The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly demonstrated that international cooperation to combat pandemics is insufficient. The World Health Organization has, therefore, recently reformed the International Health Regulations based on the experience of the COVID 19-pandemic. The World Health Assembly also plans to adopt a new Pandemic Agreement to further strengthen international cooperation. However, negotiations have not yet been successful, and this year’s World Health Assembly agreed to extend the negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement by one year. Reason enough to analyse and critically evaluate the reform efforts in detail, and to give an outlook on the future of international pandemic law.

The 2024 U.S. election will shape the future of global health policy, with crucial implications for continuing U.S. leadership in global health. The United States has long played a critical role in global health governance, through multilateral institutions under the United Nations (UN) and bilateral assistance to advance U.S. priorities. However, political shifts have challenged U.S. engagement in global health, with the politicization of global health policy threatening global governance under the World Health Organization (WHO) and dividing global health support across political parties. This political polarization in global health proved catastrophic in the COVID-19 pandemic response and influential in the 2020 Presidential Elections. With the United States again seeking to advance global health policy, the 2024 Elections present a clear contrast in global health visions across U.S. political parties – with sweeping impacts on global governance, health funding, sexual and reproductive health, corporate regulations, tax equity, humanitarian challenges, and climate change. The future of U.S. leadership in global health hangs in the balance of this election, raising an imperative for candidates to highlight their global health positions and for voters to consider the global health implications.

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly High-Level Meeting (HLM) on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) was a missed opportunity to bring high-level commitment and momentum to the global governance of health emergencies. Intended to bring much-needed attention to a policy issue that is rapidly slipping down the international agenda, the fraught diplomacy among member states, lack of consensus on key issues, and weak UN Political Declaration in New York foreshadow a difficult road ahead for upcoming negotiations under the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva. This column chronicles the evolving engagement of the UN in global health governance, examines the diplomatic process leading to the UN HLM on PPPR, and assesses the contributions and missed opportunities of its resulting Political Declaration.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to millions of deaths around the world. In many countries, it has also exposed long-standing inequities and injustices in health care, income distribution, labour market practice, and social protection for the poor, women, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized segments of the population. The disproportionate casualties among vulnerable populations have also exposed predatory corporate practices, such as the refusal to share vaccine patents with low-income countries (LIC) in the Global South. World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that this “vaccine apartheid” could lead to the further spread of more dangerous forms of virus variants, and that global solidarity and collaboration may be the only viable approach to current and future pandemics.1 Scientists have long warned that the continued destruction of the environment and ecological diversity would lead to future waves of cross-species (zoonotic) viral pandemics, due to the elimination of “natural borders” that once existed between human and non-human species. In the last several decades alone, humanity has suffered from five major zoonotic pandemics: AIDS, SARS, MARS, Ebola, and COVID-19.2 This Special Issue focuses on a select group of Asian countries in order to critically examine the impact of socio-legal inequities in state-centric policies upon domestic populations, including indigenous peoples, and to explore the possibility of international collaborative strategies for controlling the spread of deadly viruses and their variants in the coming years and decades, in Asia and beyond.

During the May 2016 World Health Assembly of 194 member states, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the process of developing and launching emergency medical teams as a critical component of the global health workforce concept. Over 64 countries have either launched or are in the development stages of vetting accredited teams, both international and national, to provide surge support to national health systems through WHO Regional Organizations and the delivery of emergency clinical care to sudden-onset disasters and outbreak-affected populations. To date, the United States has not yet committed to adopting the emergency medical team concept in funding and registering an international field hospital level team. This article discusses future options available for health-related nongovernmental organizations and the required educational and training requirements for health care provider accreditation. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:531–535)

In October 2004, a World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Seminar was convened in Brusselsby the Education Committee to discuss Disaster Education and Training. During this seminar, it became apparent that there was no single tool available to assess knowledge, skills, and resources within this field. Therefore, a tool was administered to 50 of the delegates to assess if the tool would facilitate information-sharing and curriculum development in disaster health education.

The WADEM Education Committee devised a reference scheme for disaster health training and education based on seven educational levels within a framework based on the Bradt model. A questionnaire was developed to answer questions regarding current practices in disaster health education and training, and the perceived barriers to creating an international system of standards, guidelines, and accreditation. The questionnaire was sent to all of the delegates and the responses were analyzed.

The questionnaire was useful for information-sharing and curriculum development. Based on the respondents' experience, strategies were put forward for adopting better coordinated framework for disaster health education and training. This questionnaire should be updated and repeated annually within the WADEM. Wider use of the tool is recommended to help evaluate current educational resources in disaster health and in the wider educational field. It could facilitate the development and audit of current and future courses. An international system for education and training should lead to more efficient and coordinated health responses to disasters.

Ecological disasters impact large populations every year, and hundreds of nongovernmental organizations, thousands of aid workers, and billions of dollars are sent in response. Yet, there have been recurring problems with coordination, leading to wasted efforts and funds. The humanitarian response to the December 2004 Earthquake and Tsunami in Asia was one of the largest ever, and coordination problems were apparent.

The coordination processes and attempts at coordination are discussed in this paper. Specific barriers to cooperation are discussed, such as weak leadership, the absence of accountability, the lack of credentialing, the diverse goals of the responding agencies, and the weaknesses in the coordination process itself.

This is a summary of the presentations and discussion of Health Protection and Disease Prevention of the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. The topics discussed included issues related health protection and disease prevention as pertaining to the responses to the damage created by the Tsunami. It is presented in the following major sections:(1) key questions; (2) national perspectives; (3) an international perspective; (4) laboratory aspects in disease surveillance; and (5) partnership.

This is a summary of the presentations and discussion of Panel 2.15, Civil-Military Cooperation in Humanitarian Health Action of the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. The topics discussed included issues related to civil-military collaboration in humanitarian health actions as pertain to the responses to the damage created by the Tsunami. It is presented in the following sections: (1) how effective civil-military cooperation can help health responses, including; (a) needs assessment; (b) coordination; (c) filling gaps; and (d) capacity (2) what was done well, and what could have been done better better; and (3) conclusions and recommendations. Conclusions and recommendations included: (1) the best coordination mechanisms for civil-military cooperation; and (2) suggested additions and improvements.

This is a summary of the presentations and discussion of Session 1.2 of the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. The topics discussed included issues related national health perspectives as pertaining to the responses to the damage created by the Tsunami. It is presented in the following major sections: (1) key questions; (2) discussion; (3) what was done well?; (4) what could have been done better?; and (5) what can be done to prepare for the future?.

This paper outlines each aspect of coordination as it relates to the responses made by various organizations in the disaster-affected areas. It is a synthesis of the presentations and discussions pertaining to coordination during the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. Coordination is defined, and two important questions are answered: (1) What coordination was done well?; and (2) What coordination could have been done better?.

This is a summary of the presentations and discussion of Panel 2.6, Mental and Psychosocial Effects of the Tsunami on the Affected Populations of the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. The topics discussed included issues related to mental and psychological aspects as pertaining to the damage created by the Tsunami. It is presented in the following major sections: (1) responses; (2) needs assessment; (3) coordination; (4) gap filling; (5) capacity building; (6) stakeholder agreement; and (7) conclusions and recommendations. In the responses discussion, issues included: (1) psychosocial support services; (2) mental health services; and (3) the Thai respoonse. Subsections in the stakeholder agreement section include: (1) public-private partnerships; and (2) preparedness.

This is a synthesis of the presentations and discussions pertaining to Needs Assessments of the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. The topics discussed included: (1) Needs assessments; (2) Coordination; (3) Effectiveness of needs assessments; (4) Needs assessments change; (5) Qualifications for conducting needs assessments; (6) Dissemination; (7) Emergencies overlay background needs assessments; (8) Need for standards; and (9) Conclusions and recommendations.