Health Care Analysis

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 330–340 | Cite as

A Progressively Realizable Right to Health and Global Governance

Original Article


A moral right to health or health care is a special instance of a right to fair equality of opportunity. Nation-states generally have the capabilities to specify the entitlements of such a right and to raise the resources needed to satisfy those entitlements. Can these functions be replicated globally, as a global right to health or health care requires? The suggestion that “better global governance” is needed if such a global right is to be claimed requires that these two central capabilities be present. It is unlikely that nation-states would concede these two functions to a form of global governance, for doing so would seriously compromise the authority that is generally included in sovereignty. This claim is a specification of what is often recognized as the “sovereignty problem.” The argument of this paper is not an “impossibility” claim, but a best guess about whether the necessary conditions for better global governance that supports a global right to health or health care can be achieved.


Progressive realization Right to health Sovereignty problem Entitlements to health or health care Global governance 


  1. 1.
    Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). (2011). Emergency and transitional shelter provision flawed, new evaluation shows.
  2. 2.
    Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). (2012). Evolution of donor response to Haití earthquake shows “building back better” nothing but a slogan.
  3. 3.
    Corte Constitucional de Columbia. Sentencia T-760 del 2008.
  4. 4.
    Daniels, N. (1985). Just health care. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniels, N. (1986). Why saying no to patients in the united states is so hard: Cost containment, justice, and provider autonomy. New England Journal of Medicine, 314, 1381–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daniels, N. (1987). The ideal advocate and limited resources. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 8(1), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daniels, N., Kennedy, B., & Kawachi, I. (1999). Why justice is good for our health: The social determinants of health inequalities. Daedalus, 128(4), 215–251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. E. (1997). Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 26, 303–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. E. (2002). Setting limits fairly: Can we learn to share medical resources?. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fried, C. (1978). Right and wrong. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fuchs N. (2011) Who shall live? Health, economics, and social choice (2nd expanded ed.). Hackensack: World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gettleman, J. (2014). Ebola rages, poor planning thwarts efforts. New York Times, December 6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gewirth, A. (1996). Community of rights. Chicago: U Chicago Press. But see Holmes, S. & Sunstein, C. (1999). The cost of rights: Why liberty depends on taxes. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gostin, L. (2014). Global health law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gruskin, S., & Daniels, N. (2008). Justice and human rights: Priority setting and fair deliberative process. American Journal of Public Health, 98(9), 1573–1577.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osborne, M., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rawls, J., Kelly, E. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12 of the Covenant), 11 August 2000, E/C.12/2000/4.
  23. 23.
    UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 993, p. 3. Accessed September 11, 2014.
  24. 24.
    WHO (2005), International Health Regulations (2005), Second Edition 2008.
  25. 25.
    Yamin, A., & Gloppen, S. (Eds.). (2011). Litigating health rights: Can courts bring more justice to health?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yamin, A., & Norheim, O. (2014). Taking equality seriously: Applying human rights frameworks to priority setting in health. Human Rights Quarterly, 36, 296–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Global Health and Population, Chan School of Public HealthHarvard UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations