Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Debate

International trade and investment law: a new framework for public health and the common good

Authors: Louise Delany, Louise Signal, George Thomson

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

International trade and investment agreements can have positive outcomes, but also have negative consequences that affect global health and influence fundamental health determinants: poverty, inequality and the environment. This article proposes principles and strategies for designing future international law to attain health and common good objectives.

Argument

Basic principles are needed for international trade and investment agreements that are consistent with the common good, public health, and human rights. These principles should reflect the importance of reducing inequalities, along with social and environmental sustainability. Economic growth should be recognised as a means to common good objectives, rather than an end in itself. Our favoured approach is both radical and comprehensive: we describe what this approach would include and outline the strategies for its implementation, the processes and capacity building necessary for its achievement, and related governance and corporate issues.
The comprehensive approach includes significant changes to current models for trade and investment agreements, in particular (i) health, social and environmental objectives would be recognised as legitimate in their own right and implemented accordingly; (ii) changes to dispute-resolution processes, both state-to-state and investor-state; (iii) greater deference to international legal frameworks for health, environmental protection, and human rights; (iv) greater coherence across the international law framework; (v) limitations on investor privileges, and (vi) enforceable corporate responsibilities for contributing to health, environmental, human rights and other common good objectives. We also identify some limited changes that could be considered as an alternative to the proposed comprehensive approach.
Future research is needed to develop a range of model treaties, and on the means by which such treaties and reforms might be achieved. Such research would focus also on complementary institutional reforms relevant to the United Nations and other international agencies. Advocacy by a range of communities is needed for effective change. Reform will require informed debate, determined engagement with decision-makers and stakeholders, and some agreement across health, social and environmental sectors on alternatives.

Conclusions

Current frameworks of international law that govern trade and economic development need radical change, in relation to treaty processes, content, and contexts, to better attain public health objectives.
Literature
1.
Murphy J. Common good. In: Audi R, editor. The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
2.
3.
Puig S. The Merging of International Trade and Investment Law. Berkeley J Int Law. 2015;33(1):1. Article 4
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pogge T. Politics as usual: what lies behind the pro-poor rhetoric. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2010.
8.
Garcia F. Trade, inequality, and justice: toward a liberal theory of just trade. Ardsley, New York: Transnational Publishers; 2003.
9.
10.
11.
Friel S, Hattersley L, Townsend R. Trade policy and public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:325–44.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
McGrady B. Trade and public health: the WTO, tobacco, alcohol, and diet. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRef
21.
Pogge T. The Health Impact Fund: how to make new medicines accessible to all. In: Benatar R, Solomon; Brock, Gillian, ed. Global health and global health ethics: Cambridge University Press, 2011:241–250.
22.
23.
24.
Gostin L. Global Health Law. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press; 2014.CrossRef
25.
26.
Voon T, Mitchell A. International trade law. In: Voon T, Mitchell A, Liberman J, editors. Regulating tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy foods: the legal issues. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014.
27.
28.
Peet R. Unholy trinity: the IMF, World Bank and WTO. London: Zed Books; 2009.
29.
Weiss T, Wilkinson R. Rethinking global governance? Complexity, authority, power, change. Int Stud Q. 2014;58(1):207–15.CrossRef
30.
World Health Organization, World Intellectual Property Organization, World Trade Organization. Promoting access to medical technologies and innovation: Intersections between public health, intellectual property and trade. Geneva, Switzerland: WTO Secretariat, 2012.
31.
32.
Ruggie JG. Multilateralism: the anatomy of an institution. Int Organ. 1992;46(3):561–98.CrossRef
33.
Kahler M. Multilateralism with small and large numbers. Int Organ. 1992;46(3):681–708.CrossRef
34.
Caporaso JA. International relations theory and multilateralism: the search for foundations. Int Organ. 1992;46(3):599–632.CrossRef
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Carozza PG. The problematic applicability of subsidiarity to international law and institutions. Am J Jurisprud. 2016;61:51–67.CrossRef
43.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, United Nations. United Nations: United Nations treaty series, vol. 1155, p. 331, 1969, Entered into force 1980.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
McNeill D, Birkbeck C, Fukuda-Parr S, et al. Trade and investment agreements : implications for health protection. Journal of World Trade. 2017;51(1):159–82.
49.
Wiist WH. The corporation: an overview of what it is, its tactics, and what public health can do. In: Wiist WH, editor. The bottom line or public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
50.
51.
52.
53.
Baum F. The new public health. 4th ed ed. Oxford: Victoria, Australia; 2015.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
Pogge T. World Poverty and Human Rights. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2008.
66.
Meier BM. Advancing health rights in a globalized world: responding to globalization through a collective human right to public health. J Law Med Ethics 2007;35(4):545–555, 11.
67.
68.
69.
70.
Tienhaara K. Regulatory chill and the threat of arbitration: a view from political science. In: Brown C, Miles K, editors. Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
71.
72.
73.
Bronckers M. Is investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) superior to litigation before domestic courts?: an EU view on bilateral trade agreements. J Int Economic Law. 2015;18(3):655–77.CrossRef
74.
75.
76.
77.
Hindelang S, Krajewski M. Towards a more comprehensive approach in international investment law. In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M, editors. Shifting paradigms in international investment law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.CrossRef
78.
79.
Charnovitz S. Environment and health under WTO dispute settlement. Int'l L. 1998;32:901–21.
80.
Canadian Government. Agreement between Canada and [ ] for the promotion and protection of investments [model agreement - available from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada]. Ottawa: Canadian Government, 2014.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
Hirono K, Haigh F, Gleeson D, et al. Is health impact assessment useful in the context of trade negotiations? A case study of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010339.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
90.
91.
Shaffer G. Can WTO technical assistance and capacity-building serve developing countries? Wis Int'l L J 2005;23:643.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
Friedman EA, Gostin LO, Buse K. Advancing the right to health through global organizations: the potential role of a framework convention on Global Health. 2013;15(1):E71–86.
99.
Hilson M. Advocacy for a new global health development paradigm: building alliances for global public health. Promot Educ. 2005;(Suppl 3):65–7.
100.
Pinet G. Global partnerships: a key challenge and opportunity for implementation of international health law. Med Law. 2003;22(4):561–77.PubMed
Metadata
Title
International trade and investment law: a new framework for public health and the common good
Authors
Louise Delany
Louise Signal
George Thomson
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5486-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Public Health 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Cardio-metabolic and socio-environmental correlates of waist-to-height ratio in German primary schoolchildren: a cross-sectional exploration

Research article

Does household help prevent loneliness among the elderly? An evaluation of a policy reform in the Netherlands

Research article

Prevalence, risk awareness and health beliefs of behavioural risk factors for cardiovascular disease among university students in nine ASEAN countries

Research article

Impact of infection prevention and control training on health facilities during the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Guinea

Research article

Preventing suicidal behaviours with a multilevel intervention: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Research article

Global research output in the health of international Arab migrants (1988–2017)