Militaries and global health: peace, conflict, and disaster response.

Many countries show a growing willingness to use militaries in support of global health efforts. This Series paper summarises the varied roles, responsibilities, and approaches of militaries in global health, drawing on examples and case studies across peacetime, conflict, and disaster response environments. Militaries have many capabilities applicable to global health, ranging from research, surveillance, and medical expertise to rapidly deployable, large-scale assets for logistics, transportation, and security. Despite this large range of capabilities, militaries also have limitations when engaging in global health activities. Militaries focus on strategic, operational, and tactical objectives that support their security and defence missions, which can conflict with humanitarian and global health equity objectives. Guidelines-both within and outside militaries-for military engagement in global health are often lacking, as are structured opportunities for military and civilian organisations to engage one another. We summarise policies that can help close the gap between military and civilian actors to catalyse the contributions of all participants to enhance global health.

The multiple meanings of global health governance: a call for conceptual clarity.

BACKGROUND: The term global health governance (GHG) is now widely used, with over one thousand works published in the scholarly literature, almost all since 2002. Amid this rapid growth there is considerable variation in how the term is defined and applied, generating confusion as to the boundaries of the subject, the perceived problems in practice, and the goals to be achieved through institutional reform. METHODOLOGY: This paper is based on the results of a separate scoping study of peer reviewed GHG research from 1990 onwards which undertook keyword searches of public health and social science databases. Additional works, notably books, book chapters and scholarly articles, not currently indexed, were identified through Web of Science citation searches. After removing duplicates, book reviews, commentaries and editorials, we reviewed the remaining 250 scholarly works in terms of how the concept of GHG is applied. More specifically, we identify what is claimed as constituting GHG, how it is problematised, the institutional features of GHG, and what forms and functions are deemed ideal. RESULTS: After examining the broader notion of global governance and increasingly ubiquitous term "global health", the paper identifies three ontological variations in GHG scholarship - the scope of institutional arrangements, strengths and weaknesses of existing institutions, and the ideal form and function of GHG. This has produced three common, yet distinct, meanings of GHG that have emerged - globalisation and health governance, global governance and health, and governance for global health. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to clarify ontological and definitional distinctions in GHG scholarship and practice, and be critically reflexive of their normative underpinnings. This will enable greater precision in describing existing institutional arrangements, as well as serve as a prerequisite for a fuller debate about the desired nature of GHG.

The politics of medicine and the global governance of pandemic influenza.

While still significant, the 2009 H1N1 (A) influenza pandemic was generally viewed as comparatively mild in contrast to past influenza pandemics. Even so, the conventional response of many governments to protect their populations against the threat from the H1N1 virus was to ensure adequate vaccine production and/or access to supplies of vaccines and antiviral medications. In this article, I examine the influence of biomedical knowledge (and the professionals that wield it) in determining the acceptable and rational limits of influenza public policy from 1918 to today. Particular attention is given to the role that medical practitioners have played in shaping post-World War II influenza policy and governance structures, together with the development, deployment, and political effect of more recent biomedical techniques-such as evidence-based medicine-in reinforcing the importance attached to influenza vaccines and antivirals. The article concludes by discussing how the intense focus on pharmaceutical-based solutions reflects a particular view of biomedicine that has had serious political implications in distorting global health governance arrangements, and I argue that only by unpacking these structures and revealing the political authority in play can alternative policy responses more appropriate to a wider proportion of humanity be considered.

Changing perceptions: of pandemic influenza and public health responses.

According to the latest World Bank estimates, over the past decade some US $4.3 billion has been pledged by governments to combat the threat of pandemic influenza. Presidents, prime ministers, and even dictators the world over have been keen to demonstrate their commitment to tackling this disease, but this has not always been the case. Indeed, government-led intervention in responding to the threat of pandemic influenza is a relatively recent phenomenon. I explore how human understandings of influenza have altered over the past 500 years and how public policy responses have shifted accordingly. I trace the progress in human understanding of causation from meteorological conditions to the microscopic, and how this has prompted changes in public policy to mitigate the disease's impact. I also examine the latest trend of viewing pandemic influenza as a security threat and how this has changed contemporary governance structures and power dynamics.

Evidence-based medicine and the governance of pandemic influenza.

The conventional response of governments to protect their populations against the threat of influenza has been to ensure adequate vaccine production and/or access to supplies of vaccines and antiviral medications. This focus has, in turn, shaped the global governance structures around pandemic influenza, with collective efforts centred on facilitating virus sharing, maintaining and increasing vaccine production, and ensuring access to pharmaceuticals - responses that remain unattainable for many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the short to medium term. This paper argues that this emphasis on pharmacological responses reflects a particular view of biomedicine that pays inadequate attention to the weak capacity of many health systems. In more recent years, this dynamic has been further exacerbated by the influence of evidence-based medicine (EBM) that preferences certain types of biomedical knowledge and practice. This paper explores the role that EBM has played in shaping the global governance of pandemic influenza, and how it has served to reinforce and reify the authority of particular groups of actors, including policy-makers, elected officials and the medical community. The paper concludes that only by unpacking these structures and revealing the political authority in play can alternative policy responses more appropriate to LMICs be considered.

The securitisation of pandemic influenza: framing, security and public policy.

This article examines how pandemic influenza has been framed as a security issue, threatening the functioning of both state and society, and the policy responses to this framing. Pandemic influenza has long been recognised as a threat to human health. Despite this, for much of the twentieth century it was not recognised as a security threat. In the decade surrounding the new millennium, however, the disease was successfully securitised with profound implications for public policy. This article addresses the construction of pandemic influenza as a threat. Drawing on the work of the Copenhagen School, it examines how it was successfully securitised at the turn of the millennium and with what consequences for public policy.

Framing global health: the governance challenge.

With the emergence of global health comes governance challenges which are equally global in nature. This article identifies some of the initial limitations in analyses of global health governance (GHG) before discussing the focus of this special supplement: the framing of global health issues and the manner in which this impacts upon GHG. Whilst not denying the importance of material factors (such as resources and institutional competencies), the article identifies how issues can be framed in different ways, thereby creating particular pathways of response which in turn affect the potential for and nature of GHG. It also identifies and discusses the key frames operating in global health: evidence-based medicine, human rights, security, economics and development.

The evolving WHO: implications for global health security.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is central to the international community's efforts to control infectious disease outbreaks. In recent years, however, the Organization's powers have undergone substantial revision following a series of interconnected global events including the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak, the revised International Health Regulations, the emergence and spread of avian influenza, and more recently, the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic. This paper explores how the WHO's role, authority and autonomy have been shaped and re-shaped, and examines what this may mean for the future of global health security.