全球公共卫生治理中PHEIC运行困境及应对策略
Operational Difficulties and Response Strategies of PHEIC in Global Public Health Governance
摘要: 近年来埃博拉、新冠病毒、猴痘传染病公共卫生危机在全球范围内造成巨大影响。PHEIC是在《国际卫生条例(2005)》(以下简称“《条例》”)框架下为及时预警和协调国际合作抗疫而设立的机制,然而“是否宣布”及“何时宣布”是公认的难题。历次疫情应对过程中,WHO运用PHEIC机制的能力和效果持续引发争议。WHO难以避免的政治化引起了国际社会对WHO专业性的质疑,影响其在全球公共卫生合作中的权威性,最终导致缔约国不遵守WHO的政策规范,形成“决策困境–专业性质疑–领导监督力减弱–缔约国不遵守”的链条。故有人提出将强制解决办法引入以期一劳永逸,这一建议无异于推翻《条例》协调意志的底层逻辑。笔者认为应对PHEIC运行困境并非仅为得出WHO需加强治理与改革或者缔约国需重新开启《条例》谈判的简单推论,而需从全球公共卫生治理的各主体入手,增强国际社会关于全球公共卫生治理的共同体意识。
Abstract: In recent years, the public health crises of Ebola, COVID-19 and monkeypox infectious diseases have had a huge impact on the world. PHEIC is a mechanism established under the framework of the International Health Regulations (2005) for timely warning and coordination of international cooperation in the fight against epidemic diseases. However, “whether to declare” and “when to declare” are recognized as difficult problems. The ability and effectiveness of WHO to use the PHEIC mechanism have continued to cause controversy in the past epidemic response. The inevitable politicization of WHO caused the international community to question the professionalism of WHO affected its authority in global public health cooperation, and finally led to the failure of the contracting parties to comply with the policy norms of WHO, forming a chain of “decision-making dilemma—professional questioning—weakening of leadership and supervision—failure of the contracting parties to comply”. Therefore, some people have proposed to introduce the compulsory solution with a view to once and for all. This proposal is tantamount to overturning the underlying logic of the Regulation to coordinate the will. The author believes that dealing with the operational dilemma of PHEIC is not only to draw a simple conclusion that WHO needs to strengthen governance and reform or that the contracting parties need to reopen the negotiations on the Regulation, and to strengthen the common consciousness of the international community on global public health governance from the perspective of the main bodies of global public health governance.
文章引用:陈雯雯. 全球公共卫生治理中PHEIC运行困境及应对策略[J]. 法学, 2023, 11(5): 3953-3964. https://doi.org/10.12677/OJLS.2023.115562

参考文献

[1] 郭岩, 刘培龙, 许静. 全球卫生及其国家策略研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2010, 42(3): 247-251.
[2] 朱锋. “非传统安全”解析[J]. 中国社会科学, 2004(4): 139-146.
[3] 龚向前. 传染病控制与当代国际法变革的新趋势——以《国际卫生条例》(2005)为例[J]. 法学评论, 2011, 29(1): 110-114.
[4] 徐彤武. 埃博拉战争: 危机、挑战与启示[J]. 国际政治研究, 2015, 36(2): 33-60.
[5] 刘铁娃. 世界卫生组织在全球卫生治理中的中心地位及其面临的挑战分析[J]. 太平洋学报, 2021, 29(2): 15-28.
[6] 汤蓓. PHEIC机制与世界卫生组织的角色演进[J]. 世界经济与政治, 2020(3): 44-61, 156-157.
[7] 韩永红, 梁佩豪. 突发公共卫生事件中过度限制性措施的国际法规制[J]. 国际经贸探索, 2020, 36(7): 85-97.
[8] Avant, D.D., Finnemore, M. and Sell, S.K. (2010) Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 9-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] 龚向前. 试析国际法上的“软法”——以世界卫生组织“软法”为例[J]. 社会科学家, 2006(2): 98-100.
[10] 晋继勇. 全球公共卫生治理中的国际机制分析[M]. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 2019.
[11] Adler, E. and Bernstein, S. (2005) Knowledge in Power: The Epistemic Construction of Global Governance. In: Barnett, M. and Duvall, R., Eds., Power in Global Gov-ernance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] 何田田. 《国际卫生条例》下的“国际关注的突发公共卫生事件”: 规范分析、实施困境与治理路径[J]. 国际法研究, 2020(4): 39-52.
[13] 肖巍. 从“非典”看公共健康的意义——访丹尼尔∙维克勒教授[J]. 哲学动态, 2003(7): 40-42.
[14] 贺平. 日本的“国际健康外交”辨析[J]. 复旦国际关系评论, 2016(2): 35-56.
[15] 王一晨. 非传统安全视域下的日本对非洲卫生健康外交[J]. 日本问题研究, 2022, 36(3): 18-26.
[16] 余劲松. 公开透明制度建设与国家治理现代化[J]. 法制与社会发展, 2014, 20(5): 54-56.
[17] 刘雁冰, 马林. 《国际卫生条例》在新冠疫情应对中的困境与完善[J]. 西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, 51(4): 117-124.
[18] 刘雅琦, 王玲玉. PHEIC下基于社会隐私计算视角的个体信息分享行为影响因素研究[J]. 情报资料工作, 2022, 43(4): 71-82.
[19] 周阳. 《国际卫生条例(2005)》的法理冲突与规则重构[J]. 上海对外经贸大学学报, 2020, 27(6): 63-79.
[20] 刘晓红. 国际公共卫生安全全球治理的国际法之维[J]. 法学, 2020(4): 19-32.