↓ Skip to main content

International trade and investment law: a new framework for public health and the common good

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
International trade and investment law: a new framework for public health and the common good
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5486-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Delany, Louise Signal, George Thomson

Abstract

International trade and investment agreements can have positive outcomes, but also have negative consequences that affect global health and influence fundamental health determinants: poverty, inequality and the environment. This article proposes principles and strategies for designing future international law to attain health and common good objectives. Basic principles are needed for international trade and investment agreements that are consistent with the common good, public health, and human rights. These principles should reflect the importance of reducing inequalities, along with social and environmental sustainability. Economic growth should be recognised as a means to common good objectives, rather than an end in itself. Our favoured approach is both radical and comprehensive: we describe what this approach would include and outline the strategies for its implementation, the processes and capacity building necessary for its achievement, and related governance and corporate issues. The comprehensive approach includes significant changes to current models for trade and investment agreements, in particular (i) health, social and environmental objectives would be recognised as legitimate in their own right and implemented accordingly; (ii) changes to dispute-resolution processes, both state-to-state and investor-state; (iii) greater deference to international legal frameworks for health, environmental protection, and human rights; (iv) greater coherence across the international law framework; (v) limitations on investor privileges, and (vi) enforceable corporate responsibilities for contributing to health, environmental, human rights and other common good objectives. We also identify some limited changes that could be considered as an alternative to the proposed comprehensive approach. Future research is needed to develop a range of model treaties, and on the means by which such treaties and reforms might be achieved. Such research would focus also on complementary institutional reforms relevant to the United Nations and other international agencies. Advocacy by a range of communities is needed for effective change. Reform will require informed debate, determined engagement with decision-makers and stakeholders, and some agreement across health, social and environmental sectors on alternatives. Current frameworks of international law that govern trade and economic development need radical change, in relation to treaty processes, content, and contexts, to better attain public health objectives.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 14 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,544,145
of 18,040,264 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,715
of 12,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,655
of 287,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,040,264 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them