Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
have since questioned whether the wHo bureaucracy acted appropriately. For
example, it has been argued that it acted as 'international health police' (Schnur 2006),
that it engaged in agency slack (cortell and Peterson 2006), and that it exercised
'independent power' (Fidler 2004). this chapter evaluates the last set of claims,
namely, that the wHo engaged in agency slack or independent power in containing
SarS by taking unauthorised, unprecedented, and undesired actions. these claims,
advanced by David Fidler and by andrew cortell and Susan Peterson, additionally
suggest that the wHo exceeded its authority and mandate, effectively engaging in
ultra vires activities that contravened the preferences of its member states.
However, while the methods the wHo employed may be considered
unconventional, when compared against the organisation's mandate, its delegation
contract with member states to eradicate disease, and customary practice, the
bureaucracy's actions were consistent with the organisation's envisaged role,
authority, and autonomy. Moreover, although the wHo acted unilaterally (or
autonomously) in the context of SarS, the actions taken by the bureaucracy had
been previously authorised by member states and were in fact congruent with the
intentions of its collective membership at the time of the pandemic. In conducting
this analysis, this chapter contributes to the wider debate about the role of Ios and,
in particular, the role of the wHo in global health governance. It also assesses the
organisation's ability and scope to engage in innovative means to fulfil its mandate
of advancing global public health and the international community's willingness to
accept such innovation.
Post-SARS Claims Summarised
within a year of the wHo's declaration that SarS had successfully been contained
worldwide, Fidler (2004; 1998; 1999; 2001) published SARS, Governance, and the
Globalization of Disease , which drew together a number of themes from previous
publications to suggest that a new era of 'post-westphalian' health governance has
arrived. although he claims that this new epoch had been developing for some time,
Fidler (2004, 42-60) states that the 2003 SarS pandemic marked 'the point at which
a new governance paradigm for global infectious disease threats truly came of age'.
the wHo's actions in responding to SarS represented a 'governance tipping point'
that established a precedent for how future disease outbreaks would be managed
(187-189). one of the intrinsic elements in this new style of communicable disease
governance, however, was the wHo's apparent usage of 'independent power' (142).
Intriguingly, Fidler never explicitly outlines the exact meaning of the phrase
'independent power'. However, it appears that the wHo's alleged independence
relates to its issuance of geographically specific travel advisories and global alerts.
as Fidler (2004, 188-189) summarises,
wHo's exercise of independent power during the SarS outbreak in issuing global alerts
and geographically specific travel advisories … represent unprecedented developments
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search