| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines how the ‘health security’ paradigm positions health-related human rights as subordinate to national security concerns. As a consequence, health is viewed instrumentally, shifting the global health response towards maintaining national security rather than upholding human rights. We trace here how both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Security Council have approached global health crises, evolving across infectious disease responses to HIV/AIDS, SARS, Ebola and COVID-19. While the Security Council has come to address human rights in select public health contexts, we see that the securitisation of human rights in times of crisis can pose severe limits on individual rights, failing to develop global health solidarity through a commitment to broader health objectives such as Universal Health Coverage. We conclude that the Security Council and the WHO should collaborate towards a rights-based response to COVID-19 that prioritises individual human rights alongside national security concerns, addressing underlying inequities in the global response to infectious disease.
|