ABSTRACT: This policy paper offers an in-depth study of the ongoing negotiations for the Pandemic Treaty. The treaty has been proposed as a strategic response to manage global health crises in the post-COVID-19 era and is being developed under the World Health Organization's (WHO) purview. The paper is segmented into five parts: Part I recounts the inception and evolution of the Pandemic Treaty negotiations within the WHO's framework. It summarises the proposed treaty's objectives and major provisions currently under negotiation.
The recently concluded G20 summit under India’s presidency had many positives. One amongst them is the 'G20 Framework for Systems of Digital Public Infrastructure'. The G20 New Delhi Leaders' Declaration backed the 'G20 Framework for Systems of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)', a voluntary and suggested framework for the development, deployment and governance of DPI.
Article 1 of the Constitution of India states that 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States', which is being used for the first time smartly as a political-cultural strategy by the highest authority of India. The term 'President of Bharat' has been used for the first time by replacing the usual 'President of India' in an official invite for a dinner hosted by President Murmu on September 9 for the dignitaries attending the G20 summit.
Animesh Roul, Executive Director, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, New Delhi, engaged in a conversation with Priti Patnaik, the Founding Editor of Geneva Health Files (GHF). The discussion centred around the proposed pandemic treaty and the principal challenges that lie ahead for this treaty.
"I do not think a pandemic treaty is a good response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing in the WHO-sponsored negotiation process so far has changed my perspective," says global health expert David P. Fidler, Senior Fellow at Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the author of "A New U.S.
Multilateral institutions are neither geographically representative nor politically democratic institutions in the contemporary scenario.
On February 17, the Indian government banned the Kashmir-centric Islamic militant group called the Jammu and Kashmir Ghaznavi Force (JKGF) (egazette.nic.in, February 17). A relatively new entrant in the Kashmir landscape, JKGF emerged as a hybrid strike unit comprised of highly trained cadres of Pakistan-based Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen (TuM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM).
Pakistan must be prepared to renegotiate the treaty to accommodate new challenges especially mainstreaming climate change in IWT for its own benefit.
Paxton ported to drupal by DropThemes.in