Transcription
Hello everyone. I hope you're all doing fine. It seems that our course is reaching its final stages.
Today's session, this week's session is dedicated to the future of international relations, international law, and multilateral cooperation on an evolving world. According to the ancient doctrine of the kibalon, the principle of correspondence says as above so below, as below so above. Kalion these principles embodies the truth that there is always a correspondence between the laws and phenomena of the various planes of being and life. Whether that is true, whether it is true that by applying this principle of correspondence, we are able as human beings to understand much that would otherwise be unknowable to us, enabling human beings to reason intelligently. From the known to the unknown, there is a fact.
Our human existence in this form is temporary. So leaving apart the possibility of an asteroid or something as in that sense apocalyptic as humankind, we could also be extinguished by our own decisions. So to different extents, uh, by something as global as drastic changing climates or environmental degradations, something as big as a nuclear bomb, or something as microscopic as a virus. So which, by the way, it made me think on the on the Matrix movie. Remember that conversation between Agent Smith and Morpheus? Uh, yeah, it says, um, you are not mammals. You're there's only one uh particular creature in this world that follows the same pattern of behavior, which are the viruses.
So coming back to us, let's, let's, uh, think about these last two possibilities, a nuclear bomb and a virus. So the question remains for the sake of this course, are diplomacy and international law effective means to foster agreements between high-income and low-income countries, corporations, organized civil society, so on so forth. That is, between the most powerful and the majorities that are not even represented in governments, and much less in international forums. I don't know about you, but the general feeling I am perceiving in these times is that the world seems to be moving away from certain principles that we thought we had already agreed upon.
Um, I just saw a magnificent film that is called Orwell 2 + 2 = 5. Uh, you might want to take a look at that film. In the meantime, uh, that, um, talks about the last times of George Orwell when has to do with with with this famous book 1984. Um, and the way of of and relationship between language and power, and therefore manipulation, which has to do also with misinformation, and which is something that Orwell couldn't have not predicted is the infodemia that we see today. So Orwell says, "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. Orwell.
Now, let's take the example of ro of Russia's war against, uh, Ukraine, that has worsened an already deteriorating political relationship with the United States and NATO. Um, now it's kind of, uh, tricky to say that at the same time because of the role that Washington's been playing, but, uh, that atmosphere, uh, has also threatened to affect the issue of nuclear arms control. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the New START, which Russia and the United States extended for five years in 2021, is the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the two powers. Uh, if New START is thrown overboard or dies of inattention, there would be no remittent treaty to constrain the advent of a second nuclear arms race, uh, one potentially more dangerous than the US-Soviet competition during the Cold War.
Some question whether arms control is even possible in the new world order that was already taking shape before this, um, the Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Uh, as we know, during the Cold War, the arms race was largely dominated by these two superpowers. So mutual deterrence, uh, was based on, uh, on assured retaliation, and therefore accepted as a matter of fact. Although the Cold War witnessed some close calls in terms of crisis management, both the Americans and the Soviets learned that competition in nuclear risk-taking had to operate on the tacit and explicit rules of the road to avoid an outbreak of nuclear war based on misperceptions of enemy intent, technology failure, or miscalculated escalation.
Um, now, in terms of, uh, nuclear weapons deployed inter intercontinental launchers, there are now three major players. So China's rise as an aspiring peer competitor, uh, changes the game of deterrence and defense against nuclear attack. Um, although it seems, as we know, that China currently deploys only several hundred warheads on long-range launchers, this number is likely to grow rapidly. Uh, technology has also complicated the challenge of maintaining nuclear deterrence, uh, in several ways. Hypersonic weapons can travel within the atmosphere at supersonic speeds.
Um, there is a growing second, but there is a growing interest in missile defenses, although no missile defense systems would invalidate the effectiveness of large-scale nuclear attacks. Uh, promising technologies may create partially effective systems for national defense and more preclusive systems for theater or local protection. Now, in third place, maybe space has emerged as a medium for competitive strategy and possible conflict. So, you know, that would require especially task defensive satellites, maintaining keep-out zones. Uh, it's getting even more complicated. Uh, also information and cyber war. So today, cyber war is the enabler for conflict in all other domains. Digitally empowered US forces maintain superiority across land, sea, air, and space domains. Uh, but the problem, uh, is precisely the balance of power in this regard as well. So, uh, because Russia and China today view cyber war as a cost-effective way to steal American technology and intellectual property.
Uh, so also the information war is is a particular, uh, factor in this regard. And a fifth challenge of nuclear arms control in this century lies in the control of nuclear proliferation. How do we convince any existing nuclear weapons state to give up its nuclear arsenal? If experience teaches that nukes are the guarantor against imposed regime change, it would not be unreasonable for some states feeling threatened by nuclear-armed or nuclear-aspiring neighbors to consider developing their own arsenals. So, uh, you know, there are several questions that you also see in this, uh, reading. How much is enough in the way of nuclear weapons and delivery systems for each state to make to meet its basic security needs?
Uh, challenges facing future arms control are daunting, and according to some people, not impossible. Let's see to what extent diplomacy and international law can still play a role in that sense.
Now, coming back to the virus. So we have the nuclear bombs and we have the viruses. Uh, interesting to notice that in just two years, between 2019 and 2021, life expectancy in the world fell by 1.8 years, the largest fall in recent history, according to the World Health Organization. So, of course, it has to do with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it was like the the bill, the target was already surpassed, and, uh, this was driven by reduced tobacco use. You know, the positive outcomes have to do with, uh, access to water, maybe a bit of air quality improvement, but underinvestment in primary healthcare, shortages of skilled health workers, and gaps in services like immunization and safe childbirth are now holding countries back. Uh, driven by population growth and aging, premature deaths from non-communicable diseases such as cancer and diabetes are rising.
Uh, so you must remember, because we mentioned this in a previous class, the, the, the pandemic, so-called pandemic treaty. This, um, there was a very interesting and ambitious task or challenge that member states of the World Health Assembly foresaw some years ago. In this regard, an intergovernmental negotiating body was established to advance both at the same time, uh, changes like a a reform or, if you want, an update of the, um, on one hand, sorry, the creating the pandemic treaty on one hand, and on the other hand, the International Health Regulations. Uh, so this opened, let's say, two fronts which are absolutely related. So conceptually, it makes sense to negotiate them both at the same time. But it also opened, uh, risks in terms of, let's say, strategy or strategic objectives, visa v, uh, real possibilities of negotiation.
So, uh, what happened at at some point is in 2024, basically the deadlines were already, uh, there. So countries agreed by consensus to amend the International Health Regulations, which were last changed in 2005. Uh, by defining one of the outcomes is the definition of the term pandemic emergency, and helping developing countries to gain better access to financing and medical products. Uh, about it, WHO said countries defined, of course, a pandemic emergency as a communicable disease that has a wide geographical spread or high risk of one, and has exceeded or can exceed the ability of national health systems to respond. It also defined as is also defined as an outbreak that has or could cause substantial, and that's a term, economic or social disruption, and requires quick international action.
Uh, additionally, the amendments emphasize solidarity and equity as values in accessing medical products and financing by establishing a coordinating financial mechanism, uh, which would aim to support developing countries in identifying and obtaining the necessary financing to address the needs and priorities in pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Uh, among other changes, of course. So, just to remember that the International Health Regulations is a legally binding international instrument that defines countries' responsibilities in managing public health events and emergencies with potential cross-border implications. Uh, so they, they establish crucial reporting obligations and criteria for identifying, uh, public health emergencies of international concern, which you might remember that it was the precise form of COVID-19 pandemic when it was declared, and it also, of course, in this regard, would address international travel and transport requirements, and compliance in several aspects.
Uh, so basically, the move, this move of the idea of into more or less, uh, me 2024, so kind of a splitting on one hand, amending, amendment of this IHR, the regulations, but then also postponing for one year the adoption of a new international treaty on pandemics. Uh, basically came as the treaty negotiations or the meeting was shelled largely over disagreements between developing countries and richer ones about better sharing of technology and the pathogens that trigger outbreaks.
Uh, so this pandemic treaty, so-called, was intended to, uh, to end. It was launched in 2021 by the WHO, the World Health Assembly. It was intended to end the stark inequalities in the COVID response and access to health resources between low-income and developed countries by mid, uh, 2021. More remember that more than 70% of COVID vaccines had been administered in high-income countries, while low-income nations received less than 1% of available COVID vaccines. So 70% versus less than 1%. By strengthening global cooperation, the treaty aims to close these gaps and ensure fair distribution of vaccines, diagnostics, and other critical resources for the next pandemic.
Uh, over several years of negotiation, however, developing and developed countries have remained diametrically opposed on some of the core issues. One of the key four lines is the requirement for all countries to share data on pathogens, as I said, and genomics to enable the production of new vaccines, tests, and therapeutics. A significant proportion, this is absolutely relevant. A significant proportion of this data comes from poorer countries, which account for 85% of the global population. However, after their experience in the COVID-19 pandemic, developing nations are reluctant to share this information with pharmaceutical companies, primarily based, of course, in the Global North, without being guaranteed access to the resulting products. So pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, are lobbying their host governments, of course, against the mandatory sharing of these products and argue that any intersection and accessing pandemic data would deter researchers and manufacturers from working on pathogens with pandemic potential.
Uh, basically, in the negotiation, Global South countries accused developed countries of diluting the intent of the treaty with their rejection of binding commitments. Developing countries have also called for robust funding to support pandemic preparedness and response. But with, uh, key donors, including the United States, cutting back on health and development aid, concerns are growing over how poorer countries will fund the prevention measures outlined in the treaty or the draft treaty. African countries, for example, talk, uh, often represented by a single delegate, while the US, for example, has expert negotiators and other specialists. So disparities in negotiating capacity have also been stark. African countries enter their negotiations already underprepared, under-resourced, and as I said, often represented by a single delegate, and by contrast, more powerful countries have, you know, big big teams of negotiation. So such mismatches reduce the chances of a fair agreement being reached. That's what some analysts have been saying for several years.
Nevertheless, there are voices calling that the Global South should get together, learning lessons, and embrace their own means of achieving health equity. For example, people are talking about South-South cooperation as the most viable path. For example, the, uh, as the expanding BRICS nations, that have the resources, technology, and expertise to strengthen regional manufacturing capacities and reduce dependence. For example, Brazil, that has a long tradition for using vaccines in the public sector, and is has been in discussions with the African Union about its. So in the absence of a fair pandemic treaty, deepening partnerships would, like-minded nations might create possibilities.
Uh, but basically, the, the, the, it is reaching now to an end because it is to be adopted by the World Health Assembly. It seems to be a fair enough treaty. Uh, but the likelihood of reaching a comprehensive agreement is very, very small, or that's what analysts have been saying. So the impasse between developed economies, the Global South, in resulting illusion of these commitments. Let's take, for example, about this negotiation process, an editorial opinion that was shared in the very prestigious, um, magazine, if you want, The Lancet, that is a very prestigious magazine on public health, international public health issues. And look the way it is analyzed in this editorial in the in the in the in these two years, in the it was still 2024, since the first meetings, hundreds of hours and unknown costs have been spent, but the political impetus has died. The convention is a critical, is at a critical juncture that was still again last year. With only limited days of negotiation, the world is an, the treaty is at an impasse.
And it says, it is hard to remember sometimes among the highly diplomatic and technical negotiations, but that is what this treaty is trying to do: to protect all people in all countries, no matter how rich or how poor, from harm. Now, it is very critical. It says much of the language is greatly weakened from the initial ambition, filled with platitudes, caveats, and the term "where appropriate." A key recommendation from the independent panel met with widespread support was the need for a treaty that would address gaps in international response, clarify responsibilities between states and international organizations, and establish and reinforce legal obligations and norms. At the heart of this recommendation was the need to ensure that high-income countries and private companies behave fairly, that they do not stockpile millions of excess doses of vaccine or refuse to share life-saving knowledge and products, and that there are mechanisms to ensure that countries work together rather than against each other. These issues still represent the broad sticking points in current negotiations. Access and benefit sharing, who gets what, how much, when, and governance and accountability, to what degree are countries made to do something? The word equity appears in the treaty, including as a guiding principle. So also is human rights. But in reality, it stipulates that WHO would have access to only 20% of pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and need. The other 80%, whether vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics, would be prey to the international scramble seen during COVID-19, where vital health technologies were sold to the highest bidder.
Uh, so basically, the last set where most of the world's people live in countries that might not be able to afford these products, but 20% seems to be all the high-income countries. This is not only shameful, unjust, and inequitable, it is also ignorant. Creating and signing up to a strong and truly equitable set of terms on access and benefit sharing is not an act of kindness or charity. It's an act of science, an act of security, an act of self-interest. Would you agree with The Lancet? Let's discuss about this.
So, uh, basically, it's an opportunity. Recently, the WHO and member states are reaching this historic agreement on the world's first legally binding pandemic treaty. This is to be agreed upon now in the upcoming, in the current upcoming World Health Assembly. So it marks nonetheless a significant step forward in protecting future generations from the devastating and inequitable impacts of pandemics. You might know that the United States' decision to abstain in the negotiation is seen as regrettable and leaves a critical gap in global leadership. According to one of the prestigious scholars in this regard, Lawrence Gostin, his name is, the agreement underscores the important role of multilateral institutions and cooperation in addressing global public health threats. So let's see what comes, but I would like to hear you as well. Well, not to hear you. I forget that I'm not hearing you, which is something that I really miss. I would have loved to do it. Anyway, let's see what comes up. Pay attention to that.
So, some ideas that we might finish with, that might be interesting to think again, is the emergence of new diplomatic actors. Globalization, of course, has introduced non-state actors, especially corporations and NGOs. So anyway, there are, there are calls by some people that in the global political bodies, corporate involvement should be in place in global governance. We can also discuss about this. But as there is a clear fact is that, um, these actors operate across borders, often wielding economic power greater than some states, and are increasingly seen as providers of public goods. Again, talking about health, even education and security, particularly. So kind of thinking on redefining diplomacy. Of course, we know that the classic definition is no longer useful, not no longer valid, if you want. So the shift demands a more cooperative culture, flexible engagement with diverse actors. Corporate diplomacy, we talked about it as well. It's engaging, influencing national foreign policy, negotiating directly with foreign governments, and lobbying international organizations.
So just to also kind of analyze also the shift in language, because also these roles are often filled by former diplomats, by lawyers, or senior officials, and embedded in corporate structures like external affairs or public policy departments. So also think about the, the, the, the shifts in language or the use of language traditionally applied by, you know, in state structures to corporations. So TNCs and NGOs often fill governance gaps, again, especially in fragile or underdeveloped regions, even substituting state functions, which is not exactly the best thing that could happen, as you know, we know the possible negative externalities, if we want. But, uh, and be careful with this term corporate social responsibility. For example, that is reframed as a strategic investment in global stability and not mere philanthropy. But it is also a way to put, kind of influence decisions in several aspects and creating legitimacy, of course, of particular cooperation, not necessarily with the best purposes.
Now, regarding legitimacy and legal personality, non-state actors lack the formal democratic legitimacy but gain output legitimacy through effective problem-solving. So there is a growing academic and legal debate about granting international legal personality to NGOs and TNCs. Of course, even we could also, we know that and and international responsibility adjudication, even international courts have recognized limited legal personality for corporations and individuals. Of course, individuals are subjects of international law, which is something different, particularly under international law of human rights, which is another issue, but, uh, and therefore that creates legal personality in in that respect. But regarding corporations also to some extent in in for example, in the human rights realm, to the extent that that they might also represent individual persons, human beings' interests. Therefore, there is not exactly a, or there is not a clear limit between the exercise of rights by individuals and those corporations. So growing discussion still still there. NGOs are increasingly and have been for so long now accredited by international organizations that are more than 4,000 registered within the UN. And this discussion is is basically legal personality seen as a minimum safeguard to address the legitimacy deficit.
So regarding education and training, universities and institutes are often specialized in corporate diplomacy, so preparing individuals for hybrid roles. Mutual learning. Diplomacy is adopting business tools like branding and marketing. Businesses are learning diplomatic skills to navigate political environments and build legitimacy. So this cross-fertilization, if you want, enhances both fields and supports, hopefully, global cooperation. So it would be interesting also to think on on on how an interdisciplinary approach and kind of joint trainings might build shared language and practice, which I think in any case, that's what we're doing in this course at the same time, having seen all your backgrounds and our own experiences.
So, citizen diplomacy and public relations diplomacy, we already talked about it. So I would like to finish because I would stay here talking to you. I hope this course has contributed to our thinking on on on all these challenges. And let me finish with this experience. You might be aware of this whole discussion for many, it's been there for decades now about justiciability of so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, which is of course, you know, after the Universal Declaration or the American Declaration or other particularly declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, encompassing both what we called what we call civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural, basically altogether. At some point during the Cold War, that was divided and split into two separate, let's say, realms of rights. And on one hand, civil and political with stronger state obligations, obligations to guarantee, to respect, to adapt domestic law, to protect, to prevent even. And on the other hand, economic, social, cultural, health, education, trade unions, environment, to different extents, labor, all these rights were left to, you know, lesser stringent obligations of to the maximum resources possible, progressively advancing in the in this idea of trying to realize rights. And of course, in interpretations since several years later, tried to make this obligation stronger, but still there were, there was, it has always been there this discussion, and states saying I'm not bound to those rules or to to the same degree, magnitude of obligations. And of course, in their very word, in there is so at some point, I remember many years ago, we were discussing with other colleagues, and I was sharing the experience that in the American system of human rights, for example, well, now it's it's it's clear that through interpretation of international courts and commissions, now in the Inter-American system, it is considered that those economic, social, and cultural rights have basically the same level of justiciability than the rest. But for many years, it was not clear. So I was sharing that in this discussion, there were already advances at national levels jurisdictions in that regard, and we were discussing with other European colleagues, lawyers, and they were kind of laughing at me because they were saying, ah, come on, that's that's that's not true. And I was saying, but you have the right to health in in in in your country. Look here, you can access health services by, you know, freely, and you wouldn't even have to pay for that. And they say, well, yeah, but that's the difference. Those that those are rights by law, not by constitution or international law. So that's a difference because that is a decision that could always change because of political decisions. So, and that was a very interesting discussion. And at some point, a friend of ours who was more in the political realm, he said something very interesting. He said, guys, talking to me, in your countries, you don't need good lawyers, you need good politicians. So there is an intersection when we discuss diplomacy and international law in this regard.
So by sharing this and knowing that in this course, I probably provided more questions than answers. Again, would have been would have been great to have at least one encounter. If it is not too late, I would be very happy to schedule an online meeting to close up this course or our course. Should you be interested, please let me know. Let us know to the faculty as well to coordinate. I remain in any case at your dis at your disposal, as we finish this course and in the future as colleagues for future collaboration and support each other. So hold on in there. Let's keep it real. Let's keep believing that a better world is possible. And that diplomacy and international law should continue playing a critical role in decision-making in the bilateral and multilateral political multiverse and artificial intelligence and other human realms. I wish you all the best and thank you for having me with you. All the best.