Domestic politics and the WHO’s International Health Regulations: Explaining the use of trade and travel barriers during disease outbreaks

Worsnop, Catherine Z

doi:10.1007/s11558-016-9260-1

Cited by 26 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…WTO members differ in interpretation and implementation of the rules. Countries and individuals at times attempt to navigate the system to advance their own political and economic advantage ( Conconi et al, 2017 ; Worsnop, 2017 ). The SPS Agreement was established in part because of widespread barriers maintained in the name of risk protection with no effective mechanism for challenging the basis of such measures.…”

Section: Trade Public Health Risks and The Sps Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Decisions based on uncertainty are inherently provisional and need updating as new information is available ( Hansson, 2016 ; Foster, 2009 ). Uncertainty-based restrictions can tread the line between precaution and opportunism – e.g., bans on North American swine exports during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, following the unfortunate designation of the disease in the media as “swine flu” and despite WHO and OIE recommendations that deemed such measures unnecessary ( Worsnop, 2017 ). Further friction arises from differences in interpretation (how much uncertainty is enough to exercise precaution?).…”

Section: Risk Analysis and Resilient Local And Global Food Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Choosing awareness over fear: Risk analysis and free trade support global food security

Adamchick

Pérez

2020

Global Food Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Livestock production and global trade are key components to achieving food security, but are bedfellows with the risk for emergence and spread of infectious diseases. The World Trade Organization's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures outlines provisions for member countries to protect animal, plant, and public health while promoting free trade. The capacity for risk analysis equips countries to increase access to export markets, improve local animal health and food safety regarding known hazards, and build the institutional capacity to respond to unexpected events. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to detect, report, and implement effective response measures to emerging challenges on a local and global scale, and it is crucial that these measures are implemented in a way that supports food production and trade. The use of risk analysis coupled with sound understanding of underlying system dynamics will contribute to resilient and enduring food systems.

show abstract

Section: Trade Public Health Risks and The Sps Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Analysis and Resilient Local And Global Food Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing awareness over fear: Risk analysis and free trade support global food security

Adamchick

Pérez

2020

Global Food Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, implementation of NPIs, such as border closures, might be pursued for social and political purposes that go beyond public health evidence. Worsnop [16] stated that in some countries, political incentives to impose border closures outweigh governments' commitment to international cooperation. In other cases, the geopolitical interests of countries serve as a strong force driving decision-making.…”

Section: Further Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolving Policy Debate on Border Closure in Korea

Kang¹,

Moon²,

Kang³

et al. 2020

J Prev Med Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we aimed to investigate the evolving debate over border closure in Korea during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, to address the main themes associated with border closure, and to discuss the factors that need to be considered when making such decisions. Methods: We collated and reviewed previously conducted review studies on border closures during infectious disease outbreaks to derive relevant themes and factors. Results: According to our systematic review on border closures and travel restrictions, the effects of such containment efforts are limited. We suggest considering the following factors when determining whether to impose border closure measures: (1) disease characteristics, (2) timeliness of implementation, (3) transmission delay and the basic reproduction number, (4) globalization and pandemics, and (5) social and economic costs. Conclusions: Our assessment indicates that the effects of border closures are at best temporary and limited. Alternative measures must be contemplated and implemented to suppress the spread of COVID-19 in particular and infectious diseases more broadly.

show abstract

“…More generally, individuals are more tolerant of restrictions on rights when there is increased health anxiety. Restrictions run the gamut, from limitations on freedom of movement and assembly to property losses (Gadarian and Albertson 2014) as well as more onerous policy choices, such as quarantine (Worsnop 2017). Because health and security are intertwined, it is important to think about protection in the context of security, including human security, although this conceptualization has its limits (Wenham and Farias 2019).…”

Section: Of Health and Human Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What COVID-19 revealed about health, human rights, and the WHO

Wong

2020

Journal of Human Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As of July 2020, COVID-19 has caused over 600,000 deaths, with 17 million confirmed cases, and counting. The World Health Organization (WHO), the global governance organization charged with providing health for all, declared a pandemic of on March 11, signaling the beginning of the global response to the disease. Despite a commitment to human rights and health, the WHO and others have been virtually silent on how rights and pandemic management go together, and have largely relied on techniques that date back to the 1918 flu epidemic. COVID-19 has made painfully obvious the tension between the protection of public health and the protection of human rights. The "rights-based approach" to health espoused by the WHO needs to be reexamined in light of how public health and human rights may, in times of crisis, work at cross-purposes. We show this through an analysis of the WHO's COVID-19-related publications. As a doctor I would say let's put tanks in the streets and let's do a police state. … But the Western world has different realities (Guido Marinoni, president of the Bergamo Doctor Association, in response to Italy's policies in the COVID-19 crisis (as quoted in the New York Times, April 24, 2020; Horowitz and Bubola 2020). Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic, or social condition.

show abstract

Domestic politics and the WHO’s International Health Regulations: Explaining the use of trade and travel barriers during disease outbreaks

Cited by 26 publications

References 76 publications

Choosing awareness over fear: Risk analysis and free trade support global food security

Choosing awareness over fear: Risk analysis and free trade support global food security

The Evolving Policy Debate on Border Closure in Korea

What COVID-19 revealed about health, human rights, and the WHO

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About