Health and Human Rights最新文献

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a violation of human rights and must be addressed as such. This paper examines whether donor practices align with a rights-based approach, using data from our comprehensive study of foreign funding flows related to GBV in Colombia, Kenya, and Uganda from 2010 to 2020. By analyzing data from 1,180 grants-and providing parallel analyses of the state of GBV, and GBV reporting and interventions in each country-we demonstrate donors' role in shaping GBV outcomes and their consequent duty to address policies and practices that violate rights. Accordingly, we propose changes in donor practices to promote realization of the right to freedom from violence.

In this paper, we examine the social construction of race as a determinant of health inequities in Palestine. Race myths about Palestinians conform to the "logic of elimination" integral to settler colonialism, predicated on the dispossession and removal of the Indigenous people from the land. Racialized legal categorizations of Palestinians are deployed in strategies of elimination that include policies and practices of extrajudicial killing, maiming, and excessive use of force; displacement, dispossession, isolation, and containment; and arbitrary detention and movement restrictions. Differential freedoms and entitlements derive from the deployment of racialized legal categorizations, regulating the material conditions of life and exposure to deliberate bodily harm that make up intermediary determinants of health. Our iterative model outlining the symbolic and systemic constitution of racialized health inequities in Palestine aims to support analysis of the root causes of human rights violations, essential to a human rights-based approach to health. Root-cause analysis confers appropriate recommendations for action. The radical dismantling of systematic racial oppression and domination in Palestine, tantamount to apartheid, is a precondition for realizing the right to health for all.

Despite Israel's responsibility under international law to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics in its occupied territories, Israeli officials have refused to distribute COVID-19 vaccines to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Through a critical discourse analysis of Israeli officials' statements regarding Israel's COVID-19 vaccination campaign, this paper explores how Israel evades this responsibility while presenting itself as committed to public health and human rights. We find that Israeli officials strategically present Palestinians as an autonomous nation when discussing COVID-19 vaccinations, despite Israel's ongoing attempts to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. Relatedly, Israel justifies its refusal to vaccinate Palestinians on the grounds of the Palestinian Authority's economic independence, thereby obscuring Israel's control over the Palestinian economy. In this way, Israel relies on citizenship and economic inequality, as internationally sanctioned forms of exclusion, to deny Palestinians their right to health. Drawing on theorists such as Michel Foucault, Achille Mbembe, and Jasbir Puar, we argue that withholding vaccines from Palestinians reveals the ways that Israel furthers its settler-colonial aims under the guise of liberal humanitarianism and economic growth. Instead of directing these conclusions toward Israel as an exceptional case, we contend that these processes reveal how settler-colonial societies use liberal frameworks of citizenship and capitalism to carry out their racialized projects of elimination.

Laws facilitating the involuntary civil commitment (ICC) of people with substance use disorders vary considerably internationally and across the United States. Puerto Rico, a colonial territory of the United States since 1898, currently harbors the most punitive ICC legislation in the country. It is the only place in the United States where self-sufficient adults who pose no grave danger to themselves or others can be involuntarily committed to restrictive residential facilities for over a year at a time without ever being assessed by a health care professional. The involuntary commitment of otherwise-able citizens-many of whom have never been diagnosed with a substance use disorder-continues to be ignored nationally and internationally. In this paper, we specify how Puerto Rican ICC law and procedures systematically violate rights and liberties that are supposed to be guaranteed by Puerto Rico's Mental Health Act, the US Federal Supreme Court, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To ensure that Puerto Rico's ICC procedures conform to prevailing local, national, and international standards, we propose a series of legislative reforms. Finally, we highlight the importance of addressing the preponderance of poorly constructed ICC laws both within the United States and internationally.

How and why is implicit and explicit human rights language used by World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiators in debates about intellectual property, know-how, and technology needed to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines, and how do these findings compare with negotiators' human rights framing in 2001? Sampling 26 WTO members and two groups of members, this study uses document analysis and six key informant interviews with WTO negotiators, a representative of the WTO Secretariat, and a nonstate actor. In WTO debates about COVID-19 medicines, negotiators scarcely used human rights frames (e.g., "human rights" or "right to health"). Supporters used both human rights frames and implicit language (e.g., "equity," "affordability," and "solidarity") to garner support for the TRIPS waiver proposal, while opponents and WTO members with undetermined positions on the waiver used only implicit language to advocate for alternative proposals. WTO negotiators use human rights frames to appeal to previously agreed language about state obligations; for coherence between their domestic values and policy on one hand, and their global policy positions on the other; and to catalyze public support for the waiver proposal beyond the WTO. This mixed-methods design yields a rich contextual understanding of the modern role of human rights language in trade negotiations relevant for public health.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, international access to COVID-19 vaccines and other health technologies has remained highly asymmetric. This inequity has had a particularly deleterious impact on low- and middle-income countries, engaging concerns about the human rights to health and to the equal enjoyment of the benefits of scientific progress enshrined under articles 12 and 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In response, the relationship between intellectual property rights and public health has reemerged as a subject of global interest. In October 2020, a wholesale waiver of the copyright, patent, industrial design, and undisclosed information sections of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement) was proposed by India and South Africa as a legal mechanism to increase access to affordable COVID-19 medical products. Here, we identify and evaluate the TRIPS waiver positions of World Trade Organization (WTO) members and other key stakeholders throughout the waiver's 20-month period of negotiation at the WTO. In doing so, we find that most stakeholders declined to explicitly contextualize the TRIPS waiver within the human right to health and that historical stakeholder divisions on the relationship between intellectual property and access to medicines appear largely unchanged since the early 2000s HIV/AIDS crisis. Given the WTO's consensus-based decision-making process, this illuminates key challenges faced by policy makers seeking to leverage the international trading system to improve equitable access to health technologies.

In this paper, we explore the strategies utilized by civil society organizations to improve access to medicines during the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 health crises. In particular, we seek to illuminate why some of the successful approaches for increasing access to antiretrovirals for HIV/AIDS in the early 2000s failed in creating equitable global access to COVID-19 vaccines. While civil society has historically mobilized human rights to facilitate greater access to essential medicines, we argue that earlier strategies were not always sustainable and that civil society is now mobilizing human rights in radically different ways than previously. Instead of focusing chiefly on securing an intellectual property waiver to the TRIPS Agreement, civil society organizations are now challenging vaccine injustice, rejecting the "charity discourse" that fuels Global South dependency on Global North actors in favor of scaling up manufacture in low- and middle-income countries, and moving to embed the right to access medicines in a new World Health Organization pandemic treaty with civil society organization participation and meaningful representation from low- and middle-income countries. Such approaches, we contend, will lead to more sustainable solutions in order to avert further health care disasters, like those seen with two distinct but related struggles-the fights for equitable access to essential medicines for HIV/AIDS and for COVID-19.