Human Rights-based Approaches and the Right to Health: A Systematic Literature Review

IF 0.9 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Human Rights Practice Pub Date : 2024-01-10 DOI:10.1093/jhuman/huad063
David Patterson
{"title":"Human Rights-based Approaches and the Right to Health: A Systematic Literature Review","authors":"David Patterson","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The term ‘human rights-based approach’ is common in rights and international development literature. Yet there is no single, universally agreed definition of a human rights-based approach, let alone its application to the right to health. This article uses a PRISMA-informed systematic literature review to address the question, ‘What is the current status of the human rights-based approach to health in international law?’ Previous reviews have described how international organizations and development donors have tackled human rights-based approaches to development generally and discussed prominent works on human rights-based approaches to health. However, this is the first review to sample the peer-reviewed literature systematically. The study revealed that authors use the terms ‘human rights’, ‘human rights-based approach’ and ‘right to health’ to import a raft of legal implications, or none at all. Similarly, readers may assign legal meanings to these terms, or none at all. Confusion arises because although these terms often have different meanings for authors and readers from different disciplines, this is not commonly acknowledged, and authors rarely clarify their perspectives. The author concludes that scholars should seek co-authors with human rights law or public health qualifications, as relevant. Most academic institutions research and teach health and law separately; interdisciplinary centres of excellence in health, law and human rights offer an opportunity to overcome these historical obstacles to interdisciplinary dialogue and understanding. The study and its conclusions will be of interest to legal researchers, human rights advocates, public health scholars, and advocates from other disciplines.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The term ‘human rights-based approach’ is common in rights and international development literature. Yet there is no single, universally agreed definition of a human rights-based approach, let alone its application to the right to health. This article uses a PRISMA-informed systematic literature review to address the question, ‘What is the current status of the human rights-based approach to health in international law?’ Previous reviews have described how international organizations and development donors have tackled human rights-based approaches to development generally and discussed prominent works on human rights-based approaches to health. However, this is the first review to sample the peer-reviewed literature systematically. The study revealed that authors use the terms ‘human rights’, ‘human rights-based approach’ and ‘right to health’ to import a raft of legal implications, or none at all. Similarly, readers may assign legal meanings to these terms, or none at all. Confusion arises because although these terms often have different meanings for authors and readers from different disciplines, this is not commonly acknowledged, and authors rarely clarify their perspectives. The author concludes that scholars should seek co-authors with human rights law or public health qualifications, as relevant. Most academic institutions research and teach health and law separately; interdisciplinary centres of excellence in health, law and human rights offer an opportunity to overcome these historical obstacles to interdisciplinary dialogue and understanding. The study and its conclusions will be of interest to legal researchers, human rights advocates, public health scholars, and advocates from other disciplines.
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
基于人权的方法与健康权:系统文献综述
基于人权的方法 "一词在权利和国际发展文献中很常见。然而,基于人权的方法并没有一个单一的、普遍认同的定义,更不用说将其应用于健康权了。本文采用 PRISMA 系统性文献综述来探讨 "基于人权的健康权方法在国际法中的现状如何?以前的综述描述了国际组织和发展捐助方如何处理基于人权的发展方法,并讨论了关于基于人权的健康方法的重要著作。然而,这是首次对同行评审文献进行系统抽样的综述。研究表明,作者在使用 "人权"、"基于人权的方法 "和 "健康权 "等术语时,会引入一系列法律含义,或者根本没有。同样,读者也可能赋予这些术语以法律含义,或根本没有法律含义。产生混淆的原因是,尽管这些术语对于来自不同学科的作者和读者往往具有不同的含义,但这一点并未得到普遍承认,作者也很少澄清自己的观点。作者总结说,学者们应该寻找具有人权法或公共卫生相关资质的共同作者。大多数学术机构都将卫生和法律分开研究和教学;卫生、法律和人权跨学科卓越中心为克服这些阻碍跨学科对话和理解的历史障碍提供了机会。这项研究及其结论将引起法律研究人员、人权倡导者、公共卫生学者和其他学科倡导者的兴趣。
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
1.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
80
期刊最新文献
Administrative Lawfare at the European Union’s External Borders: Some Perspectives on Administrative Regulation of NGO Search and Rescue Activities in Italy and the Situation at the Polish-Belarusian Border Specificity in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights A Jurisdictional Vertigo: Compulsory Arbitration, Sports and the European Court of Human Rights Forced Marriages in Times of Armed Conflict: An Implicit Paradox of Modern Slavery under International Humanitarian Law The Politics of Ambiguous Loss: Missing Persons and Social Ecologies after Armed Conflict
×
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