Global Health Diplomacy: The Ethical and Legal Implications on the Protection of Health Workers
Abstract
In an era of globalization, health is political. The politicization of health can
best be analyzed by focusing on global health diplomacy (GHD), a term that describes
the utilization of health investments to forward foreign policy goals. GHD has major
implications for how we think about the protections for health workers under both
just war theory and international law, as the majority of existing protections require
health workers to maintain a level of impartiality. Currently, it is not clear how
GHD impacts these protections. I argue that the increasing politicization of health
most severely impacts the classification of health workers as liable or non-liable
targets. Building off Michael Walzer’s classic approach to just war theory, I contend
that health workers should be classified as non-combatants. In my analysis of the
existing legal framework, I found that GHD also causes health workers to forfeit some
legal protections. To protect health workers during armed conflicts, I argue that
states should limit the connection between foreign policy and health and be more transparent
about the reasoning behind investments in specific health initiatives. States might
also seek UN approval for health workers, giving those workers greater legal protection.
Type
Honors thesisDepartment
Political ScienceSubject
global health diplomacyjust war theory
international law
health workers
Michael Walzer
medicine in conflict
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/18408Citation
Davis, Emily (2019). Global Health Diplomacy: The Ethical and Legal Implications on the Protection of Health
Workers. Honors thesis, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/18408.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Undergraduate Honors Theses and Student papers
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info