Interpreting the international right to health in global health priority-setting (or what lies beyond a fair procedure)

This article examines the normative role of the international right to health in global health priority‑setting, focusing on key obligations under the International Covenant on ­Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Employing a comparative analysis of relevant sources in international law, it critiques the widely adopted procedural approach of “accountability for reasonableness” and emphasises the need for substantive obligations to address resource constraints, reflecting the true spirit of international human rights law. Three analytical approaches are compared in terms of their applicable sources: the basic resource generation approach derived from treaty obligations, goal‑oriented prioritisation based on soft‑law guidance from the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and the broader framework of Global Health Law (GHL). The study advocates for integrating principles of resource mobilisation and progressive realisation into health policy decisions, thereby reclaiming the right to health as an economic and social right. Adopting such standards would allow for a rethinking of how to govern priority‑setting decisions in global health and embed greater efforts to challenge market barriers and the deep‑seated mantra of scarcity within priority‑setting.