Rached Danielle Hanna, Ventura Deisy de Freitas Lima
Instituto de Relações Internacionais, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Cad Saude Publica. 2017 Jul 3;33(6):e00100716. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00100716.
The article probes the origins and content of the Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) of the World Health Organization (WHO), approved on May 28, 2016, at the 69th World Health Assembly, which established different rules of collaboration to four categories of actors: nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private sector entities, philanthropic foundations, and academic institutions. Applying the findings of International Legal Theory and based on extensive documentary research, we sought to determine whether FENSA is an appropriate accountability mechanism according to four functions of accountability: constitutional, democratic, epistemic, and populist. The article concludes that there is a risk of the prevalence of the populist function at the expense of the accountability potential that could result from the better use of the other three accountability functions.
本文探讨了2016年5月28日在第69届世界卫生大会上批准的世界卫生组织（WHO）与非国家行为体参与框架（FENSA）的起源和内容，该框架为四类行为体制定了不同的合作规则：非政府组织（NGO）、私营部门实体、慈善基金会和学术机构。运用国际法律理论的研究结果并基于广泛的文献研究，我们试图根据问责制的四个功能：宪法功能、民主功能、认知功能和民粹主义功能，来确定FENSA是否是一个适当的问责机制。文章得出结论，存在民粹主义功能盛行的风险，这是以牺牲更好地利用其他三个问责功能可能产生的问责潜力为代价的。
