Commentary: The World Health Organization and the International Health Regulations of 2005: from emergency management to public health risk governance

This commentary addresses the novel nature of the mechanism of standing recommendations issued under the International Health Regulations of 2005, as well as the potential shift it may represent for the WHO from an emergency management organisation to a public health risk governance one. The latter is a broader category, which could help address other global health challenges that lack sufficient attention. For that to occur, several premises must be met, and perhaps the most fundamental one is that the WHO’s recommendations must be taken seriously by its Member States. The commentary concludes by putting forward arguments for overlooking the emergency bias that has so far prevailed in the implementation of the IHR (2005).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Global Health Law
Published
2024-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4337/jghl.2024.02.08
Primary Topic
Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Commentary: The World Health Organization and the International Health Regulations of 2005: from emergency management to public health risk governance

Pedro A. Villarreal
Journal of Global Health Law
Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
article

Commentary: The World Health Organization and the International Health Regulations of 2005: from emergency management to public health risk governance

Pedro A. Villarreal
article en

Abstract

This commentary addresses the novel nature of the mechanism of standing recommendations issued under the International Health Regulations of 2005, as well as the potential shift it may represent for the WHO from an emergency management organisation to a public health risk governance one. The latter is a broader category, which could help address other global health challenges that lack sufficient attention. For that to occur, several premises must be met, and perhaps the most fundamental one is that the WHO’s recommendations must be taken seriously by its Member States. The commentary concludes by putting forward arguments for overlooking the emergency bias that has so far prevailed in the implementation of the IHR (2005).

Journal of Global Health LawVol. 1(2)
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (DE), Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.