical Centre, Groningen, The Netherlands

Including the following Members:

Ryan Abbott, Professor of Law and Health Sciences, University of Surrey, United Kingdom and Adjunct Asst. Prof. of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, USA

Pia Acconci, Full professor of international law, Faculty of Communication Science, University of Teramo, Italy

Gian Luca Burci, Adjunct Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland

Wang Chenguang, Professor of Law, Tsinghua University, China, and Member of the National Expert Committee of Covid-19 Emergency in China

 

 

Hélène De Pooter, Senior Lecturer in Law at Bourgogne Franche-Comté University, France 

Andre den Exter, Universitair hoofddocent Gezondheidsrecht (University Professor Health Law), Jean Monnet Chair EU Health Law, Erasmus School of Law, The Netherlands

Nicole D Foster, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, Barbados

Dr. Mihalis Kritikos, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA), EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, Belgium

Stefania Negri, Associate Professor of International Law, Department of Legal Sciences – University of Salerno, Italy

Maya Prabhu, M.D., LL.B., Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, USA

Laurent Sermet, Professeur d’Université, Institut d’études politiques, Aix-en-Provence, France

Pedro Villarreal, PhD (UNAM, Mexico), Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Germany

Tania Voon, Professor, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Australia

 

 

 

Committee Endorses Costa Rica Technology Pooling Proposal to WHO

Committee Endorses Costa Rica Technology Pooling Proposal to WHO

On March 22, 2020, the Global Health Law Committee has joined with other organizations and individuals to voice support for the proposal submitted by the government of Costa Rica to the Director General of World Health Organization for the creation of a broad technology pooling and licensing arrangement to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter of support can be found here, including posted accompanying statements by Committee Co-Chair and Co-Rapporteur:

Professor Fredrick Abbott, Co-Chair of the ILA Global Health Law Committee and Edward Ball Eminent Scholar Professor, Florida State University College of Law, USA

“The urgent need for sharing of technologies and resources needed to address the COVID-19 pandemic is evident. The principal question is whether political leaders can see past narrow interests and rapidly engage a process that provides tangible results to benefit all member states and people, and especially those with resource constraints. This is not the time for a multiyear WHO negotiation like the one that resulted in the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework. WHO leadership should immediately engage with interested stakeholders, establish a tight timeline, and formulate a concrete recommendation for a pooling mechanism that can promptly be made operational. This is the time to prove that multilateral institutions can make a real difference.”

Ellen ‘t Hoen LLM PhD, Director, Medicines Law & Policy

“I wholeheartedly support the proposal by Costa Rica to create a global pool for rights in the data, knowledge and technologies useful in the prevention, detection and treatment of the Covid-19 pandemic. This is a time for solidarity and sharing. The sad reality is that conflicts are breaking out over access to essential know-how. Significant public funding is poured into the developments of tools for prevention and treatment. I cannot imagine a more urgent situation for the world to come together and make the Covid-19 technology pool a reality.”

Upcoming Member Activities

Upcoming Member Activities

Upcoming Member Activities

 

Global Network of Societies for International Law (GNSIL) Conference on 

Regional Organisations and COVID-19 : Building on Regional Experiences to face a Global Threat

Wed. 27 May 2020, 2-3.30 pm CEST

Moderated by: Hélène De Pooter

Download Zoom Meeting Details

COVID-19: Committee Member Publications and Materials

COVID-19: Committee Member Publications and Materials

Frederick M. Abbott, Confronting COVID-19 In A World Without WHO – Seriously?, Inside View, Health Policy Watch, April 14, 2020

Frederick M. Abbott, Child-Proofing Global Public Health in Anticipation of Emergencyproject on Global Governance: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Need for Post-COVID-19 Reform collection in Washington University Global Studies Law Review (forthcoming 2021)

Webinar with Frederick Abbott and Gian Luca Burci, COVID-19 and International Law: A Snapshot, a CLE seminar hosted on April 28, 2020, by the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, and the International Law Association (American Branch)

Gian Luca Burci, The Outbreak of COVID-19 Coronavirus: are the International Health Regulations fit for purpose?, February 27, 2020, ejiltalk.org

R Habibi, G-L Burci, et al., Do not violate the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 outbreak, The Lancet, February 13, 2020 

Ellen 't Hoen, Covid-19 and the comeback of compulsory licensing, March 23, 2020, Medicines Law and Policy Blog

Mihalis Kritikos, What if we could fight coronavirus with artificial intelligence?, Scientific Foresight: What if?, EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 641.538 – March 2020

Mihalis Kritikos, Ten technologies to fight coronavirus, In-Depth Analysis, EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 641.543 – April 2020

Hélène De Pooter, Overview of international cooperation regarding surveillance and response to epidemics and pandemics (language: French), in Santé et droit international, Editions A. PEDONE – PARIS – 2019 

Hélène De Pooter, Coronavirus: the European Commission creates a medical rescEU stockpile (Source: Dalloz Actu, 24 March 2020 (language: French)

Hélène De Pooter, The COVID-19 pandemic reminds us of the importance of international law for the consolidation of a "sanitary social pact" (language: French), 9 April 2020 

Hélène De Pooter, The Civil Protection Mechanism of the European Union: A Solidarity Tool at Test by the COVID-19 Pandemic, ASIL Insights, Vol. 24. No. 7, May 1, 2020

Hélène De Pooter,  The Covid-19 Pandemic Informed by the History of International Health Cooperation (language: French), The Conversation, 12 May 2020

Brigit Toebes - COVID-19 outbreak is a matter of international law and human rights, March 24, 2020, Global Health Law Groningen Blog

National Legislation and Decisions

National Legislation and Decisions

France Avis du Conseil scientifique, 23 mars 2020Conseil d'État, 22 mars 2020, Demande de confinement totalLOI n° 2020-290 du 23 mars 2020 d’urgence pour faire face à l’épidémie de covid-19 (1), NOR: PRMX2007883L  

Global Health Security Work Program

Report on Activities at Sydney Biennial - August 2018

Report on Activities at Sydney Biennial - August 2018

ILA Sydney Report The Global Health Law Committee, co-Chaired by Profs. Frederick Abbott and Brigit Toebes, convened its public working session on Tuesday morning, August 21, 2018. The Committee submitted its Report in advance of the meeting, and the co-Chairs briefly outlined the substance of the Report. This was followed by substantive presentations by Prof. Toebes addressing the identification and development of general principles of global health law, by Dr. Pedro Villarreal on the relationship between global health law and international environmental law, and by Prof. Abbott's presentation on transparency as a principle of global health law. The working session was well attended by non-members, and useful ideas for future work of the Committee emerged from interventions by those participants. For example, the suggestion was made that the Committee might further explore the rule system governing collection and use of health data that involves potential scientific benefits (e.g. AI-assisted R&D), on one side, and interference with rights of personality, privacy and related discrimination issues (e.g., insurance coverage), on the other. Data flows are often trans-border, and this points to an important international legal dimension that might be taken up by the Committee. There was substantial consensus that public health concerns (i.e. the effects) are an increasingly important dimension of environmental impacts (i.e. the causes), and that while so far international law has tended to focus on environmental causes, there is room for further exploring the legal implications of public health effects (e.g., a precautionary principle with respect to health). The Global Health Law Committee was also responsible for organizing a “side event” on Tuesday afternoon discussing the WTO Tobacco Panel Report.

In June 2018, a WTO dispute settlement Panel issued a Report on the complaints filed with respect to Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging (TPP) legislation by Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Indonesia. The Panel rejected all claims of WTO inconsistency in an 880+ page decision. There were two main sets of claims, those under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), and those under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). The Global Health Law Committee organized an expert panel to assess the Panel Report. This was a timely and “geographically appropriate” occasion given Australia’s central role in the dispute, and we were fortunate to include among the panelists several individuals who directly participated in the dispute settlement process, both from a legal and scientific angle. The Sydney panel was comprised of Jonathan Liberman (McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, Australia), Edward Kwakwa (World Intellectual Property Organisation, Switzerland), Natasha Spisbah (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia), Prof. Brigit Toebes (University of Groningen, Netherlands) and Prof. Tania Voon (University of Melbourne, Australia). Prof. Abbott chaired this expert panel session. The good news, of course, is that the WTO Panel reached the legally correct result, though that was hardly a surprise given the weakness of the complaining parties’ position -- which weakness was manifest already from the outset of the case back in 2012. One interesting question discussed by the panelists was whether the tobacco producers nevertheless enjoyed some success by virtue of the 6-year time span for issuance of the panel report, exceeding WTO procedural rules by five years (though somewhat less by customary practice), thereby managing to delay adoption of similar TPP legislation by other countries. Opinions were mixed on that, with some expressing the view that after about two years countries contemplating new legislation had stopped worrying about the WTO. Others thought that there were concrete examples of government delays awaiting the outcome. The case illustrated the complex science surrounding smoking cessation, and the importance of a multipronged approach to reducing tobacco use. It demonstrated that the TBT Agreement is not a “model of clarity”, particularly regarding some rules surrounding burden of proof, and the disputing parties spent considerable time debating which WTO Member had the burden, and what were the potential consequences of burden shifting. Considerable attention was paid to the WTO Panel determination that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control did not constitute a “relevant international standard” for purposes of establishing a rebuttable presumption that Australia’s legislation did not constitute an unnecessary obstacle to trade, and whether that determination raised questions regarding WTO’s approach to public health matters. On the TRIPS Agreement, the “main” question was whether Australia’s TPP legislation “unjustifiably” encumbered the rights of trademark owners under Article 20. Again, the WTO Panel reached the right (i.e. no) result, but there was some discussion in Sydney about the multi-part analytic framework employed. Interestingly, the complaining countries generally conceded that the TRIPS Agreement does not establish a “right to use” trademarks yet sought in various ways to infer positive from otherwise negative rights. The WTO Panel rejected those efforts. An appeal of the Panel Report was initiated by the time of the Sydney Biennial (Honduras, more recently followed by Dominican Republic), and Prof. Voon discussed the issues raised in the Honduras appeal filing. A number of insightful interventions were made from the floor as part of the follow-on Q & A.

 

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2018 ILA Sydney Biennial

Report of the Global Health Law Committee for 2018 ILA Sydney Biennial

Text of Final (adopted) Second Report (2018) of the Committee, ILA Sydney Biennial Conference

Second Report of the Global Health Law Committee prepared for the International Law Association 2018 Sydney Biennial Conference, August 19-24, 2018

draft Report to be discussed and proposed for adoption

Committee Meeting - Geneva March 13, 2017

WHO Health Emergencies Program

WHO Health Emergencies Program - March 2017 Update

 

WHO Health Emergencies Program Documentation http://who.int/emergencies/en/

UPDATE | WHO Health, Emergencies Programme: progress and priorities, Financing dialogue, 31 October 2016 http://who.int/about/finances-accountability/funding/financing-dialogue/whe-update.pdf?ua=1

WHO An R&D Blueprint for Action to Prevent Epidemics http://who.int/csr/research-and-development/r_d_blueprint_plan_of_action.pdf?ua=1

 

Climate Change and Health

Climate Change and Health

 

US - The Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health1 (IWGCCH) A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change: Change A Report Outlining the Research Needs on the Human Health Effects of Climate Change <https://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/pubs/hhcc_final_508.pdf>

 

Committee Meeting, Johannesburg Biennial August 9, 2016

Committee Meeting, Johannesburg Biennial August 9, 2016

Presenters at Biennial

Co-Rapporteur Xavier Seuba, Member Ruth Atherton, Co-Chair Frederick Abbott

 

Audio: 

Draft Committee Report for Johannesburg Biennial (August 2016)

Draft Committee Report for Johannesburg Biennial (August 2016)

Documents of Interest

Documents of Interest

Philip Morris v. UK Sec'y for Health, CJEU, Case -547/14, 4 May 2016

USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M. Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX

London Meeting March 11, 2016

London Meeting March 11, 2016

Committee Submissions to UN High Level Panel on Access to Medicines

Committee Submissions to UN High Level Panel on Access to Medicines

The Committee's submissions to the High Level Panel process will be presented in London at the public hearing on March 9, 2016.

The proposal for an Essential Medicines Patent Pool will be presented by Ellen 't Hoen (GHLC Rapporteur) in connection with a panel regarding Contributions that propose Incremental Modifications to Existing Innovation and Access Models – Patent related Mechanisms, beginning at 11:15 AM

The proposal for The Framework Convention on Pharmaceutical Innovation and Its Related Protocols will be presented by Xavier Seuba (GHLC Rapporteur) in connection with a panel regarding Contributions regarding System Wide Reform -- New Models to Finance Innovation, beginning at 1:40 PM

Information regarding webcast of the public hearing should be available from the UN High Level Panel Secretariat prior to the hearing: http://www.unsgaccessmeds.org

Submitted February 19, 2016

Proposal 1 (EMPP) prepared by: Ellen ‘t Hoen LLM, Prof dr Brigit Toebes, Katrina Perehudoff MSc, LLM, and Prof Frederick M Abbott

Proposal 2 (Framework) prepared by: Xavier Seuba

Video

 

 

News Reporting

News Reporting

Donald McNeil, Simob Romero & Sabrina Tavernise, How a Medical Mystery in Brazil Led Doctors to Zika, Feb. 6, 2016

Simon Romero, Alarm Spreads in Brazil Over a Virus and a Surge in Malformed Infants, NY Times, December 30, 2015 

Dionne Searcey and Sheri Fink, Sierra Leone Declared Free of Ebola Transmissions, NY Times, Nov. 7, 2015

Denise Grady, 2 New Ebola Vaccines Pass Important Early Test, Researchers Say, NY Times, April 8, 2015

NIH Press Release, Experimental Ebola vaccine safe, prompts immune response, April 1, 2015, US HHS

Amirah Al Idrus, GSK to test Ebola jab with booster from Emergent BioSolutions, FierceVaccines, Mar. 18, 2015

Pam Belluck, Ebola Virus in Latest Outbreak Does Not Show Unusual Mutations, Study Finds, NY Times, Mar. 26, 2015

Dina Fine Maron, West Africa Unprepared for Future Health Crises Despite Ebola Aid, Scientific Am., Mar. 23, 2015

Sheri Fink, Nearly Halted in Sierra Leone, Ebola Makes Comeback by Sea, NY Times, Feb. 28, 2015

Donald G. McNeil, Jr., Fatality Rate Is Falling in West African Ebola Clinics, Feb. 26, 2015

Betsy McKay, How to Detect Infectious Diseases Like Ebola Faster, Wall St.J., Feb. 20, 2015

Pam Belluck, Red Cross Faces Attacks at Ebola Victims’ Funerals, NY Times, Feb. 12, 2015

NY Times Editorial Board, Reform After the Ebola Debacle, Feb. 10, 2015

 

Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Obama to Recall Military Personnel from Ebola Zone, Officials Say, NY Times, Feb. 10, 2015

Sheri Fink, Ebola Drug Aids Some in a Study in West Africa, NY Times, Feb. 4, 2015

Norimitsu Onishi, As Ebola Ebbs in Africa, Focus Turns From Death to Life, NY Times, Jan. 25, 2015

Jonathan Corum, A History of Ebola in 24 Outbreaks, NY Times, Dec. 29, 2014