The World Health Organization was born as a normative agency: Seventy-five years of global health law under WHO governance.

The World Health Organization (WHO) was born as a normative agency and has looked to global health law to structure collective action to realize global health with justice. Framed by its constitutional authority to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health, WHO has long been seen as the central actor in the development and implementation of global health law. However, WHO has faced challenges in advancing law to prevent disease and promote health over the past 75 years, with global health law constrained by new health actors, shifting normative frameworks, and soft law diplomacy. These challenges were exacerbated amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as states neglected international legal commitments in national health responses. Yet, global health law reforms are now underway to strengthen WHO governance, signaling a return to lawmaking for global health. Looking back on WHO's 75th anniversary, this article examines the central importance of global health law under WHO governance, reviewing the past successes, missed opportunities, and future hopes for WHO. For WHO to meet its constitutional authority to become the normative agency it was born to be, we offer five proposals to reestablish a WHO fit for purpose: normative instruments, equity and human rights mainstreaming, sustainable financing, One Health, and good governance. Drawing from past struggles, these reforms will require further efforts to revitalize hard law authorities in global health, strengthen WHO leadership across the global governance landscape, uphold equity and rights at the center of global health law, and expand negotiations in global health diplomacy.

Increasing compliance with international pandemic law: international relations and new global health agreements.

Across multiple pandemics, global health governance institutions have struggled to secure the compliance of states with international legal and political commitments, ranging from data sharing to observing WHO guidance to sharing vaccines. In response, governments are negotiating a new pandemic treaty and revising the International Health Regulations. Achieving compliance remains challenging, but international relations and international law research in areas outside of health offers insights. This Health Policy analyses international relations research on the reasons why states comply with international law, even in the absence of sanctions. Drawing on human rights, trade, finance, tobacco, and environmental law, we categorise compliance mechanisms as police patrol, fire alarm, or community organiser models. We show that, to date, current and proposed global health law incorporates only a few of the mechanisms that have shown to be effective in other areas. We offer six specific, politically feasible mechanisms for new international agreements that, together, could create compliance pressures to shift state behaviour.

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the Partnerships of Equitable Vaccine Access.

This article highlights and evaluates the role of CEPI and its contribution to global equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines through its established partnerships for vaccine development. The article adds to the understanding of how and when such partnerships can work for public health, especially under emergency citations.

The role of civil society organizations in alcohol control during the COVID-19 pandemic across six countries in Africa.

Background: The differing global trends in alcohol consumption and policy measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic warrant a closer look at the actions taken by civil society organisations (CSOs) and community-led efforts to describe how they may influence and accelerate action for change in alcohol control measures. This paper analyses actions undertaken by CSOs at the national and local levels to safeguard communities and improve alcohol control policies during the COVID-19 pandemic in six African countries. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed via email to CSOs involved in alcohol prevention, outreach and policy development in Kenya, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Individuals (n = 19) working at CSOs responded to the questionnaire from February to March 2022. Questions related to the role of CSOs during the pandemic are analysed and synthesised in this paper. 19 CSOs respondents representing the six countries were included in the study. Results: Action areas led by CSOs during the COVID-19 pandemic included: (i) direct lobbying advocacy, (ii) conducting public awareness media campaigns and (iii) legal and regulatory interventions linked to the pandemic. Conclusions: Given the size of the challenges governments faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of CSOs, during the ongoing pandemic and beyond, has become even more relevant to strengthen advocacy and public health interventions for alcohol control in Southern Africa. For this, CSOs should have a "seat at the table" when public health policies are designed, discussed and enforced.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of long COVID symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing symptoms or the development of new symptoms following a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis has caused a complex clinical problem known as "long COVID" (LC). This has introduced further pressure on global healthcare systems as there appears to be a need for ongoing clinical management of these patients. LC personifies heterogeneous symptoms at varying frequencies. The most complex symptoms appear to be driven by the neurology and neuropsychiatry spheres. METHODS: A systematic protocol was developed, peer reviewed, and published in PROSPERO. The systematic review included publications from the 1st of December 2019-30th June 2021 published in English. Multiple electronic databases were used. The dataset has been analyzed using a random-effects model and a subgroup analysis based on geographical location. Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were established based on the data identified. RESULTS: Of the 302 studies, 49 met the inclusion criteria, although 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The 36 studies had a collective sample size of 11,598 LC patients. 18 of the 36 studies were designed as cohorts and the remainder were cross-sectional. Symptoms of mental health, gastrointestinal, cardiopulmonary, neurological, and pain were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The quality that differentiates this meta-analysis is that they are cohort and cross-sectional studies with follow-up. It is evident that there is limited knowledge available of LC and current clinical management strategies may be suboptimal as a result. Clinical practice improvements will require more comprehensive clinical research, enabling effective evidence-based approaches to better support patients.

COVID-19 in the Americas: the role of collaborating centers in understanding lessons and best practices in pandemic preparedness and response.

COVID-19 exposed major gaps in global, regional, state, and local responses to public health emergencies. In preparation for the WHA Special Session to consider the benefits of developing an international instrument on pandemic preparedness, the O'Neill Institute in partnership with Foundation for the National Institutes of Health convened 30 of the world's leading authorities on global health law, financing, biomedical science, implementation, and emergency response along with leaders from prominent international organizations. This meeting was followed by regional consultations convened in Latin America-Caribbean, Africa, and Southeast Asia. These high-level expert consultations generated in-depth discussions on weaknesses and persisting gaps in global pandemic preparedness and what a new international agreement might include to address them. Regional intergovernmental organizations like PAHO can work closely with related multilateral development banks to develop financial instruments that can smooth systemic economic disruption; and regional centers of research and manufacturing excellence can offer a strong front line for producing medicines and vaccines rapidly during a pandemic. With our research focused on the regional response to COVID-19 we are able to look at country responses individually and collectively to see how Latin America - Caribbean countries can capitalize and leverage their regional connections to strengthen their pandemic preparedness and response. By identifying existing gaps and examining the responses and approaches taken by PAHO, we can better understand the role of international and regional organizations and their collaborating centers in preparing and responding to pandemics.

La COVID-19 expuso grandes brechas en las respuestas locales, nacionales, regionales y mundiales a las emergencias de salud pública. En preparación para la reunión extraordinaria de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud para considerar los beneficios de elaborar un instrumento internacional sobre la preparación frente a las pandemias, el Instituto O'Neill, en colaboración con la Fundación para los Institutos Nacionales de Salud, convocó a 30 de las principales autoridades mundiales en materia de derecho, financiamiento, ciencia biomédica, implementación y respuesta a emergencias de salud, así como a líderes de organizaciones internacionales prominentes. A esta reunión le siguieron consultas regionales convocadas en América Latina y el Caribe, África y el sudeste asiático. Estas consultas con expertos de alto nivel generaron debates en profundidad acerca de las debilidades y brechas persistentes en la preparación frente a las pandemias y qué podría incluirse en un nuevo acuerdo internacional sobre cómo abordarlas. Las organizaciones intergubernamentales regionales como la Organización Panamericana de la Salud pueden trabajar en estrecha colaboración con los bancos multilaterales de desarrollo relacionados para elaborar instrumentos financieros que puedan aliviar las perturbaciones económicas sistémicas; y los centros regionales de excelencia en investigación y producción pueden formar una sólida primera línea de acción para producir medicamentos y vacunas rápidamente durante una pandemia. Con esta investigación centrada en la respuesta regional a la COVID-19, podemos analizar las respuestas de los países de forma individual y colectiva para observar la manera en que América Latina y el Caribe pueden capitalizar y aprovechar sus conexiones regionales para fortalecer su preparación y respuesta frente a una pandemia. Al determinar cuáles son las brechas existentes y examinar las respuestas y los enfoques adoptados por la OPS, podemos comprender mejor el papel de las organizaciones regionales e internacionales y sus centros colaboradores en la preparación y respuesta frente a las pandemias.

A COVID-19 expôs grandes lacunas nas respostas globais, regionais, estaduais e locais a emergências de saúde pública. Nos preparativos para a Sessão Especial da Assembleia Mundial da Saúde para avaliar os benefícios de desenvolver um instrumento internacional de preparação para pandemias, o Instituto O'Neill, em parceria com a Fundação para os Institutos Nacionais de Saúde, reuniu 30 das principais autoridades mundiais em direito sanitário global, financiamento, ciências biomédicas, implementação e resposta a emergências, além de líderes de organizações internacionais proeminentes. Essa reunião foi seguida por consultas regionais convocadas na América Latina/Caribe, na África e no sudeste da Ásia. Essas consultas com especialistas de alto nível geraram discussões minuciosas sobre os pontos fracos e as lacunas persistentes na preparação global para pandemias e o que poderia ser incluído em um novo acordo internacional para resolvê-los. Organizações intergovernamentais regionais, como a OPAS, podem trabalhar em estreita colaboração com os bancos multilaterais de desenvolvimento para desenvolver instrumentos financeiros capazes de atenuar a ruptura econômica sistêmica; por outro lado, centros regionais de excelência em pesquisa e fabricação podem oferecer uma linha de frente expressiva para a rápida produção de medicamentos e vacinas durante uma pandemia. Usando os dados da nossa pesquisa sobre a resposta regional à COVID-19, podemos analisar as respostas dos países de forma individual e coletiva para avaliar como os países da América Latina e do Caribe podem capitalizar e alavancar suas conexões regionais para fortalecer sua preparação e resposta à pandemia. Ao identificar lacunas existentes e analisar as respostas e abordagens adotadas pela OPAS, podemos compreender melhor o papel das organizações internacionais e regionais e de seus centros colaboradores na preparação e resposta a pandemias.

COVID-19 in the Americas: the role of collaborating centers in understanding lessons and best practices in pandemic preparedness and response / COVID-19 en la Región de las Américas: papel de los centros colaboradores en la comprensión de las enseñanzas y mejores prácticas en la preparación y respuesta frente a pandemias / COVID-19 nas Américas: o papel dos centros colaboradores para entender as lições e melhores práticas de preparação e resposta a pandemias

ABSTRACT COVID-19 exposed major gaps in global, regional, state, and local responses to public health emergencies. In preparation for the WHA Special Session to consider the benefits of developing an international instrument on pandemic preparedness, the O'Neill Institute in partnership with Foundation for the National Institutes of Health convened 30 of the world's leading authorities on global health law, financing, biomedical science, implementation, and emergency response along with leaders from prominent international organizations. This meeting was followed by regional consultations convened in Latin America-Caribbean, Africa, and Southeast Asia. These high-level expert consultations generated in-depth discussions on weaknesses and persisting gaps in global pandemic preparedness and what a new international agreement might include to address them. Regional intergovernmental organizations like PAHO can work closely with related multilateral development banks to develop financial instruments that can smooth systemic economic disruption; and regional centers of research and manufacturing excellence can offer a strong front line for producing medicines and vaccines rapidly during a pandemic. With our research focused on the regional response to COVID-19 we are able to look at country responses individually and collectively to see how Latin America - Caribbean countries can capitalize and leverage their regional connections to strengthen their pandemic preparedness and response. By identifying existing gaps and examining the responses and approaches taken by PAHO, we can better understand the role of international and regional organizations and their collaborating centers in preparing and responding to pandemics.

RESUMEN La COVID-19 expuso grandes brechas en las respuestas locales, nacionales, regionales y mundiales a las emergencias de salud pública. En preparación para la reunión extraordinaria de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud para considerar los beneficios de elaborar un instrumento internacional sobre la preparación frente a las pandemias, el Instituto O'Neill, en colaboración con la Fundación para los Institutos Nacionales de Salud, convocó a 30 de las principales autoridades mundiales en materia de derecho, financiamiento, ciencia biomédica, implementación y respuesta a emergencias de salud, así como a líderes de organizaciones internacionales prominentes. A esta reunión le siguieron consultas regionales convocadas en América Latina y el Caribe, África y el sudeste asiático. Estas consultas con expertos de alto nivel generaron debates en profundidad acerca de las debilidades y brechas persistentes en la preparación frente a las pandemias y qué podría incluirse en un nuevo acuerdo internacional sobre cómo abordarlas. Las organizaciones intergubernamentales regionales como la Organización Panamericana de la Salud pueden trabajar en estrecha colaboración con los bancos multilaterales de desarrollo relacionados para elaborar instrumentos financieros que puedan aliviar las perturbaciones económicas sistémicas; y los centros regionales de excelencia en investigación y producción pueden formar una sólida primera línea de acción para producir medicamentos y vacunas rápidamente durante una pandemia. Con esta investigación centrada en la respuesta regional a la COVID-19, podemos analizar las respuestas de los países de forma individual y colectiva para observar la manera en que América Latina y el Caribe pueden capitalizar y aprovechar sus conexiones regionales para fortalecer su preparación y respuesta frente a una pandemia. Al determinar cuáles son las brechas existentes y examinar las respuestas y los enfoques adoptados por la OPS, podemos comprender mejor el papel de las organizaciones regionales e internacionales y sus centros colaboradores en la preparación y respuesta frente a las pandemias.

RESUMO A COVID-19 expôs grandes lacunas nas respostas globais, regionais, estaduais e locais a emergências de saúde pública. Nos preparativos para a Sessão Especial da Assembleia Mundial da Saúde para avaliar os benefícios de desenvolver um instrumento internacional de preparação para pandemias, o Instituto O'Neill, em parceria com a Fundação para os Institutos Nacionais de Saúde, reuniu 30 das principais autoridades mundiais em direito sanitário global, financiamento, ciências biomédicas, implementação e resposta a emergências, além de líderes de organizações internacionais proeminentes. Essa reunião foi seguida por consultas regionais convocadas na América Latina/Caribe, na África e no sudeste da Ásia. Essas consultas com especialistas de alto nível geraram discussões minuciosas sobre os pontos fracos e as lacunas persistentes na preparação global para pandemias e o que poderia ser incluído em um novo acordo internacional para resolvê-los. Organizações intergovernamentais regionais, como a OPAS, podem trabalhar em estreita colaboração com os bancos multilaterais de desenvolvimento para desenvolver instrumentos financeiros capazes de atenuar a ruptura econômica sistêmica; por outro lado, centros regionais de excelência em pesquisa e fabricação podem oferecer uma linha de frente expressiva para a rápida produção de medicamentos e vacinas durante uma pandemia. Usando os dados da nossa pesquisa sobre a resposta regional à COVID-19, podemos analisar as respostas dos países de forma individual e coletiva para avaliar como os países da América Latina e do Caribe podem capitalizar e alavancar suas conexões regionais para fortalecer sua preparação e resposta à pandemia. Ao identificar lacunas existentes e analisar as respostas e abordagens adotadas pela OPAS, podemos compreender melhor o papel das organizações internacionais e regionais e de seus centros colaboradores na preparação e resposta a pandemias.

COVID-19 Law Lab: Building Strong Legal Evidence.

The COVID-19 Law Lab platform enables quantitative representation of epidemic law and policies in a given country for multiple years, enabling governments and researchers to compare countries, and learn about the impacts and drivers of policy choices. The Law Lab initiative is designed to address the urgent need for quality legal information to support the study of how law and policy can be used to effectively manage this, and future, pandemic(s).

Advancing Legal Preparedness through the Global Health Security Agenda.

The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) is a multilateral, multisectoral partnership comprised of more than 70 countries, international organizations, foundations, and businesses to strengthen global health security.

A pandemic treaty, revised international health regulations, or both?

BACKGROUND: A special session of the World Health Assembly (WHA) will be convened in late 2021 to consider developing a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response - a so-called 'Pandemic Treaty'. Consideration is given to this treaty as well as to reform of the International Health Regulations (IHR) as our principal governing instrument to prevent and mitigate future pandemics. MAIN BODY: Reasons exist to continue to work with the IHR as our principal governing instrument to prevent and mitigate future pandemics. All WHO member states are party to it. It gives the WHO the authority to oversee the collection of surveillance data and to issue recommendations on trade and travel advisories to control the spread of infectious diseases, among other things. However, the limitations of the IHR in addressing the deep prevention of future pandemics also must be recognized. These include a lack of a regulatory framework to prevent zoonotic spillovers. More advanced multi-sectoral measures are also needed. At the same time, a pandemic treaty would have potential benefits and drawbacks as well. It would be a means of addressing the gross inequity in global vaccine distribution and other gaps in the IHR, but it would also need more involvement at the negotiation table of countries in the Global South, significant funding, and likely many years to adopt. CONCLUSIONS: Reform of the IHR should be undertaken while engaging with WHO member states (and notably those from the Global South) in discussions on the possible benefits, drawbacks and scope of a new pandemic treaty. Both options are not mutually exclusive.

The future of zoonotic risk prediction.

In the light of the urgency raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, global investment in wildlife virology is likely to increase, and new surveillance programmes will identify hundreds of novel viruses that might someday pose a threat to humans. To support the extensive task of laboratory characterization, scientists may increasingly rely on data-driven rubrics or machine learning models that learn from known zoonoses to identify which animal pathogens could someday pose a threat to global health. We synthesize the findings of an interdisciplinary workshop on zoonotic risk technologies to answer the following questions. What are the prerequisites, in terms of open data, equity and interdisciplinary collaboration, to the development and application of those tools? What effect could the technology have on global health? Who would control that technology, who would have access to it and who would benefit from it? Would it improve pandemic prevention? Could it create new challenges? This article is part of the theme issue 'Infectious disease macroecology: parasite diversity and dynamics across the globe'.

A survey of International Health Regulations National Focal Points experiences in carrying out their functions.

BACKGROUND: The 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR (2005)) require States Parties to establish National Focal Points (NFPs) responsible for notifying the World Health Organization (WHO) of potential events that might constitute public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), such as outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Given the critical role of NFPs in the global surveillance and response system supported by the IHR, we sought to assess their experiences in carrying out their functions. METHODS: In collaboration with WHO officials, we administered a voluntary online survey to all 196 States Parties to the IHR (2005) in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and North America, from October to November 2019. The survey was available in six languages via a secure internet-based system. RESULTS: In total, 121 NFP representatives answered the 56-question survey; 105 in full, and an additional 16 in part, resulting in a response rate of 62% (121 responses to 196 invitations to participate). The majority of NFPs knew how to notify the WHO of a potential PHEIC, and believed they have the content expertise to carry out their functions. Respondents found training workshops organized by WHO Regional Offices helpful on how to report PHEICs. NFPs experienced challenges in four critical areas: 1) insufficient intersectoral collaboration within their countries, including limited access to, or a lack of cooperation from, key relevant ministries; 2) inadequate communications, such as deficient information technology systems in place to carry out their functions in a timely fashion; 3) lack of authority to report potential PHEICs; and 4) inadequacies in some resources made available by the WHO, including a key tool - the NFP Guide. Finally, many NFP representatives expressed concern about how WHO uses the information they receive from NFPs. CONCLUSION: Our study, conducted just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, illustrates key challenges experienced by NFPs that can affect States Parties and WHO performance when outbreaks occur. In order for NFPs to be able to rapidly and successfully communicate potential PHEICs such as COVID-19 in the future, continued measures need to be taken by both WHO and States Parties to ensure NFPs have the necessary authority, capacity, training, and resources to effectively carry out their functions as described in the IHR.