Law lies at the centre of successful national strategies for prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. By law we mean international agreements, national and subnational legislation, regulations and other executive instruments, and decisions of courts and tribunals. However, the vital role of law in global health development is often poorly understood, and eclipsed by other disciplines such as medicine, public health and economics. This paper identifies key areas of intersection between law and noncommunicable diseases, beginning with the role of law as a tool for implementing policies for prevention and control of leading risk factors. We identify actions that the World Health Organization and its partners could take to mobilize the legal workforce, strengthen legal capacity and support effective use of law at the national level. Legal and regulatory actions must move to the centre of national noncommunicable disease action plans. This requires high-level leadership from global and national leaders, enacting evidence-based legislation and building legal capacities.

The term ‘human rights-based approach’ is common in rights and international development literature. Yet there is no single, universally agreed definition of a human rights-based approach, let alone its application to the right to health. This article uses a PRISMA-informed systematic literature review to address the question, ‘What is the current status of the human rights-based approach to health in international law?’ Previous reviews have described how international organizations and development donors have tackled human rights-based approaches to development generally and discussed prominent works on human rights-based approaches to health. However, this is the first review to sample the peer-reviewed literature systematically. The study revealed that authors use the terms ‘human rights’, ‘human rights-based approach’ and ‘right to health’ to import a raft of legal implications, or none at all. Similarly, readers may assign legal meanings to these terms, or none at all. Confusion arises because although these terms often have different meanings for authors and readers from different disciplines, this is not commonly acknowledged, and authors rarely clarify their perspectives. The author concludes that scholars should seek co-authors with human rights law or public health qualifications, as relevant. Most academic institutions research and teach health and law separately; interdisciplinary centres of excellence in health, law and human rights offer an opportunity to overcome these historical obstacles to interdisciplinary dialogue and understanding. The study and its conclusions will be of interest to legal researchers, human rights advocates, public health scholars, and advocates from other disciplines.

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.

Global governance of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) has moved beyond the World Health Organization (WHO) to become a shared responsibility of WHO, the United Nations General Assembly, and other willing stakeholders. Despite the significant attention NCDs have received, progress towards global goals and political commitments remains disappointing. This lack of progress calls for greater attention to be given to how actions taken at the international level can lead to improvements in health at the country level. This paper reviews progress in the global response to NCDs by highlighting the role of pathways – both current and potential – for translating global aspirations into national actions that improve health outcomes. Important pathways to national action include the development of normative instruments, political accountability mechanisms, provision of economic support and technical assistance, and other forms of engagement we refer to as ‘institutional pathways’. We find that global leadership on NCDs has focused predominantly on generating a suite of normative instruments for influencing national policy, together with global targets and reporting processes but with inadequate development assistance for NCDs, or investment in capacity building. We point to the distinctively legal and regulatory nature of many priority interventions identified by WHO for NCD prevention and control, arguing that legal capacity building of both government and civil society stakeholders is a vital, cost-effective yet neglected pathway for strengthening national responses. We outline a modest vision for global, regional and national leadership in capacity-building and in promoting the role for law in NCD prevention and control.

Pacific island countries and territories (PICTs) are some of the most geographically isolated in the world. Most have small populations and economies. In addition to the economic challenges that they face because of isolation and size are the risks of climate disaster and the challenge of non‐communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and tobacco‐related diseases. This article builds on knowledge about the key features that characterise effective national responses to NCDs, as embodied in the World Health Organization's Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013–2020. It seeks to identify some promising strategies for strengthening the governance and law reform processes that will be required to enhance the capacity of small island states to reduce NCD risks in their populations.