Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
q) to provide information, counsel and assistance in the field of health (WHO 2006a, art.
2); and
r) to assist in developing an informed public opinion among all peoples on matters of
health (WHO 2006a, art. 2[r]).
Furthermore, under article 2(v) of the constitution, the wHo has been additionally
empowered to 'generally take all necessary action to attain the objective of the
Organization', which, as indicated previously, is the attainment of all peoples of the
highest possible level of health.
In reviewing these various provisions, it becomes difficult to agree with the view
that the wHo's recommendations throughout SarS were unauthorised. the wHo's
global alerts and travel advisories are classified as non-binding recommendations
that the organisation is authorised to issue under article 2(k) of the constitution.
Similarly, the WHO's dissemination of disease outbreak notifications and updates
via its website and the international media could clearly be interpreted as permissible
activities under article 2(q) and (r). lastly, eradicating the SarS-associated
coronavirus was entirely consistent with both the overall objective of the wHo—the
attainment of all peoples of the highest possible level of health—and its duty to
eradicate disease. thus, even from a brief overview of the wHo's constitutional
powers, it is reasonable to surmise that the bureaucracy's actions were authorised.
likewise, a case can be made that established or customary wHo practice
substantiates the validity of the organisation's authority to issue the global alerts
and travel advisories. First, the wHo has regularly issued global alerts pertaining
to disease outbreaks whenever it has deemed them necessary. Prior to the mid 1990s
these alerts were only generally published in the wHo's weekly periodical,
Weekly
Epidemiological Record
. However, since 1996, they have also been published on the
WHO website (WHO 2008; 2006b). More specifically in relation to the geographically
specific travel advisories, the wHo secretariat maintains that it has taken comparable
action on at least one prior occasion, following the 1994 outbreak of plague in Surat,
India. In this instance the wHo issued a recommendation that avoiding travel to
the affected region was unnecessary (wHo 1994a; 1994b).although the content of the
recommendation was therefore technically the reverse of the SarS advisories (and
as such, the case for customary practice is certainly debatable), the wHo secretariat
maintains that this advisory established a precedent for the 2003 travel advisories.
6
Strengthening the bureaucracy's case, it is not only the practice of the organisation
itself but also the reaction of member states that can provide new insight into the
powers and authority of an Io. as Jose Alvarez (2005, 80) observes,
action taken by a member with respect to an organization, if unchallenged by the
organization or other members, may also constitute, de facto, an interpretation with such
effects. The same is true of action taken for the first time by an institutional organ, if
unchallenged by the membership. even an interpretation by the legal department of the
secretariat, if accepted by the membership, is presumed to be
intra vires
and may be cited
as authoritative the next time a similar issue arises.
