Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 10 de 10
Filtrar
3.
Biomed Res Int ; 2021: 6658070, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34485525

RESUMO

In light of the devastation caused by COVID-19, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and vaccine research and development (R&D) have been occupying a prominent position in the field of global health diplomacy (GHD). Most countries, international organizations, and charitable organizations have been engaged in the R&D of COVID-19 vaccines to ensure timely affordability and accessibility to all countries. Concomitantly, the World Trade Organization (WTO) provides some provisions and enforcements regarding copyrights, patents, trademarks, geographical indications, and industrial designs. Given these safeguards, it is considered that intellectual property rights (IPRs) have become major barriers to the affordability and accessibility of vaccines/medicines/technology, particularly to the developing/least developed countries. Realizing the gravity of the pandemic impact, as well as its huge population and size, India has elevated this issue in its global health diplomacy by submitting a joint proposal with South Africa to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a temporary waiver of IPRs to ensure timely affordability and accessibility of COVID-19 medical products to all countries. However, the issue of the temporary waive off had become a geopolitical issue. Countries that used to claim per se as strong advocates of human rights, egalitarianism, and healthy democracy have opposed this proposal. In this contrasting milieu, this paper is aimed at examining how the TRIPS has become a barrier for developing countries' development and distribution of vaccines/technology; secondly, how India strategizes its role in the WTO in pursuant of its global health diplomacy? We conclude that the IPRs regime should not become a barrier to the accessibility/affordability of essential drugs and vaccines. To ensure access, India needs to get more engaged in GHD with all the involved global stakeholders to get strong support for their joint proposal. The developed countries that rejected/resisted the proposal can rethink their full support.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/imunologia , COVID-19/imunologia , Diplomacia/métodos , Indústria Farmacêutica/métodos , Saúde Global , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , Direitos Humanos/métodos , Humanos , Índia , Saúde Pública/métodos , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia
6.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 23(13)2017 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29155662

RESUMO

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has established 10 Global Disease Detection (GDD) Program regional centers around the world that serve as centers of excellence for public health research on emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. The core activities of the GDD Program focus on applied public health research, surveillance, laboratory, public health informatics, and technical capacity building. During 2015-2016, program staff conducted 205 discrete projects on a range of topics, including acute respiratory illnesses, health systems strengthening, infectious diseases at the human-animal interface, and emerging infectious diseases. Projects incorporated multiple core activities, with technical capacity building being most prevalent. Collaborating with host countries to implement such projects promotes public health diplomacy. The GDD Program continues to work with countries to strengthen core capacities so that emerging diseases can be detected and stopped faster and closer to the source, thereby enhancing global health security.


Assuntos
Fortalecimento Institucional/métodos , Diplomacia/métodos , Saúde Global , Vigilância da População/métodos , Administração em Saúde Pública/métodos , Saúde Pública , Fortalecimento Institucional/organização & administração , Doenças Transmissíveis Emergentes/epidemiologia , Doenças Transmissíveis Emergentes/prevenção & controle , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde , Humanos
7.
8.
10.
Rev Bras Polít Int ; 47(1): [23], 2004.
Artigo em Português | LILACS, BDS | ID: biblio-833080

RESUMO

Ensaio comparativo, contrastando as políticas externas das administrações Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, com base em suas características gerais e nas tomadas de posição em relação a um conjunto de temas da agenda internacional, nomeadamente: multilateralismo e Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas; OMC, negociações comerciais multilaterais e cooperação Sul-Sul; terrorismo; globalização e capitais voláteis; FMI e política de condicionalidades; Brasil como líder; América do Sul; Mercosul; Argentina; Europa; relação com os Estados Unidos e Alca, ademais dos instrumentos diplomáticos mobilizados por cada um dos governos. Os elementos de ruptura são mais evidentes no estilo do que na substância da diplomacia brasileira, que continua a ostentar fortes traços de continuidade.


Comparative essay, constrasting the foreign policies of Fernando Henrique Cardoso's and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's administrations. Besides the general features of each diplomacy, external policies and practices of each government are compared for a set issues of the international agenda, namely: multilateralism and UN Security Council; WTO, multilateral trade negotiations and South-South cooperation; terrorism; globalization and financial flows; IMF and economic policy requirements; Brazil as a leader; South America; Mercosul; Argentina; Europe; relationship with the United States, and FTAA, with a final section on diplomatic tools preferred by each government. Break lines are much more evident in the style than in the substance of Brazilian diplomacy, which continues to show strong features of continuity.


Assuntos
História do Século XXI , Brasil , Governo Federal , Atos Internacionais , Diplomacia/métodos , Cooperação Horizontal , Nações Unidas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA