Explore the vast range of titles available.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread in the early days of the pandemic, governments neglected World Health Organization (WHO) guidance and imposed travel restrictions. These public health measures employed varied levels of restrictiveness at national borders, in some cases banning all travel between countries. Where these border control measures were undertaken for domestic political reasons, enacted without consideration of public health evidence, they divided the world when solidarity was needed most.1 Such measures undermined global health law that countries have established as a foundation for preventing and responding to public health emergencies of international concern. With the emergence of the Omicron variant, national governments once again returned to international travel restrictions, posing challenges for the rule of law in global health governance. Future reforms of global health law must account for this continuing impulse to enact travel restrictions, ensuring that international legal obligations reflect evolving public health evidence. The International Health Regulations, 2005 revision; IHR (2005) govern how countries address collective threats in global solidarity; yet international travel bans can drive countries apart through economic isolation, trade disruptions, discriminatory restrictions and rights violations.2 Fearing that government actions would undermine the IHR at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Global Health Law Consortium in February 2020 examined the legality of targeted travel restrictions.3

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst to build a stronger European Health Union to protect the health of Europeans and to develop a new Global Health Strategy to contribute to global health security. In positioning itself as a key player in global health governance, the EU seeks to assert its responsibility as a global health actor and deepen its leadership in global health law.

On July 1, 2020, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2532 on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the world and its impact on international peace and security. After determining that “the unprecedented extent of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security,” the Council called upon all parties to armed conflicts to apply an “immediate cessation of hostilities” and to engage in “a durable humanitarian pause … in order to enable the safe, unhindered and sustainable delivery of humanitarian assistance, provisions of related services by impartial humanitarian actors … and medical evacuations.” The resolution marks the first time the Security Council has called for a global ceasefire in connection with an international health emergency.

International law and global governance regimes for environmental health challenges have been slow to reflect the intertwined relationship between the environment and human health. Historical legacies have caused artificial fragmentation between the two that has resulted in distinct fields of international law and institutions for the environment and health. However, new global paradigms for thinking about environmental health have emerged to foster synthesis under global health law, including One Health and Planetary Health approaches, as well as through international human rights law like the recognition of the right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment. Guided by equity, new international law and global governance reforms, including the proposed Pandemic Agreement and Plastics Treaty, are opportunities to synthesize the intersecting dimensions of the environment and global health. However, future paths towards cohesion must explicitly incorporate human rights in environmental health governance, including the rights of Indigenous Peoples, while actively addressing inequities in global health law, between and within countries, and across generations.

Article 43 of this legally binding instrument restricts the measures countries can implement when addressing public health risks to those measures that are supported by science, commensurate with the risks involved, and anchored in human rights.1 The intention of the IHR is that countries should not take needless measures that harm people or that disincentivise countries from reporting new risks to international public health authorities.2 In imposing travel restrictions against China during the current outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), many countries are violating the IHR. WHO has issued COVID-19 technical guidance on several such measures, including risk communication, surveillance, patient management, and screening at ports of entry and exit.9 Third, and most importantly, Article 3.1 strictly requires all additional health measures to be implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons”,1 which in turn must reflect the international law principles of necessity, legitimacy, and proportionality that govern limitations to and derogations from rights and freedoms.10 Under no circumstances should public health or foreign policy decisions be based on the racism and xenophobia that are now being directed at Chinese people and those of Asian descent.11 Many of the travel restrictions implemented by dozens of countries during the COVID-19 outbreak are therefore violations of the IHR.12 Yet, perhaps even more troubling, is that at least two-thirds of these countries have not reported their additional health measures to WHO,12 which is a further violation of IHR Articles 43.3 and 43.5. [...]the IHR only governs countries, not corporations and other non-governmental actors. [...]some countries are finding themselves with de-facto travel restrictions when airlines stop flying to places affected by COVID-19.

By providing an interdisciplinary reading of advance directives regulation in international, European and domestic law, this book offers new insights into the most controversial legal issues surrounding the debate over dignity and autonomy at the end of life.

Any proposed DTP genomic research would need to comply with the specific requirements of Chapter 3.3 to be satisfactorily addressed for ethical approval. 1.2 The National Health and Medical Research Council has the issue of Direct to Customer Genetic Testing under consideration and has published three relevant information documents.1 1.3 The Commonwealth Australia Government, Department of Health has issued guidance for the Provision of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Guiding Principles for Providers.2 The Australian Genomics Health Alliance (AGHA) published a news page on Understanding Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing, with information on clinical-grade testing.3 2. There is an over-riding requirement to respect “beliefs, customs and cultural heritage, and local laws” of all participants in other countries.5 The Australian HREC would require approval from the research ethics review body in the other country, where there is one.6 Where there are no “ethics approval processes” in the overseas country, research participants must be “accorded no less respect than [the] National Statement requires,”7 as well as these specific elements for Research generally in Chapter 3.1 and Genomic Research, in particular, as set out in Chapter 3.3.8 As far as is necessary to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13, the design and conduct of the research should reflect continuing consultation with the local participant population and the communities to which they belong.9 The Australian researcher conducting DTP genomic research in another country must also comply with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018.10 4. Please consider the perspectives of the public, research participants, socially-defined groups (e.g., indigenous or minority populations), researchers, and other professional or government entities. Specific issues with specific research participants, such as socially-defined groups, including as examples indigenous or minority populations, would be critical components of the research design and ethical approval processes.

The Challenges of Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development from Rio to Rio+20 and Beyond addresses in an analytical and critical way the issues raised by Rio+20 and represents a very important contribution to our understanding of the concept of sustainable development.