This viewpoint paper addresses the ongoing challenges and opportunities within the data-for-health ecosystem, drawing insights from a multistakeholder workshop. Despite notable progress in the digitization of health care systems, data sharing and interoperability remain limited, so the full potential of health care data is not realized. There is a critical need for data ecosystems that can enable the timely, safe, efficient, and sustainable collection and sharing of health care data. However, efforts to meet this need face risks related to privacy, data protection, security, democratic governance, and exclusion. Key challenges include poor interoperability, inconsistent approaches to data governance, and concerns about the commodification of data. While emerging platforms such as social media play a growing role in gathering and sharing health information, their integration into formal data systems remains limited. A robust and secure data-for-health ecosystem requires stronger frameworks for data governance, interoperability, and citizen engagement to build public trust. This paper argues that reframing health care data as a common good, improving the transparency of data acquisition and processing, and promoting the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) for real-time data access are essential to overcoming these challenges. In addition, it highlights the need for international norms and standards guided by multisector leadership, given the multinational nature of data sharing. Ultimately, this paper emphasizes the need to balance risks and opportunities to create a socially acceptable, secure, and effective data-sharing ecosystem in health care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised probing questions about the politics that underly health governance. This article engages with recent sociological and political analyses in this regard and offers a reconsideration of what the pandemic represents for global health governance: a moment of reconfiguration rather than continuity or fundamental change. Drawing on Paul Rabinow's notion of 'the contemporary' as a mode of analysis, we conceptualise global health governance as a 'contemporary configuration' and analyse publicly available data from sources documenting the international response to COVID-19. We identify the appearance of a specific kind of problematisation of solidarity in the light of perceived disarray and fragmentation in global health governance. A perception related to the dynamics that evolved in the international political system during the emergency. Further, we discern processes of remediation in global health governance that unfolded around that problematisation of solidarity. We argue that global health governance, as it emerged in the COVID-19 emergency, should not simply be understood as bounded by the past nor as dramatically altered in the present. Instead, it had undergone a reconfiguration wherein solidarity may potentially become the crux of its politics.

Countries all around the world are increasingly coordinating their strategic responses to global health emergencies inside specialized new command centres called emergency operations centres (EOCs). Those bunker-like EOCs are meticulously designed to function as the global health equivalent of war rooms and are rapidly emerging as the internationally preferred sites for ‘making’ global health security in the 21st century. This article advances an in-depth site-ontological investigation into those burgeoning EOC sites. It develops a three-step methodological analytics to reveal the specific economy of prefigurative power that EOCs exude in international relations and names this oligoptical power. The article further shows how this oligoptical power is fundamentally different from the more familiar Foucauldian notion of panoptical power and has very different ramifications as it circulates throughout contemporary international relations. Yet, precisely because the EOC exemplifies this global operation of oligoptical power, the article concludes, it can be considered as one of its international signal institutions – similarly to how the prison was once a critical institutional site for revealing the circulation of disciplinary power, the laboratory for performing the sociological examination of science, and the concentration camp for deepening the analysis of biopower.

COVID-19 has exposed profound governance challenges that demand more diverse and creative approaches to global health governance moving forward. This article works towards such a pluralization of the field by foregrounding the vital role played by heterodox actors during the pandemic. Heterodox global health actors are backgrounded actors who improve health in different parts of the world, but who remain politically marginalized – and epistemically invisibilized – because they depart in crucial respects from the liberal orthodoxy pervading the field of global health governance. The article analytically foregrounds those heterodox actors through an architectural inversion – a relational approach to the study of global health governance that builds upon recent methodological insights from postcolonial studies, infrastructure studies, and science and technology studies. The article then harnesses that methodological approach to empirically investigate the COVID-19 activities of three different heterodox actors: rebel groups providing public health in the borderlands of Myanmar, a women’s vigilante movement stitching face masks in the Czech Republic, and a maverick scientific platform for the international sharing of viral sequence data. Performing that architectural inversion begins to loosen the dominance of the liberal episteme within the practice and study of global health governance. It further visibilizes how that field is continually co-produced by the background activities of many such heterodox actors. It also lays conceptual foundations for a more heterodox future research agenda on global health governance – and arguably global governance more broadly – in response to the numerous unresolved challenges revealed by COVID-19.

What threat can diseases pose to security? The sheer breadth of possible answers to this question has become increasingly evident during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, which was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This chapter explores three such links between health and security. First, some diseases are identified as threats to human security. The human security framework draws particular attention to diseases—such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis—that remain endemic in many low-income countries, that continue to cause millions of deaths annually, and that also pose substantial challenges to the survival and well-being of individuals and communities. Second, some emerging infectious diseases—such as SARS, pandemic flu, Ebola, and COVID-19—are identified as threats to national security because their rapid spread can cause high death tolls and trigger significant economic disruption. Finally, some diseases are also identified as narrower threats to bio-security within the context of international efforts to combat terrorism. Here concerns have focused on the spectre of a terrorist attack using a disease-causing biological agent such as anthrax, smallpox, or plague. The chapter concludes by contrasting two different ways of understanding this health–security nexus: as an instance of securitization or medicalization.

This article investigates the global inequities imbricated in the international response to lethal viruses. It does so by developing a virographic approach to the study of international relations that builds upon the matrix methods pioneered within black feminist thought for unraveling particularly complex forms of interlocking oppression. Performing such a virography of international relations exposes the multifaceted economic, racial, and epistemological disparities embedded in the international management of emergent viruses. It further demonstrates how those multiple axes of international inequality intersect during viral outbreaks to form a deadly matrix of global subjugation—vital abandonment—that repeatedly deprives the world's majority population from equitable access to life-saving biomedical interventions. It finally also reveals how diplomatic assertions of viral sovereignty, that is, claiming legal ownership of pathogens, are directly enrolling lethal viruses now in the political strategies of countries seeking to resist their vital abandonment. Overall, a virography thus contributes to the broader study of international relations by foregrounding the global salience of epidemiological injustices and positionalities, by capturing the actant power of lethal viruses in contemporary world politics, and by intimating that the “international” can itself be studied as a continually reconfiguring matrix of interlocking and historically conditioned global inequities.

Global health emergencies – like COVID-19 – pose major and recurring threats in the 21st century. Now societies can be better protected against such harrowing outbreaks by analysing the detailed genetic sequence data of new pathogens. Why, then, is this valuable epistemic resource frequently withheld by stakeholders – hamstringing the international response and potentially putting lives at risk? This article initiates the social scientific study of bioinformational diplomacy, that is, the emerging field of tensions, sensitivities, practices and enabling instruments surrounding the timely international exchange of bioinformation about global health emergencies. The article genealogically locates this nascent field at the intersection of molecularised life, informationalised biology and securitised health. It investigates the deeper political, economic and scientific problematisations that are engendering this burgeoning field. It finally analyses the emergent international instruments developed by governments, scientists and industry to facilitate more rapid global sharing of bioinformation through novel practices of data passporting. Overall, the in-depth study of bioinformational diplomacy reveals just how deeply, and even constitutively, international relations are entangled with the life sciences – by carefully tracing how laboratory practices of sequencing life at molecular scale also end up recontouring the play of sovereignty, power and security in international relations.

ABSTRACTNorm diffusion scholarship analyzes how states come to agree and adopt new international norms. Yet, formal adoption of a new norm does not in itself guarantee that a government will also implement it domestically, and very little international relations scholarship drills down deep enough to examine whether and how new international norms are subsequently integrated, incorporated, and translated at sub-state level. This article initiates a research agenda on norm “domestication” through the first in-depth study of how international norms in the field of global health are locally incorporated by community-based organizations (CBOs). Drawing upon multi-sited international fieldwork in Uganda, Ukraine, and El Salvador, the paper uncovers three norm domestication strategies used by CBOs of people affected by HIV/AIDS: harnessing political divisions within national governments, circumventing government policy with international help, and mounting legal challenges to government policy. The article argues that these CBO strategies represent “glocal” forms of power capable of forging local–global connections through combined practices of norm allying, norm implementation, and norm intertwining. These subtler processes of norm domestication, the article concludes, ultimately require a reconceptualization of norm diffusion not just as a transnational phenomenon, but as a “multi-local” process during which norms are concurrently localized across diverse geographic locales.

Provides an overview of the evolution of political Islam in South-east Asia. Analyses the sources of relgious radicalism and assesses the regional terrorist and radical networks. Describes how secular democratic institutions can be strengthened, and how moderate and tolerant tendencies can be promoted.

Introduction Private sector provision of HIV treatment is increasing in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC). However, there is limited documentation of its outcomes. This protocol reports a proposed systematic review that will synthesise clinical outcomes of private sector HIV treatment in LMIC. Methods and analysis This review will be conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses protocols. Primary outcomes will include: (1) proportion of eligible patients initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART); (2) proportion of those on ART with <1000 copies/mL; (3) rate of all-cause mortality among ART recipients. Secondary outcomes will include: (1) proportion receiving Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis; (2) proportion with >90% ART adherence (based on any measure reported); (3) proportion screened for non-communicable diseases (specifically cervical cancer, diabetes, hypertension and mental ill health); (iv) proportion screened for tuberculosis. A search of five electronic bibliographical databases (Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL) and reference lists of included articles will be conducted to identify relevant articles reporting HIV clinical outcomes. Searches will be limited to LMIC. No age, publication date, study-design or language limits will be applied. Authors of relevant studies will be contacted for clarification. Two reviewers will independently screen citations and abstracts, identify full text articles for inclusion, extract data and appraise the quality and bias of included studies. Outcome data will be pooled to generate aggregative proportions of primary and secondary outcomes. Descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis will be presented. Heterogeneity and sensitivity assessments will be conducted to aid interpretation of results. Ethics and dissemination The results of this review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed scientific manuscript and at international scientific conferences. Results will inform quality improvement strategies, replication of identified good practices, potential policy changes, and future research. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016040053.

Abstract Could the most miniscule of objects, imperceptible to the human eye, enact whole new political economies? The suggestion may seem odd, but this article shows that tiny molecules are already engendering new regimes of value across the fields of global health and biodefense. Delving genealogically into the onto-epistemology of the life sciences, the article thus traces the protracted molecular reconfigurations of state-market relations underpinning the global bioeconomy and civilian biodefense today. Using methodological precepts developed through assemblage thinking, this evolving patchwork of new constellations is conceptualized as a global molecular assemblage. Attending to the lively play of molecules in the world advances the post-Foucauldian, molecular study of biopolitics by exploring how scientific shifts in our ‘vital epistemics’ contour state-market relations. It further contributes to the development of a post-human international political economy that is more sensitive to the ways in which artefacts (like molecules) too exhibit particular kinds of ‘agency’ and ‘force’ in the world. Finally, it also enhances the field’s ability to make unconventional, hitherto overlooked and multi-scalar connections in the study of political economy through the creative use of assemblage thinking. In the case of molecules, such assemblage thinking can – quite literally – reveal the value of ‘life’.

This article advances a new account of security as an intensely relational and ontologically entangled phenomenon that does not exist prior to, nor independently of, its intra-action with other phenomena and agencies. Security's entanglement' is demonstrated through an analysis of the protracted security concerns engendered by dangerous' scientific experiments performed with lethal H5N1 flu viruses. Utilising methodological approaches recently developed in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), the article explicates the intensely co-productive' dynamics at play between security and science in those experiments, and which ultimately reveal security to be a deeply relational phenomenon continuously emerging out of its engagement with other agencies. Recovering this deeper ontological entanglement, the article argues, necessitates a different approach to the study of security that does not commence by fixing the meaning and boundaries of security in advance. Rather, such an approach needs to analyse the diverse sites, dynamics, and processes through which security and insecurity come to intra-actively materialise in international relations. It also demands a fundamental reconsideration of many of the discipline's most prominent security theories. They are not merely conceptual tools for studying security, but crucial participants in its intra-active materialisation.