This report examines what has come to be known as “vaccine nationalism” through the lens of the early experience with the COVID-19 vaccination process. After explaining the meaning of the term, this report investigates how this phenomenon has manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifying its epidemiological, economical, ethical and legal aspects. It also looks at the different international initiatives that have been adopted to deal with it, concentrating in this context on the COVAX project. The report concludes that the success of these initiatives has been limited. It also observes that COVID-19 vaccine nationalism appears to be a phenomenon that is characteristic of the high-income Western countries, while in aspiring non-Western powers the vaccine crisis is primarily seen as a way to advance their geopolitical goals.

The last sixty years witnessed an unprecedented expansion of international trade. The system created by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and later by the World Trade Organization (WTO) has proved to be an efficient tool for the elimination of trade tariff barriers. This process also coincided with the increased national risk regulatory controls. Governments, responding to the demands of their domestic constituencies, have adopted a wide range of regulatory measures aimed at protecting the environment and human health. Although for the most part, these new regulatory initiatives served legitimate objectives, it has also turned out that internal measures might become an attractive vehicle for protectionism, taking the place that was traditionally occupied by tariff barriers. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) is an attempt by the international community to limit possible abuses while accepting a considerable margin of regulatory discretion of WTO Members. Does it optimally strike a balance between competing objectives of international free trade and regulatory freedom in the field of risk regulation? In answering this question, the book engages in a comprehensive and critical examination of the substantive provisions of the SPS Agreement and the corresponding case law. Special attention is paid to three specific issues: the appropriateness of the disciplines established by the SPS Agreement, the consistency of their interpretation by the WTO case law, and the normative content of those requirements that have not yet been addressed by SPS jurisprudence. The book concludes that despite some failures of the SPS system, the Agreement provides an operable and efficient mechanism for the supervision of domestic SPS measures.

In this article, we argue that the design and timing of regulatory responses, as well as the adherence of the population to the relevant rules, have a critical impact on the progression and public health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. This hypothesis is empirically tested using the example of Poland, a country that experienced, compared to its Western European neighbours, a relatively mild first phase of the pandemic. In this context, we compare Poland with selected countries, including France, Germany, Spain and the UK, and we supplement them with examples from other Visegrad Four (V4) countries – Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary. On that basis, we conclude that while the observed differences between the countries in the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic are the result of a multitude of complex and interrelated reasons (such as demographic structure, population density and connectivity or cultural factors), well-designed public health measures, which are implemented early as a part of the proactive strategy that anticipates and reacts quickly to changing circumstances, can effectively decrease the number of COVID-19 infections and related deaths, provided that the adherence of the relevant population is high.

This commentary examines the recent Appellate Body Report in Russia – Pigs. This case is salient because it offers further clarification of the principle of regionalisation in the context of WTO law. By reading the different terms of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement in a holistic way, the Appellate Body has offered an interpretation of the legal text that arguably strengthens the principle.

Background: In October 2018, the Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC or Convention) adopted its first decision on novel and emerging tobacco products, including heated tobacco products (HTPs). The decision remains ambiguous, e.g. by making a distinction between tobacco sticks and HTP devices. Against this background, the article seeks to answer two interrelated questions: whether and to what extent HTPs are covered by the FCTC, and whether regime provided by the Convention is suitable for their regulation. Results: HTPs need to be classified under the FCTC as tobacco products. The distinction made by the Conference of the Parties between sticks and devices leads however to unsatisfactory results as it creates loopholes in tobacco control standards existing at the international level. A better approach, as argued in this article, is to conceptualize the notion of ‘tobacco products’ in functional terms as a combination of both a device and stick. While subjecting HTPs to all FCTC disciplines is, in light of our current scientific knowledge, a rational approach, such classification can be modified in the future once a sufficient amount of new evidence on their risk profile is collected. Any decision on the optimal regulatory model for HTPs will need to take into account not only health risks and potential benefits for individual users, but also the specific systemic concerns (e.g. HTPs as a gateway product). The state of scientific research is however not the only factor that will determine the fate of HTPs under the Convention. What is equally important is a conceptualization of the FCTC’s objectives. If a complete eradication of the tobacco epidemic is the ultimate goal, reduced levels of risk may not be enough to justify the different (i.e. more lenient) regulatory regime for HTPs. Conclusions: The Conference of the Parties should clarify the definition of tobacco products in light of recent changes in the market. When designing the regulatory regime for HTPs under the FCTC in the future, one has to consider not only scientific evidence but also pay attention to the objective of the Convention (or more generally to the values that underlie the current tobacco control paradigm).