Accountability has become a cornerstone of current discussion on the prospects of legitimate and effective global governance. In spite of its rather high currency, accountability does not partake in the select group of first-order political ideals: democracy, human rights, constitutionalism and rule of law have all been historically uttered in much more vocal tones and still remain at the forefront of public demands for legitimate authority. Rather than radiating a comprehensive legal or political vision, accountability supplies a power-constraining toolbox that allows for a variety of more or less attractive permutations. This rather commonplace story, though, tells very little about the concrete configurations, underlying values and ends of accountability. The concept of accountability remains unstable because, among other things, its descriptive and normative aspects lack a clearer articulation; traditional taxonomies fail to precisely illuminate its political and extra-political instantiations, and their respective connection with law; the relevant descriptive variables that shape accountability arrangements are not yet systematized in a comprehensive way; the specific normative goals that lurk behind the calls for more accountability tend to be taken for granted, and the trade-offs or internal tensions that necessarily occur are usually camouflaged. Conceptual clarification, thus, is indispensable whenever one comes across such multifaceted umbrella terms. The article attempts to diagnose such shortcomings, to elucidate a minimalist concept of accountability and to provide a large analytical map that can aid both the description and the critical assessment of accountability arrangements in light of their potential purposes. This analytical exercise is a pivotal starting point if accountability is to get a better grip on the debates about the improvement of global governance.
Resumo A Lei n. 13.979, de 6 de fevereiro de 2020, regula medidas de saúde pública relacionadas à emergência do novo coronavírus com alto potencial restritivo de direitos fundamentais, inclusive a quarentena e o isolamento. Esta análise crítica aborda a dimensão internacional da emergência, além da tramitação casuística e antidemocrática da lei brasileira. Com base na legislação epidemiológica em vigor, escrutina estas medidas excepcionais e as salvaguardas à sua implementação.
Among the possible developments of the Covid-19 pandemic at the international and national levels is the advancement of the Global Health Security (GHS) agenda. On the one hand, GHS might be able to give priority to health problems on the political agenda-setting, on the other, however, it might open up space for public security actors in decision-making processes to the detriment of the power of health authorities. This article critically analyzes the concept and the progress of the GHS agenda seeking to demonstrate that there can be no security in matters of public health when sustainability in its multiple dimensions is not taken into account. At the end, sustainability has a twofold responsibility: to maintain the consistency and permanence of emergency response actions, especially with investments in public health systems, with universal access, and to minimize the structural causes of pandemics linked to the environment.
The article probes the origins and content of the Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) of the World Health Organization (WHO), approved on May 28, 2016, at the 69th World Health Assembly, which established different rules of collaboration to four categories of actors: nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private sector entities, philanthropic foundations, and academic institutions. Applying the findings of International Legal Theory and based on extensive documentary research, we sought to determine whether FENSA is an appropriate accountability mechanism according to four functions of accountability: constitutional, democratic, epistemic, and populist. The article concludes that there is a risk of the prevalence of the populist function at the expense of the accountability potential that could result from the better use of the other three accountability functions.
While the literature on the health of refugees and migrants is growing, the governance challenges on migration and health remain neglected. ► Drawing on a conceptual framework on accountability, we assess whether the first WHO global action plan addressing refugees and migrants' health is equipped to fulfil its promise to promote their health and good migration governance. ► Looking beyond ethical and human rights-based ideas, the WHO global action plan relies on weak accountability mechanisms. ► Better global governance and accountability mechanisms are needed to promote action and accountability for refugees and migrants' health.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.