The goal of universal health coverage is to “ensure that all people obtain the health services they need without suffering financial hardship when paying for them.” There are many connections between this goal and the state’s legal obligation to realize the human right to health. In the context of this goal, it is important to assess private actors’ involvement in the health sector. For example, private actors may not always have the incentives to deal with externalities that affect the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of health care services; they may not be in a position to provide “public goods”; or they may operate under imperfect information. This paper sets out to answer the question, what legal human rights obligations do states have in terms of regulating private sector involvement in health care?

In this commentary, we flag the importance of taking a child-rights approach in the context of tobacco control, which is thus far unprecedented. This text was written in response to the Seventh Conference of States Parties of WHOs Framework Convention on Tobacco Control held in India from 7 to 12 November 2016.While the links between tobacco control and human rights were emphasised at this conference, a child-rights approach was missing. We argue that this novel angle provides important legal tools to protect the health and well-being of children. Because children are seen as ‘replacement smokers’ by the tobacco industry, protecting children in this context is key to haltering the devastating effects of tobacco use and exposure worldwide.

This article discusses the nature and scope of international health law as an emerging field of public international law. It is argued that the protection of health reflects a pressing social need that should now be spoken of in the vocabulary of international law. Furthermore, there is an urgent need for counterbalancing interests such as international trade, global commerce and the welfare interests of the protection of the health of both individuals and populations worldwide. As of now, international health law is not a well-developed field. The health-related standard-setting legal instruments are very fragmented as there is no overall international recognition of international health law as a distinct branch of international law. Enormous challenges lie ahead, especially in terms of strengthening the existing instruments and addressing the responsibilities of non-state actors in the health field.

The World Health Organization (WHO) was born as a normative agency and has looked to global health law to structure collective action to realize global health with justice. Framed by its constitutional authority to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health, WHO has long been seen as the central actor in the development and implementation of global health law. However, WHO has faced challenges in advancing law to prevent disease and promote health over the past 75 years, with global health law constrained by new health actors, shifting normative frameworks, and soft law diplomacy. These challenges were exacerbated amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as states neglected international legal commitments in national health responses. Yet, global health law reforms are now underway to strengthen WHO governance, signaling a return to lawmaking for global health. Looking back on WHO’s 75^thanniversary, this article examines the central importance of global health law under WHO governance, reviewing the past successes, missed opportunities, and future hopes for WHO. For WHO to meet its constitutional authority to become the normative agency it was born to be, we offer five proposals to reestablish a WHO fit for purpose: normative instruments, equity and human rights mainstreaming, sustainable financing, One Health, and good governance. Drawing from past struggles, these reforms will require further efforts to revitalize hard law authorities in global health, strengthen WHO leadership across the global governance landscape, uphold equity and rights at the center of global health law, and expand negotiations in global health diplomacy.

Summary: Obesity and its comorbidities pose daunting challenges to global health and development in the 21st century. This paper reviews some commonalities between obesity and another global health challenge, the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS). International human rights law was an important catalyst for civil society movements that helped to overcome inertia and generate political will for State action in response to HIV and AIDS. Drawing on the HIV experience, the authors propose a conceptual model for a human rights–based response to obesity founded on the twin pillars of State obligations and civil society engagement. Framing States' obligations to address the global obesity pandemic as a matter of international law, informed by the examples of the United Nations “International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights” and the General Comments of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies on HIV and AIDS, provides a normative framework to guide State actions and opportunities to engage the extensive accountability mechanisms of the United Nations international human rights system. In addition, it provides civil society organizations with the language and tools to demand State action on obesity. The authors call for similar authoritative guidance for States on the application of international human rights law to obesity.

In international law there are many references to the protection of public health contrasting with other interests, including the interests of trade, commerce, intellectual property protection, transportation and warfare. Potentially, in such contexts, the ‘right to health’ as an economic and social right can be used as an additional collective claim to advance the health of the public, thus counterbalancing such interests as international and domestic trade and the conduct of warfare. While this approach has potential, it should be born in mind that public health measures potentially infringe on the civil and political rights of individuals, including their rights to privacy and freedom of movement. We are thus dealing with a complex relationship between public health, human rights and international law that is still ill-understood. An integrated approach to human rights, taking into account both civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights, seems the most balanced response to public health concerns.