Whate'er is best administered is best: Global administrative law, emergency powers and the World Health Organization

Abstract

The World Health Organization is uniquely placed to lay claim to normative legitimacy. It is the key centralised agency for international health law, and has almost universal state membership. Yet its powers of emergency contained in the International Health Regulations – to declare a public health emergency of international concern and determine the necessary response – are subject to considerable critique. The Organization’s legitimacy is potentially undermined. One way to reinforce legitimacy is through the use of Global Administrative Law principles such as transparency, participation and review. This paper examines the use of emergency power in the cases of SARS, H1N1 and Ebola to see if Global Administrative Law principles are present. It then considers whether using Global Administrative Law to constrain and review the use of emergency power is sufficient in itself, or whether it shrouds broader issues that ought to be raised regarding the World Health Organisation, the International Health Regulations, and the architecture of the international order.