‘EQUITY’ IN THE PANDEMIC TREATY: THE FALSE HOPE OF ‘ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING’

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW International & Comparative Law Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-10-06 DOI:10.1017/s0020589323000350
Abbie-Rose Hampton, Mark Eccleston-Turner, Michelle Rourke, Stephanie Switzer
{"title":"‘EQUITY’ IN THE PANDEMIC TREATY: THE FALSE HOPE OF ‘ACCESS AND BENEFIT-SHARING’","authors":"Abbie-Rose Hampton, Mark Eccleston-Turner, Michelle Rourke, Stephanie Switzer","doi":"10.1017/s0020589323000350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract During the COVID-19 pandemic the international community repeatedly called for the equitable distribution of vaccines and other medical countermeasures. However, there was a substantial gap between this rhetoric and State action. High-income countries secured significantly more doses than they required, leaving many low-income countries unable to vaccinate their populations. Current negotiations for the new Pandemic Treaty under the World Health Organization (WHO) attempt to narrow the gap between rhetoric and behaviour by building the concept of equity into the Treaty's substantive content. However, equity is difficult to define, much less to operationalize. Presently, WHO Member States appear to have chosen ‘access and benefit-sharing’ (ABS) as the predominant mechanism for operationalizing equity in the Treaty. This article examines ABS as a mechanism, its use in public health, and argues that ABS is fundamentally flawed, unable to achieve equity. It proposes other options for an equitable international response to future pandemic threats.","PeriodicalId":47350,"journal":{"name":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589323000350","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract During the COVID-19 pandemic the international community repeatedly called for the equitable distribution of vaccines and other medical countermeasures. However, there was a substantial gap between this rhetoric and State action. High-income countries secured significantly more doses than they required, leaving many low-income countries unable to vaccinate their populations. Current negotiations for the new Pandemic Treaty under the World Health Organization (WHO) attempt to narrow the gap between rhetoric and behaviour by building the concept of equity into the Treaty's substantive content. However, equity is difficult to define, much less to operationalize. Presently, WHO Member States appear to have chosen ‘access and benefit-sharing’ (ABS) as the predominant mechanism for operationalizing equity in the Treaty. This article examines ABS as a mechanism, its use in public health, and argues that ABS is fundamentally flawed, unable to achieve equity. It proposes other options for an equitable international response to future pandemic threats.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大流行病条约中的“公平”:“获取和惠益分享”的虚假希望
在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,国际社会多次呼吁公平分配疫苗和其他医疗对策。然而,这种言论与国家行动之间存在着很大的差距。高收入国家获得的疫苗剂量远远超过其所需剂量,使许多低收入国家无法为其人口接种疫苗。目前在世界卫生组织(卫生组织)领导下就新的《大流行病条约》进行的谈判,试图通过将公平概念纳入条约的实质性内容,缩小言论与行为之间的差距。但是,公平很难界定,更不用说实施了。目前,世卫组织会员国似乎已选择“获取和惠益分享”(ABS)作为实现《条约》公平性的主要机制。本文考察了ABS作为一种机制及其在公共卫生中的应用,并认为ABS存在根本性缺陷,无法实现公平。它提出了对未来大流行病威胁作出公平国际反应的其他选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) publishes papers on public and private international law, comparative law, human rights and European law, and is one of the world''s leading journals covering all these areas. Since it was founded in 1952 the ICLQ has built a reputation for publishing innovative and original articles within the various fields, and also spanning them, exploring the connections between the subject areas. It offers both academics and practitioners wide topical coverage, without compromising rigorous editorial standards. The ICLQ attracts scholarship of the highest standard from around the world, which contributes to the maintenance of its truly international frame of reference. The ''Shorter Articles and Notes'' section enables the discussion of contemporary legal issues and ''Book Reviews'' highlight the most important new publications in these various fields. The ICLQ is the journal of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and is published by Cambridge University Press.
期刊最新文献
US AND UK MILITARY STRIKES IN YEMEN AND THE JUS AD BELLUM VOTING PROTOCOLS AS INFORMAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS: THE POLITICS OF ENFORCEABILITY AND STRATEGIC BREACHING IN PURSUIT OF A TREATY'S SOUL: A STUDY OF THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION CORPORATE CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE OECD GUIDELINES FOR MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES PRODUCT LIABILITY AND ONLINE MARKETPLACES: COMPARISON AND REFORM
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1