Decisiones judiciales y sostenibilidad del sistema de salud: tensiones y desafíos. El caso de Argentina
Por José Luis Cassinerio y Silvina Andrea Bracamonte
En las últimas décadas, la judicialización de la salud en Argentina ha adquirido dimensiones crecientes tanto en términos cuantitativos como cualitativos. No solo ha aumentado el número de causas judiciales, sino también la complejidad de las tecnologías sanitarias reclamadas, muchas de ellas de alto costo, eficacia limitada o con escasa evidencia científica. Este fenómeno desafía los marcos institucionales, jurídicos y sanitarios, y obliga al Poder Judicial a resolver conflictos que tensan la frontera entre derechos individuales, racionalidad médico-científica, equidad en el acceso y sostenibilidad del sistema. En este trabajo se analiza la estructura del sistema de salud argentino, las características de las decisiones judiciales en materia sanitaria y la necesidad de construir un enfoque interdisciplinario que incorpore dimensiones jurídicas, clínicas, económicas y bioéticas. Se propone avanzar hacia estándares judiciales más previsibles que protejan derechos individuales sin erosionar los principios éticos de distribución de recursos en salud.
Health Equity in Global Governance: growing recognition in need of concrete actions
By Carlos M. Correa
Health equity is a foundational principle of global health governance that should ensure all individuals have fair and just opportunities to achieve optimal health, regardless of social, economic, or geographical disparities. The right to health is recognized as a fundamental human right in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This document explores the concept of health equity drawing on United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions and key instruments from the World Health Organization (WHO). It discusses the challenges and opportunities for developing countries in pursuing equitable health outcomes, including advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights.
The US Bilateral Specimen Sharing Agreement in the Proposed PEPFAR MOUs Would Leave African Countries More Vulnerable in the Next Pandemic
By Nirmalya Syam, Viviana Munoz Tellez
This Policy Brief examines the implications of the United States’ (US) PEPFAR Memorandum of Understanding (PEPFAR MOU) proposed to African countries on the negotiations for a multilateral system for access to pathogens and benefit sharing (PABS) as part of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement. It recommends that African countries do not accept the MOU provisions on specimen sharing and data access that undermine national sovereignty and calls for a coordinated regional response.
Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against Antimicrobial Resistance (IPEA): Reflections on the Foundational Documents
By Dr. Viviana Munoz Tellez
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) invited the Quadripartite Organizations to establish an Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against Antimicrobial Resistance (IPEA) in 2025. The launch of the IPEA is planned for 10 December 2025 during the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). The Quadripartite organizations (the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH)) released in November 2025 updated draft documents for the IPEA for additional consultation with Member States and stakeholders. The IPEA will constitute a welcome addition to global Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) governance, and should be established, starting small and building gradually. Several concerns on the proposed model remain concerning the governance structure, equity in participation, and the independence of the panel. This policy brief provides analysis and recommendations on key issues concerning the draft foundational documents for the IPEA requiring attention.
The Role of Advisory Opinions in Shaping International Climate Change Law
By Daniel Uribe Terán
This policy brief analyses how advisory opinions (AOs) from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) are fundamentally reshaping international climate law. These AOs are crystallising States’ climate commitments, transforming them from voluntary political pledges into binding legal obligations grounded in customary international law and human rights. This judicial shift establishes stringent, science-based due diligence standards, confirms State responsibility for harm, and provides a powerful legal foundation for accountability and reparation.
From Fragmentation to Impact: Strengthening Southern Agency in Global AI Governance
By Vahini Naidu and Danish
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming production, trade and governance systems, yet global regulatory efforts remain fragmented and uneven. The multiplicity of forums, frameworks and initiatives, from UN processes to plurilateral and trade-centred mechanisms, has produced overlapping agendas and resulted in diminished participation from global South stakeholders. For developing countries, the challenge is to engage meaningfully in global AI governance while preserving national policy space and advancing sustainable development priorities.
This policy brief examines the evolving landscape of AI governance, focusing on its institutional fragmentation and the competing conceptions of regulation advanced through the UN, G20, BRICS, and other fora. It argues that coherent, development-oriented AI governance requires strengthening UN-anchored processes and linking AI regulation to industrial policy, innovation systems and data sovereignty. The brief concludes that inclusive, sustainable and responsible AI governance should support governments in enhancing their capacities to harness AI and emerging technologies to shape their digital transformation.
Leveraging the ICJ Opinion to Secure a Just Climate Future for the South during COP30
By Daniel Uribe Terán
The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) in Belém converges with the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, creating a critical inflexion point for global climate action. This policy brief analyses how the ICJ Opinion has the potential to reframe climate commitments, transforming them from political aspirations into legally binding obligations. The Opinion establishes objective standards for ‘due diligence’, integrates the CBDR-RC principle as a legal criterion for ambition, and inextricably links climate action with human rights. The ICJ Opinion confirms that a breach of these obligations triggers a duty of ‘full reparation.’ This policy brief recommends a strategy for developing countries to leverage this new legal framework at COP30.
The Constitutional Shield: How Colombia’s Judiciary Shapes Investment Treaties Through Joint Interpretation
By Daniel Uribe Teran
This policy brief examines an innovative judicial approach by the Colombian Constitutional Court in response to an increase in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims. The Court introduced a doctrine called ‘conditional constitutionality’ (exequibilidad condicionada), which mandates the executive to negotiate binding joint interpretative declarations prior to ratifying an International Investment Agreement (IIA). This process aims to clarify ambiguous language and ensure that IIA provisions align with constitutional principles, particularly concerning the sovereign right to regulate and the protection of human and environmental rights.
The analysis examines the “constitutional shield” doctrine established by this domestic mechanism, emphasising its legal basis in Article 31.3(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, it highlights a significant discrepancy: the uncertain acknowledgement of these subsequent agreements within the international investment arbitration framework. The brief notes that arbitral tribunals, which often function as autonomous legal systems, may not consistently respect such domestic constitutional provisions. This creates ongoing tension between national sovereignty and arbitral independence. The policy brief concludes by addressing the limitations of relying solely on domestic solutions and calls for systemic reforms at the international level, such as within the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III.
Reeling Towards Termination: Assessing the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies and the Future of Fisheries Disciplines
By Vahini Naidu
The WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS, “Fish 1”) entered into force on 15 September 2025, introducing new disciplines on subsidies linked to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, overfished stocks, and certain high seas activities. While celebrated as a landmark achievement, the Agreement is partial in scope, omitting the broader category of capacity-enhancing subsidies that drive overcapacity and fish stock depletion. Its obligations rely on national determinations and extensive notifications that may prove burdensome for developing Members while allowing major subsidisers to retain flexibility. The unprecedented termination clause in Article 12 ties the Agreement’s survival to the adoption of additional “comprehensive disciplines,” underscoring both the fragility of the current outcome and the need for continued negotiations. The experience of Fish 1 reveals significant lessons for the proposed WTO reform, including the importance of reviewable and time-bound rules, the risks of imbalanced sustainability provisions, and the institutional weaknesses of restricted negotiating processes.
Advancing Responsible Foreign Investment through a Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises
By Daniel Uribe Terán
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) presents a complex dynamic, offering potential economic growth while posing significant risks of human rights abuses and environmental degradation. This policy brief considers that current voluntary frameworks, such as Economic, Social, and Governance (ESG) and voluntary due diligence standards, are insufficient to protect human rights, as they primarily focus on mitigating investor financial risk rather than preventing actual harm. Furthermore, the international investment regime, particularly the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, systemically undermines States’ sovereign right to regulate in the public interest. ISDS cases often penalise governments for enacting environmental, labour, and human rights protections, creating a “regulatory chill” that prioritises corporate profits over social welfare. The proposed Legally Binding Instrument (LBI) on business and human rights is presented as a necessary response to establish mandatory, enforceable obligations for corporations. This includes robust Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) and legal liability mechanisms, thereby rebalancing the system to ensure corporate accountability and align investment with sustainable development goals.
Taking Forward Digital Public Infrastructure for the Global South
By Danish
Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) has received significant attention for its role in promoting inclusive and effective digital transformation, particularly in the countries of the global South. Elevated onto the global agenda under India’s Group of Twenty (G20) Presidency in 2023, DPIs are now considered as key digital solutions for providing essential services like digital identity, financial inclusion, and access to e-governance platforms. Yet, realizing the full potential of DPI in developing countries requires building a policy and regulatory framework that fosters trust, protects rights and addresses persistent digital divides. Robust institutions and governance mechanisms are equally essential to ensure that DPI adoption is inclusive, equitable and aligned to national priorities.
This paper provides a snapshot of the recent policy and regulatory developments on DPI, as well as the relevant stakeholders at the national and international levels. It then considers the challenges of the digital divide for developing countries and briefly presents some national experiences on the use of DPIs for increasing financial inclusion and promoting e-governance. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations to fully harness the benefits of DPI for accelerating sustainable development and digital transformation in the countries of the global South.
History of the Negotiations of the TRIPS Agreement
By Carlos Correa
When the currently developed countries started their industrialization process, the intellectual property system was very flexible and allowed them to industrialize based on imitation, as it was notably the case of the United States. The international intellectual property system evolved since the end of the XIX Century based on a number of conventions on which the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) was later built on. Developing countries resisted the incorporation into the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of broad disciplines on intellectual property, as they were conscious that they were disadvantaged in terms of science and technology and that a new agreement, with a mechanism to enforce its rules, would freeze the comparative advantages that developed countries enjoyed. Faced with the threat of not getting concessions in agriculture and textiles -that were crucial for their economies- they were finally forced to enter into negotiations of an Agreement, the terms of which were essentially dictated by developed countries. Coercion rather than negotiations among equal partners seems to explain the final adoption of this Agreement.
