Advertisement

Infectious Disease Control Policies and the Role of Governmental and Intergovernmental Organisations

  • Gérard Krause
Chapter
Part of the Statistics for Biology and Health book series (SBH)

Abstract

Public health is generally regarded as the typical domain of national if not local governments, which takes into account local necessities arising from the epidemiologic situation, the health-care system and the government structures. Therefore in theory, public health policy is in the sovereignty of countries. However, the spread of infectious diseases has never been restricted to national borders; thus the principle of national sovereignty is largely theoretical. This is especially true in a world with unprecedented international mobility of goods and persons. Moreover, particularly public health actions in the field of infectious diseases within one country may well affect public health issues in other countries. One of the best recent examples is the Chinese management of the initial phase of the SARS epidemic, which was characterised by failing surveillance structures, insufficient control measures and restricted public information policy. Abba Ebban has described it as a paradox that in order for countries to effectively execute their public health sovereignty, they would consequently have to give up some of their sovereignty to intergovernmental organisations (Ebban 1995).

Keywords

European Union Member State Public Health Policy European Union Member State National Public Health 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aginam O (2006) Globalization of health insecurity: the World Health Organization and the new International Health Regulations. Med Law 25(4):663–672Google Scholar
  2. Ammon A, Faensen D (2009) Surveillance von Infektionskrankheiten auf Europäischer Ebene. Bundesgesundheitsbl - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz 52(2):176–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brundtland GH (2003) Global health and international security. Global Governance 9:417–23Google Scholar
  4. Calain P (2007) Exploring the international arena of global public health surveillance. Health Policy Plan 22(1):2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calain P (2007) From the field side of the binoculars: a different view on global public health surveillance. Health Policy Plan 22(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CDC (2006) CDC Mission – To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.html
  7. Danzon M (2004) ECDC and WHO: a common mission for better health in Europe. Euro Surveill 9(12):2Google Scholar
  8. Depoortere E, Coulombier D (2006). On behalf of the ECDE Chikungunya risk assessment group (Boutin J-P, Brooker S, De Valk H, Dieckmann S, et al.). Chikungunya risk assessment for Europe: recommendations for action. Eurosurveill Wkly; 11(19)Google Scholar
  9. Ebban A (1995) The U.N. idea revisited. Foreign Aff 74(5):39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European centre for disease prevention and control (ECDC) (2008) Guidance for the introduction of HPV vaccines in EU countriesGoogle Scholar
  11. European centre for disease prevention and control (ECDC) (2004) Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004, 851/2004Google Scholar
  12. European Commission Communicable Disease Network Committee (1998) Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the CouncilGoogle Scholar
  13. Fidler DP (2003) SARS: political pathology of the first post-Westphalian pathogen. J Law Med Ethics 31(4):485–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenberg AE, Tappero J, Choopanya K, van GF, Martin M, Vanichseni S, et al. (2005) CDC international HIV prevention research activities among injection drug users in Thailand and Russia. J Urban Health 82(3 Suppl 4):iv24–iv33Google Scholar
  15. Grundmann H, Goossens H (2005) Report of working group 1: public health challenges. Clin Microbiol Infect 11(Suppl 1):36–40Google Scholar
  16. Haas W, Straetemans M (2009) Wie groß sind die Differenzen zwischen den europäischen Pandemieplänen, sind sie relevant und woher stammen sie? Bundesgesundheitsbl – Gesundheitsforsch – Gesundheitsschutz 52(2)(in print)Google Scholar
  17. Krause G (2009) Infektionsschutz Europäisch - von staatlicher Sourveränität zu internationaler Vernetzung. Bundesgesundheitsbl - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz 52(2):147–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lazcano-Ponce E, Allen B, Gonzalez CC (2005) The contribution of international agencies to the control of communicable diseases. Arch Med Res 36(6):731–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mounier-Jack S, Coker R (2006) Pandemic influenza: are Europe’s institutions prepared? Eur J Public Health 16(2):119–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ronald A (1997) The role of international agencies in emerging infections. Ann Acad Med Singapore 26(5):616–619Google Scholar
  21. Schluter P (1996) Legal requirements for health protection from the European viewpoint–uniform regulations or reciprocal recognition of public health norms? Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 199(2–4):105–18Google Scholar
  22. Schreck S,, Strauss R., Lücking G, Krause G (2009) EU-Strukturen zur Überwachung und Bekämpfung von Infektionskrankheiten. Wer sie macht, wie sie entstehen und wie sie funktionieren?. Bundesgesundheitsbl - Gesundheitsforsch - Gesundheitsschutz 52(2):149–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Select Committee on Intergovernmental Organisations (2008) Diseases Know No Frontiers: How effective are Intergovernmental Organisations in controlling their spread? Authority of the House of LordsGoogle Scholar
  24. Taylor AL (2002) Global governance, international health law and WHO: looking towards the future. Bull World Health Organ 80(12):975–80Google Scholar
  25. Tibayrenc M (2005) A hard lesson for Europeans: the ASEAN CDC. Trends Microbiol 13(6): 266–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tucker JB (2005) Updating the international health regulations. Biosecur Bioterror 3(4):338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Venice Project Work Package no. 3 (2007) Report on First survey of Immunisation Programs in EuropeGoogle Scholar
  28. Walt G (1998) Globalisation of international health. Lancet 351(9100):434–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wigzell H (2005) A European CDC? Science 307 (5716):1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson K , McDougall C, Upshur R (2006) The new International Health Regulations and the federalism dilemma. PLoS Med 3(1):e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. WHO (2008) Cholera in Zimbabwe. Disease outbreak News 2008 December. Available from: URL: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2008_12_02/en/index.html
  32. WHO (2005) Revision of the International Health Regulations (WHA 58.3)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Infectious Diseases EpidemiologyRobert Koch InstituteBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations