Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
In addition, however, Io constitutive treaties have been recognised as possessing
special character deserving of uncommon interpretive techniques. this principle,
established by the International court of Justice (IcJ) in its advisory opinion on the
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, stipulates
that while the 'well-established rules of treaty interpretation apply', Io constitutive
treaties,
are also treaties of a particular type; their object is to create new subjects of law endowed
with a certain autonomy, to which the parties entrust the task of realizing common goals.
Such treaties can raise specific problems of interpretation owing, inter alia, to their
character which is conventional and at the same time institutional; the very nature of the
organization created, the objectives which have been assigned to it by its founders, the
imperatives associated with the effective performance of its functions, as well as its own
practice, are all elements which may deserve special attention when the time comes to
interpret these constituent treaties (IcJ 1996, 4).
By virtue of this dual nature and the difficulties it raises, adjudicative bodies
such as the ICJ have tended to adopt a more flexible approach when interpreting
Io constitutive treaties. Special prominence has been attached to two features: the
object and purpose of the treaty, and the role of subsequent practice.
In the context of the wHo, the object and purpose of the treaty were to create a
universal organisation charged with ensuring the 'attainment by all peoples of the
highest possible level of health' (wHo 2006a, art. 1). Health, which was described
by the wHo's founders as 'a state of complete physical, mental and social well-
being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity' (preamble), presupposes
the absence of disease. the eradication of any disease such as SarS is thus a core
component in achieving this objective—one entirely consistent with the object and
purpose of the Io's constitutive treaty. correspondingly, it is likely that should a case
about the wHo's handling of SarS ever be brought before the IcJ, considerable
latitude would be accorded to the wHo's bureaucracy for its actions.
In fact, several provisions within article 2 of the wHo constitution are
particularly relevant to evaluating the WHO's actions. The first two provisions of
immediate significance—'to act as the directing and co-ordinating authority on
international health work' (WHO 2006a, art. 2[a]) and 'to stimulate and advance
work to eradicate epidemic, endemic and other diseases' (art. 2[g])—establish the
organisation's overall authority to respond and, importantly, to take the lead role
throughout the 2003 SarS-inspired global emergency. Particularly in terms of the
WHO's authority to issue the global alerts, geographically specific travel advisories,
and disease outbreak information to non-state entities, however, the follow provisions
may be interpreted as further authorising the aforementioned activities:
k) to propose conventions, agreements and regulations, and make recommendations with
respect to international health matters and to perform such duties as may be assigned
thereby to the Organization and are consistent with its objective (WHO 2006a, art. 2);
