Emergent patterns in global health diplomacy: a network analysis of the resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly from 1948 to 2022.

From a complexity perspective on governance, multilateral diplomacy is based on interactions between people, ideas, norms, policies and institutions. This article uses a computer-assisted methodology to better understand governance systems as a network of norms. All World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions that were available from 1948 to 2022 were collected from the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS) database. Regular expressions were used to identify how resolutions cite other resolutions and the resulting relationships were analysed as a normative network. The findings show that WHA resolutions constitute a complex network of interconnected global health issues. This network is characterised by several community patterns. While chain-like patterns are associated with specific diseases programmes, radial patterns are characteristic of highly important procedural decisions that member states reaffirm in similar situations. Finally, densely connected communities correspond to contested topics and emergencies. While these emergeng patterns suggest the relevance of using network analysis to understand global health norms in international organisations, we reflect on how this computational approach can be extended to provide new understandings of how multilateral governance systems work, and to address some important contemporary questions about the effects of regime complexity on global health diplomacy.

Canada's Covid-19 response: navigating national and global solidarity

Canada was among the earliest countries to report a confirmed case of the novel coronavirus (Covid-19) on 25 January 2020. By April 18, Canada reported 31,927 cases and 1,310 deaths, the 13th highest in the world. While numbers have since increased, the public health tragedy which has played out in the USA has provided some comfort that it could be far worse. Despite sharing the world's longest undefended border with the world's Covid-19 epicentre, cases and deaths per million population in Canada remain 2.5 and 3.2 times lower. This will not be fully explained until the pandemic eventually plays out, but clear differences in each country's response can be discerned. From a public health perspective, Canada's pandemic response has been shaped by lessons from the 2003 SARS outbreak which caused 44 deaths in Toronto. The Public Health Agency of Canada was subsequently formed, along with new public health bodies in three provinces including the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and Public Health Ontario. These capacities added to Canada's publicly-funded and universally accessible health care system. By contrast, the epidemic monitoring and command groups within the US National Security Council and Department of Homeland Security, set up by the Obama Administration following the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa, was largely dismantled in 2018 by the Trump Administration.

The Unintended Consequences of Information Provision: The World Health Organization and Border Restrictions during COVID-19.

Why do some international agreements fail to achieve their goals? Rather than states' engaging in cheap talk, evasion, or shallow commitments, the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR)-the agreement governing states' and WHO's response to global health emergencies-point to the unintended consequences of information provision. The IHR have a dual goal of providing public health protection from health threats while minimizing unnecessary interference in international traffic. As such, during major outbreaks WHO provides information about spread and severity, as well as guidance about how states should respond, primarily regarding border policies. During COVID-19, border restrictions such as entry restrictions, flight suspensions, and border closures have been commonplace even though WHO recommended against such policies when it declared the outbreak a public health emergency in January 2020. Building on findings from the 2014 Ebola outbreak, we argue that without raising the cost of disregarding (or the benefits of following) recommendations against border restrictions, information from WHO about outbreak spread and severity leads states to impose border restrictions inconsistent with WHO's guidance. Using new data from COVID-19, we show that WHO's public health emergency declaration and pandemic announcement are associated with increases in the number of states imposing border restrictions.

Resumen: ¿Por qué motivo algunos acuerdos internacionales no logran alcanzar sus objetivos? El Reglamento Sanitario Internacional (RSI) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS)­el acuerdo que rige la respuesta de los Estados y la OMS a las emergencias sanitarias mundiales­señala como motivo las consecuencias imprevistas del suministro de información, en lugar del discurso trivial, la evasión o los compromisos superficiales por parte de los Estados. El RSI tiene como doble objetivo proteger la salud pública de las amenazas sanitarias y minimizar las interferencias innecesarias en el tráfico internacional. Como tal, durante brotes importantes, la OMS proporciona información sobre la propagación y la gravedad, así como orientación sobre cómo deben responder los Estados, principalmente en lo que respecta a las políticas fronterizas. Sin embargo, durante la COVID-19, las restricciones fronterizas, tales como las restricciones de entrada, las suspensiones de vuelos y los cierres de fronteras, han sido habituales, a pesar de que la OMS recomendó no aplicar estas políticas cuando declaró el brote epidémico como emergencia de salud pública en enero de 2020. Basándonos en los resultados del brote de ébola de 2014, argumentamos que, sin aumentar el coste de ignorar (o los beneficios de seguir) las recomendaciones contra las restricciones fronterizas, la información de la OMS sobre la propagación y la gravedad del brote lleva a los Estados a imponer restricciones fronterizas que no son coherentes con las orientaciones de la OMS. Utilizando nuevos datos de la COVID-19, mostramos que la declaración de emergencia de salud pública de la OMS y el anuncio de pandemia están asociados con el aumento del número de estados que imponen restricciones fronterizas.

Résumé: Pourquoi certains accords internationaux n'atteignent-ils pas leurs objectifs? À l'inverse d'États se perdant dans des discussions superficielles, des pirouettes ou des engagements insignifiants, le Règlement sanitaire international (RSI) de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), à savoir l'accord encadrant la réponse des États et de l'OMS aux situations d'urgence sanitaire internationales, évoque les conséquences imprévues de la transmission d'informations. Le RSI a un objectif double : protéger les populations contre les menaces pour la santé publique, tout en minimisant les interactions non nécessaires dans le trafic international. Par conséquent, lors des grandes épidémies, l'OMS fournit des informations relatives à la transmission et à la gravité des maladies, ainsi que des conseils quant aux mesures que les États doivent mettre en œuvre, principalement en ce qui concerne les politiques aux frontières. Pourtant, durant la pandémie de COVID-19, les restrictions aux frontières, telles que les limitations des entrées, les suspensions de vols et les fermetures, ont été monnaie courante, et ce bien que l'OMS ait déconseillé de telles pratiques lorsqu'elle a déclaré que l'épidémie constituait une urgence sanitaire, en janvier 2020. S'appuyant sur des travaux portant sur l'épidémie d'Ebola en 2014, nous soutenons, sans exagérer l'impact d'une non-conformité (ou les avantages d'une conformité) aux recommandations de l'OMS en matière de restrictions aux frontières, que les informations transmises par l'organisation en matière de transmission et de gravité de la maladie ont conduit les États à imposer des restrictions aux frontières non conformes auxdites recommandations. Grâce à de nouvelles données relatives au COVID-19, nous montrons que la déclaration d'urgence sanitaire et l'annonce de la pandémie par l'OMS se sont accompagnées d'une augmentation du nombre d'États imposant des restrictions aux frontières.

Governing Global Antimicrobial Resistance: 6 Key Lessons Fromthe Paris Climate Agreement

[...]mitigating the threat posed by AMR requires a recognition of how embedded social structures and incentives drive antimicrobial use across sectors. [...]escalating commitments through national AMR action plans, which outline each country's AMR goals and planned actions, will likely increase the effectiveness of global AMR efforts. Fifth, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guiding the Paris Agreement, ongoing AMR action would be best informed by a regular and independent stock-taking to evaluate existing measures and advise on evidence-informed adjustments.11,12 This endeavor must (1) recognize that different ways of knowing constitute the global knowledge base, (2) ensure that using evidence to inform adjustments that work does not detract from the inherently political questions of works for what purpose and for whose benefit, and (3) come with a commitment to equitable evidence generation and prioritization. Striking a panel to assess the global knowledge base on these terms will ensure that global, regional, and national goals and policies are continually informed by the best available evidence and are in line with leading practices.12 Finally, an enduring international legal agreement could institutionalize requires new legal mechanisms beyond those available through the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Organization for Animal Health, and the United Nations Environment Program, which are limited to the area-specific mandates of each institution.

Defining Priorities for Action and Research on the Commercial Determinants of Health: A Conceptual Review.

In recent years, the concept of commercial determinants of health (CDoH) has attracted scholarly, public policy, and activist interest. To date, however, this new attention has failed to yield a clear and consistent definition, well-defined metrics for quantifying its impact, or coherent directions for research and intervention. By tracing the origins of this concept over 2 centuries of interactions between market forces and public health action and research, we propose an expanded framework and definition of CDoH. This conceptualization enables public health professionals and researchers to more fully realize the potential of the CDoH concept to yield insights that can be used to improve global and national health and reduce the stark health inequities within and between nations. It also widens the utility of CDoH from its main current use to study noncommunicable diseases to other health conditions such as infectious diseases, mental health conditions, injuries, and exposure to environmental threats. We suggest specific actions that public health professionals can take to transform the burgeoning interest in CDoH into meaningful improvements in health. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(12):2202-2211. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306491).

Building a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current global systemic crisis reveals how globalised societies are unprepared to face a pandemic. Beyond the dramatic loss of human life, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered widespread disturbances in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems in many countries across the world. Resilience describes the capacities of natural and human systems to prevent, react to and recover from shocks. Societal resilience to the current COVID-19 pandemic relates to the ability of societies in maintaining their core functions while minimising the impact of the pandemic and other societal effects. Drawing on the emerging evidence about resilience in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems, this paper delineates a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to COVID-19. Such an understanding provides the foundation for an integrated approach to build societal resilience to current and future pandemics.

Managing borders during public health emergencies of international concern: a proposed typology of cross-border health measures.

BACKGROUND: The near universal adoption of cross-border health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide has prompted significant debate about their effectiveness and compliance with international law. The number of measures used, and the range of measures applied, have far exceeded previous public health emergencies of international concern. However, efforts to advance research, policy and practice to support their effective use has been hindered by a lack of clear and consistent definition. RESULTS: Based on a review of existing datasets for cross-border health measures, such as the Oxford Coronavirus Government Response Tracker and World Health Organization Public Health and Social Measures, along with analysis of secondary and grey literature, we propose six categories to define measures more clearly and consistently - policy goal, type of movement (travel and trade), adopted by public or private sector, level of jurisdiction applied, stage of journey, and degree of restrictiveness. These categories are then brought together into a proposed typology that can support research with generalizable findings and comparative analyses across jurisdictions. Addressing the current gaps in evidence about travel measures, including how different jurisdictions apply such measures with varying effects, in turn, enhances the potential for evidence-informed decision-making based on fuller understanding of policy trade-offs and externalities. Finally, through the adoption of standardized terminology and creation of an agreed evidentiary base recognized across jurisdictions, the typology can support efforts to strengthen coordinated global responses to outbreaks and inform future efforts to revise the WHO International Health Regulations (2005). CONCLUSIONS: The widespread use of cross-border health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted significant reflection on available evidence, previous practice and existing legal frameworks. The typology put forth in this paper aims to provide a starting point for strengthening research, policy and practice.

FORUM: COVID-19 and IR Scholarship: One Profession, Many Voices

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected virtually every aspect of life, for individuals, communities, nations, regions, and the international system. In this forum, scholars from around the world with diverse areas of expertise consider the contributions of international relations (IR) scholarship in our understanding of the politics and governance challenges surrounding the pandemic. The seven essays that follow together examine how our current state of knowledge speaks to the theme of ISA 2020: "Multiple Identities and Scholarship in a Global IR: One Profession, Many Voices." Each essay features a research area and body of scholarship that both informs our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic and reflects on how the pandemic challenges us to push our scholarship and intellectual community further. Together, these essays highlight the diversity of our discipline of IR and how its many voices may bring us together in one conversation. La pandemia de COVID-19 ha afectado prácticamente a todos los aspectos de la vida para las personas, las comunidades, las naciones, las regiones y el sistema internacional. En este foro, los académicos de todo el mundo con diversas áreas de experiencia consideran las contribuciones de los estudios de las relaciones internacionales (International Relations, IR) a nuestro entendimiento de la política y los desafíos de gobierno que rodean a la pandemia. Los siete ensayos a continuación analizan en conjunto cómo nuestro estado de conocimiento actual aborda el tema de la Asociación de Estudios Internacionales (International Studies Association, ISA) de 2020: "Múltiples identidades y estudios en una IR global: una profesión, muchas voces." Cada ensayo presenta un área de investigación y un cuerpo de estudios que conforman nuestro entendimiento de la pandemia de COVID-19 y también reflexionan sobre cómo esta nos desafía a impulsar aún más a nuestra comunidad académica e intelectual. En conjunto, estos ensayos destacan la diversidad de nuestra disciplina de relaciones internacionales y cómo sus numerosas voces pueden juntarnos en una conversación. La pandémie de COVID 2019 a affecté pratiquement tous les aspects de la vie, que ce soit les individus, les communautés, les nations, les régions ou le système international. Dans cette tribune, des chercheurs du monde entier spécialisés dans divers domaines d'expertise réfléchissent aux contributions des recherches en relations internationales à notre compréhension des défis politiques et de gouvernance entourant la pandémie. Les sept essais ainsi réunis examinent la manière dont l'état actuel de nos connaissances aborde le thème de la convention 2020 de l'Association d'études internationales : « Identités et recherches multiples dans des relations internationales globales : une profession, de nombreuses voix ». Chaque essai présente un domaine de recherche et un corpus d'études qui éclaire notre compréhension de la pandémie de COVID 2019 tout en amenant une réflexion sur la façon dont la pandémie nous remet en question et nous pousse à aller plus loin dans nos recherches et notre communauté intellectuelle. Ensemble, ces essais mettent en évidence la diversité de notre discipline des relations internationales et la manière dont ses nombreuses voix peuvent nous réunir dans un débat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Studies Review is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A global public health convention for the 21st century.

As shown by COVID-19, infectious diseases with a pandemic potential present a grave threat to health and wellbeing. Although the International Health Regulations provide a framework of binding legal obligations for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, many countries do not comply with these regulations. There is a need for a renewed framework for global collective action that ensures conformity with international regulations and promotes effective prevention and response to pandemic infectious diseases. This Health Policy identifies the necessary characteristics for a new global public health security convention designed to optimise prevention, preparedness, and response to pandemic infectious diseases. We propose ten recommendations to strengthen global public health governance and promote compliance with global health security regulations. Recommendations for a new global public health security convention include greater authority for a global governing body, an improved ability to respond to pandemics, an objective evaluation system for national core public health capacities, more effective enforcement mechanisms, independent and sustainable funding, representativeness, and investment from multiple sectors, among others. The next steps to achieve these recommendations include assembling an invested alliance, specifying the operational structures of a global public health security system, and overcoming barriers such as insufficient political will, scarcity of resources, and individual national interests.

Evidence of the effectiveness of travel-related measures during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of travel measures implemented during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic to inform changes on how evidence is incorporated in the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR). DESIGN: We used an abbreviated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols to identify studies that investigated the effectiveness of travel-related measures preprinted or published by 1 June 2020. RESULTS: We identified 29 studies, of which 26 were modelled. Thirteen studies investigated international measures, while 17 investigated domestic measures (one investigated both). There was a high level of agreement that the adoption of travel measures led to important changes in the dynamics of the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: the Wuhan measures reduced the number of cases exported internationally by 70%-80% and led to important reductions in transmission within Mainland China. Additional travel measures, including flight restrictions to and from China, may have led to additional reductions in the number of exported cases. Few studies investigated the effectiveness of measures implemented in other contexts. Early implementation was identified as a determinant of effectiveness. Most studies of international travel measures did not account for domestic travel measures thus likely leading to biased estimates. CONCLUSION: Travel measures played an important role in shaping the early transmission dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need to address important evidence gaps and also a need to review how evidence is incorporated in the IHR in the early phases of a novel infectious disease outbreak.