University of Toronto.
J Law Med Ethics. 2013 Spring;41(1):89-102. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12007.
Many global health issues, almost by definition, do not recognize state borders and therefore require bi-lateral, or more often multi-lateral international solutions. These latter solutions are articulated in international instruments (declarations, conventions, treaties, constitutions of international bodies, etc). However, the gap between formal adoption of such instruments by signatory states and substantive implementation of the articulated solutions can be very wide. This paper surveys a selection of international legal instruments, including those where the sought after positive outcomes have been achieved, and those that have been ineffective, with little or no real progress being made. The paper looks for commonalities, both in the nature of the problems and the forms of the international legal instruments, to seek answers as to why some instruments ultimately succeeded where others failed. It also provides some guidance to law/ treaty makers to help ensure that they frame future instruments in such a way as to maximize the probability that those instruments will have a substantive positive impact on global health and health rights.
许多全球卫生问题几乎从定义上就无法跨越国界,因此需要双边或更常见的多边国际解决方案。这些解决方案体现在国际文书(宣言、公约、条约、国际机构章程等)中。然而,签署国正式通过这些文书与实质性实施所阐明的解决方案之间可能存在很大差距。本文调查了一系列国际法律文书,包括那些已实现预期积极成果的文书,以及那些无效的文书,这些文书几乎没有或根本没有取得实际进展。本文旨在寻找问题性质和国际法律文书形式方面的共同点,以探究为何某些文书最终取得成功而其他文书却失败的原因。它还为法律/条约制定者提供了一些指导,以帮助确保他们制定未来的文书,从而最大限度地提高这些文书对全球卫生和健康权利产生实质性积极影响的可能性。