Point of Departure

My letter to the editor (in the context of G20 summit), Indian Express, 3 April 2009:

Given the seriousness of the global economic crisis, G-20 members must try and agree upon reform of the IMF by focusing on issues like legitimacy and scope of the financial institution. This is possible by amending the legal basis of the IMF to meet the changing requirements of the institution. Although the primary purpose of the financial institution is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system but over the years it is also providing technical assistance and training to help countries build the expertise and institutions they need for economic stability and growth. Therefore to ensure significant participation by member States of the IMF, it needs a clear mandate, transparency and effective accountability mechanisms.

Epidemic sans frontieres

My Op ed article published in the Indian Express on 24 June 2009:

As of June 17, 88 countries have officially reported 39,620 cases of influenza A (H1N1) infection, also known as swine flu. These include 167 deaths. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 44 confirmed cases were reported in India. The global nature of the swine flu situation is clearly alarming for public health officials and policy makers. It is therefore important to know what legal options are available for countries, especially developing countries, to cooperate in combating this virus.
The problem and implications of the spread of diseases globally across international frontiers has not gone unnoticed by the world community. The World Health Assembly, the highest policy-making body of the WHO, is empowered to adopt binding regulations concerning sanitary and quarantine requirements to prevent the international spread of disease. In 1951, WHO adopted International Sanitary Regulations followed by the International Health Regulations (1969). IHR 1969 addressed specific infectious diseases such as cholera, plague and yellow fever. But the rapid emergence of infectious diseases such as the Ebola virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), avian influenza and incidents such as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 posed a palpable threat to public health and highlighted the inadequacies of the 1969 IHR regulations. A ten-year effort between 1994 and 2005 culminated in the revision of IHR 1969. The new regulations — the international Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005) — that have been applied in the aftermath of the swine flu, are binding on WHO member states.
Under the WHO Constitution, regulations are legally binding once they are adopted by the World Health Assembly, which is an annual forum of all member states. In comparison to IHR 1969, the 2005 regulations are broader in scope, defining rights and obligations of states to report public health events to the WHO, and establish procedures to maintain global public health security. For instance, IHR 2005 mandates that any case involving human influenza caused by a new stereotype must be notified by states parties to the WHO, which assesses the threat levels of such cases. The objective is to help the international community in responding to and preventing acute public health risks, both infectious diseases as well as challenges posed by chemical, biological and radiological threats, whether naturally occurring, deliberate or accidental affecting individuals across the world. Thus IHR 2005 serves as a global framework for international cooperation.
On April 25 2009, in response to the swine flu, WHO swung into action. The WHO Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan, convened an Emergency Committee on swine flu, and based on its advice declared that the outbreak constituted a “public health emergency of international concern” under IHR 2005. It was for the first time that the Director-General invoked the regulations to convene the Emergency Committee. Upon the request of the Director-General, the Emergency Committee provides its views on whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). A PHEIC is determined to constitute “a public health risk to other states through the international spread of disease and which potentially require a coordinated international response.”
The WHO’s recommendations are not meant to limit countries from tackling swine flu with their own innovative measures. The IHR 2005 does not preclude states parties from implementing measures that achieve a greater level of health protection than the “temporary recommendations” of WHO, provided that such measures are otherwise consistent with the regulations and are neither restrictive of international trade or travel nor intrusive to persons.
The worry that countries might restrict travel while combating swine flu is a very real one. Human rights concerns may arise with the need for interventions like compulsory isolation, quarantine, and treatment, which might infringe on civil and political rights. The IHR 2005 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise the legality of such interventions, provided they are in consonance with certain principles such as a respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals.
IHR 2005 entered into force in India on 8 August 2007. Strengthening national surveillance systems and amendments to the Public Health Act 1925 is important for the implementation of IHR 2005 in India. The National Institute of Communicable Diseases is designated as the national focal point, which should coordinate with local authorities, including civil society organisations . In a federal structure like India where health is a state subject, there is a need for more jurisdictional clarity between various levels of government in responding to public health emergencies.

Protect the diaspora

My op ed article in the Hindustan Times published on 18 December 2008:

In 2000, December 18 was declared International Migrants Day by the United Nations. But eight years on, the UN is still striving to obtain a ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families. There are more than 150 million migrants (workers, refugees, asylum-seekers, permanent immigrants and others) and this convention wants to put an end to the abuses they face, though migrants contribute to the social, political and cultural dimensions of the societies they live in.
The efforts for an international agreement started in 1970 when illegal trafficking of labour came to light. The first World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, held in 1978, recommended the elaboration of a convention for protecting the rights of migrant workers. The convention came into force in 2003. But as of October 2008, only 39 nations have ratified it.
The convention outlines the rights of a migrant worker and provides a set of binding international standards to address the treatment, welfare and human rights of both documented and undocumented migrants as well as the obligations and responsibilities on the part of the sending and receiving States. The Convention defines the term ‘migrant worker’ as “a person who is to be engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national”. Some of the rights of migrant workers are: right to life, liberty, protection from collective expulsion and to adequate conditions of work, freedom of movement and residence within the territory of the host county and equal treatment with nationals in respect of protection against dismissal from employment.
Further, the convention imposes a series of obligations on the signatories: promotion of sound, equitable, humane and lawful conditions for the international migration of workers and their family members and establishes rules for migrant workers and for their return to the States of their origin. These requirements include the establishment of policies on migration; the exchange of information with other States parties; the provision of information to employers, workers and their organisations on policies, laws and regulations; and assistance to migrant workers and their families. The convention seeks to put an end to the illegal recruitment and trafficking of migrants and discourages the employment of migrant workers in an irregular or undocumented situation.
However, the convention has failed to gather momentum. Even some of the important migrant-receiving countries in Europe have not signed it. India is also not a party to it though on average 450,000 Indians go abroad annually for employment. It is important to review India’s stand regarding the convention as it can have implications for the security and prosperity of its migrant workers.
The Labour Ministry needs to examine the compatibility of the existing national legislation with the convention to set the stage to becoming a party to the same. But even if there is incompatibility between the national legislation and the convention, it should not stop us from becoming a party. Appropriate national legislation can be drafted upon ratification of the convention. The other reasons for not becoming a party appear to be fear of complications for the State as migration may even create security risks and social friction.