世界卫生组织专业知识与政治的不安共存

L. Gruszczynski, M. Melillo
{"title":"世界卫生组织专业知识与政治的不安共存","authors":"L. Gruszczynski, M. Melillo","doi":"10.1163/15723747-20220001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The World Health Organization (WHO) has attracted an unprecedented level of criticism over its handling of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To enhance its legitimacy and better prepare for a future pandemic, various proposals to reform the WHO and the International Health Regulations have been made. Against this background, this article seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussions by investigating the nature of WHO’s work and its activities. Starting from the premise that much of the criticism stems from the uneasy coexistence of politics and expertise in WHO’s work, this article analyses some of the most controversial aspects of WHO’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic: (i) the alleged leniency towards China; (ii) the delay in declaring a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC); and (iii) the delay in recommending the use of face masks for the general population. The article shows that politics infiltrates WHO activities in different ways, influencing even the processes that are conventionally seen as purely technical and science-based. At the same time, it argues that the influence of politics in WHO’s work should not be seen as some kind of atrophy, but should rather be considered a natural element that should be managed rather than dreaded.","PeriodicalId":42966,"journal":{"name":"International Organizations Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Uneasy Coexistence of Expertise and Politics in the World Health Organization\",\"authors\":\"L. Gruszczynski, M. Melillo\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15723747-20220001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The World Health Organization (WHO) has attracted an unprecedented level of criticism over its handling of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To enhance its legitimacy and better prepare for a future pandemic, various proposals to reform the WHO and the International Health Regulations have been made. Against this background, this article seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussions by investigating the nature of WHO’s work and its activities. Starting from the premise that much of the criticism stems from the uneasy coexistence of politics and expertise in WHO’s work, this article analyses some of the most controversial aspects of WHO’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic: (i) the alleged leniency towards China; (ii) the delay in declaring a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC); and (iii) the delay in recommending the use of face masks for the general population. The article shows that politics infiltrates WHO activities in different ways, influencing even the processes that are conventionally seen as purely technical and science-based. At the same time, it argues that the influence of politics in WHO’s work should not be seen as some kind of atrophy, but should rather be considered a natural element that should be managed rather than dreaded.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Organizations Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Organizations Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15723747-20220001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Organizations Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15723747-20220001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

世界卫生组织(世界卫生组织)在应对新冠肺炎疫情方面受到了前所未有的批评。为了加强其合法性并更好地为未来的大流行病做好准备,提出了改革世界卫生组织和《国际卫生条例》的各种建议。在此背景下,本文试图通过调查世界卫生组织工作及其活动的性质,为正在进行的讨论做出贡献。本文从许多批评源于世界卫生组织工作中政治和专业知识的不稳定共存这一前提出发,分析了世界卫生组织应对新冠肺炎疫情的初步措施中一些最具争议的方面:(一)所谓的对中国的宽大处理;(ii)延迟宣布国际关注的公共卫生紧急状态(PHEIC);以及(iii)延迟建议普通人群使用口罩。文章表明,政治以不同的方式渗透到世界卫生组织的活动中,甚至影响到传统上被视为纯粹技术和科学的进程。同时,它认为,政治在世界卫生组织工作中的影响不应被视为某种萎缩,而应被认为是一种自然因素,应该加以管理,而不是令人恐惧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Uneasy Coexistence of Expertise and Politics in the World Health Organization
The World Health Organization (WHO) has attracted an unprecedented level of criticism over its handling of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To enhance its legitimacy and better prepare for a future pandemic, various proposals to reform the WHO and the International Health Regulations have been made. Against this background, this article seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussions by investigating the nature of WHO’s work and its activities. Starting from the premise that much of the criticism stems from the uneasy coexistence of politics and expertise in WHO’s work, this article analyses some of the most controversial aspects of WHO’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic: (i) the alleged leniency towards China; (ii) the delay in declaring a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC); and (iii) the delay in recommending the use of face masks for the general population. The article shows that politics infiltrates WHO activities in different ways, influencing even the processes that are conventionally seen as purely technical and science-based. At the same time, it argues that the influence of politics in WHO’s work should not be seen as some kind of atrophy, but should rather be considered a natural element that should be managed rather than dreaded.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: After the Second World War in particular, the law of international organizations developed as a discipline within public international law. Separate, but not separable. The International Organizations Law Review purports to function as a discussion forum for academics and practitioners active in the field of the law of international organizations. It is based on two pillars; one is based in the world of scholarship, the other in the world of practice. In the first dimension, the Journal focuses on general developments in international institutional law.
期刊最新文献
Constructing African Union Law and Rethinking Supranationalism in African Integration: What Lessons from the European Union? The Freedom of Association as Seen by the International Administrative Tribunals Positive Duties of the Security Council Under the UN Charter and International Law Forty Years of Cooperation in South Asia: A Legal Appraisal of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (saarc) The Nordic Investment Bank: The Evolution of an International Institution
×
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