Healthcare workers' freedom of movement in times of pandemics: an emerging norm of customary international law.

BACKGROUND: A shortage of healthcare workers can hinder the ability to prepare for and respond to global security threats caused by diseases that are prone to pandemics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the shortage of healthcare workers became a growing concern worldwide. Recognizing these challenges, countries adopted measures to ensure healthcare workers' freedom of movement in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the WHO continues the negotiation process to reform the 2005 International Health Regulations and to adopt a new Pandemic Treaty, with one key provision relating to healthcare workers' mobility, questions remain as to whether States will actually adopt a binding international legal instrument or whether its effectiveness will be watered down by the intrinsic vulnerabilities of an international legal system that has (too) often been unable to tame geopolitical interests. Considering these challenges, we assessed the emergence of a norm of customary international law allowing the free movement of healthcare workers during pandemics. METHODS: Our study examined the laws and policies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic concerning healthcare workers' mobility in 10 countries, representing all continents. The country selection was based on regional representation and a preliminary analysis indicating their early adoption of measures related to healthcare workers' mobility. Temporal limits were set. To gather relevant data, we employed various methods including research databases, media sources, and the COVID-19 Law Lab database. RESULTS: Our research identified and assessed instances of state practice and evidence of opinio juris to determine whether a norm of customary international law mandating states to ensure healthcare workers' freedom of movement during pandemics exists. The findings indicate a strong consensus towards ensuring the free movement of healthcare workers in times of pandemics as a way to respond to outbreaks of disease. Within months, Argentina, Colombia, Kenya, South Africa, India, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, ten nations representing most regions of the world, recognized, as law, the practice of excluding healthcare workers from prohibitions on movement. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, this discussion is critical for global health because if a norm does exist in this regard, it will further strengthen pandemic legal preparedness efforts. As such, it becomes clear that the reform of the 2005 International Health Regulations and/or the adoption of a new pandemic treaty will bolster the strength of this emerging norm of customary international law and crystallize it. These legal instruments would propel a norm that is already in the process of formulation into existence. Thus, crystallizing a norm that is otherwise emerging among states.

COVID-19, Religious Freedom and the Law: The United States' Case.

During the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials exercised their police powers to combat the spread of the virus. The pandemic-related legal interventions adopted throughout the United States included lockdown orders and mask mandates. However, these policies and interventions meant to promote the general welfare of the public, in defense of common good, were met with legal challenges, especially in opposition to interventions' impact on the exercise of religion. This article provides a legal analysis of the policies meant to curb the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on legislative and judiciary actions and their implications for religious freedom. Ultimately, we hope this article will help inform future legal analyses on conflicts between public health and religious freedom in the context of pandemic legal preparedness efforts.

Commercial Speech and Unhealthy Food Products: Conceptual Foundations.

This article provides a critical and philosophical assessment of arguments invoked for and against the constitutional protection of commercial expression and the regulation of commercial speech with a focus on the commercialization of unhealthy food products.

A human rights-based approach to non-communicable diseases: mandating front-of-package warning labels.

Across the globe, the consumption of energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods and beverages has escalated rates of diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs), driven by deceptive marketing tactics from the food and beverage industry. The international community has increasingly recognized the need to provide consumers with accurate health information on food and beverage products as part of their right to health. In July 2020, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to health released a powerful Statement calling for the adoption of front-of-package warning labeling to tackle NCDs. Just a few weeks after the Statement's release, the Pan American Health Organization published a report highlighting the relevance of front-of-package labeling as a policy tool for the prevention of NCDs in the Americas, demonstrating further support to this regulatory intervention.In this piece, we explain why front-of-package warning labeling should be part of a comprehensive strategy to promote healthier lives, delving into the human-rights aspects of front-of-package labels. In particular, we explore the role the food and beverage industry play in increasing the consumption of unhealthy foods and beverages, and the relevance of scientific evidence free from conflicts of interest to adequately protect the right to health and health-related rights.

Human Subject Research: International and Regional Human Rights Standards.

This article will place the discussion of human subject research within the larger context of human rights law, both at the international and regional level, and examine existing normative human rights frameworks that can be used to protect research subjects. The traditional approach has commonly focused on the ethical aspects of human subject research and little has been said about the implications of human experimentation on the enjoyment of basic rights. The difference between ethical principles and human rights is clearly determined by the non-enforceability of ethical norms and the legally binding nature of human rights obligations. A human rights approach to bioethics, and particularly to human subject research, can bring about a defined system and universally accepted set of rules in a field where sociocultural and religious diversity come into play.

Gendered Power Relations and Informed Consent: The I.V. v. Bolivia Case.

In a landmark decision handed down on November 30, 2016, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights analyzed the foundations of the right to informed consent. The court held Bolivia responsible for the forced sterilization of I.V., an immigrant woman from Peru, and recognized the importance of personal autonomy as a constitutive element of personality. This paper discusses the ethical foundations of the decision and explains the relevance of this judgment in furthering women's rights in Latin America.