{"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}
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.
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.