Below are extracts from an editorial in tomorrow's Lancet, and two comments from me.
==
'Insufficient political action on climate change (and in many cases policy rollbacks) explains the hope surrounding a landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 23. It affirmed states' legal obligations to curb emissions and make reparations for climate-related damage. The ruling was explicitly framed in terms of human rights, including the right to health, understood as the right to an effective, equitable, responsive health system for all...
'Broadly speaking, litigation has played a crucial role in advancing public health by holding industries and governments accountable for neglecting or harming health. Strategic litigation, which seeks to extend impacts beyond an individual case, can be effective but, as pointed out by the Lancet Commission on the legal determinants of health, it is underused for improving population health. Bringing cases specifically based on countries' obligations to ensure a right to health is more contentious. The Commission states that whether a court can adjudicate such claims remains contested in many jurisdictions.
'There have been notable successes. In a landmark case, the civil society organisation Treatment Action Campaign won a legal action against the South African Government to ensure access to HIV medicines on the basis of a right to health...
'Health professionals have a vital part to play in such actions, from generating scientific evidence to providing expert advice in court...
'The ICJ ruling is therefore a source of optimism, not only for driving action and accountability on climate change and its links with health, but also as a reminder of how legal instruments can be used alongside scientific evidence to empower health professionals and civil society in advocating to advance health for all.'
==
COMMENTS (NPW):
1. The editorial speaks of litigation against governments. In my view, individual politicians should also be held accountable for actions that breach human rights.
2. HIFA has establighed a legal basis to address a different global health challenge. We showed many years ago that governments hjave a legal obligation under international human rights law to ensure that their populations have access to reliable healthcare information. Unfortunately the world has hardly budged an inch since then, on government accountability for climate change, healthcare information or any other parameter. Indeed we have seen a worsening of dangerous misinformation from an increasing number of (mostly right-wing) politicians, who continue to act with impunity.
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org