Public International Law and Human Health: Bridging Conceptual Gaps Through Governance
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
Public International Law and Human Health: Bridging Conceptual Gaps Through Governance
German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 61 (2018), Iss. 1 : pp. 45–71
Additional Information
Article Details
Pricing
Author Details
Pedro A. Villarreal, Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.
Abstract
The lack of a consolidated set of norms, principles, and procedures in international health law reflect the haphazard manner in which the protection of human health has been addressed at the international level. But this does not mean that public international law does not play a role in promoting the improvement of human health. Rather, international health law can also contribute to shaping claims in other legal regimes. This can be ascertained by looking into developments in fields, such as international economic law, where human health has been directly at stake. On that account, this contribution lists some of the legal instruments that constitute norms of public international law with the core objective of the protection of human health. Then, a brief review of recent rulings from adjudicators in international investment and trade law is undertaken for assessing the way in which this crosscutting interpretation has taken place. Furthermore, the proliferation of non-binding documents dealing with issues of human health requires a broader approach than source-based legal positivism. Thus, the usefulness of the concept of governance for tackling the limited and fragmented array of binding instruments of international health law, as well as the challenges the concept poses for legal doctrine, are discussed.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pedro A. Villarreal: Public International Law and Human Health: Bridging Conceptual Gaps Through Governance | 1 | ||
| Abstract | 1 | ||
| I. Introduction: The Birth of a Specialised Field? | 1 | ||
| II. International Health Law: An Autonomous or a Subsidiary Field? | 4 | ||
| A. Health Law: Global or International | 5 | ||
| B. Main Legal Instruments of International Health Law | 6 | ||
| C. Limits of the Legal Instruments of International Health Law | 8 | ||
| III. Human Health and Other Fields of Public International Law: Conflict, Parallelism, and Harmony | 1 | ||
| A. Human Health and International Economic Law | 1 | ||
| 1. Tobacco Control and International Investment Law | 1 | ||
| a) Philip Morris v. Australia | 1 | ||
| b) Philip Morris v. Uruguay | 1 | ||
| 2. Tobacco Control and International Trade Law | 1 | ||
| 3. Problems With the Multiplicity of Fora: The FCTC’s Divergent Legal Status | 1 | ||
| B. Health and International Environmental Law: Mirror Fields? | 2 | ||
| C. International Health Law and Human Rights Law | 2 | ||
| IV. Bridging the Gaps in Health Law Through Governance | 2 | ||
| V. Conclusions: Coupling Human Health and Public International Law Through Governance | 2 |