The panelist will focus on the distinction between ethics, law and on requirements towards building progressive alternatives from the legal perspective. It will also examine the impact legislative and regulatory framework and jurisprudence have on the enjoyment of the right of health during COVID-19. During the pandemic many national frameworks used emergency law in order to introduce containment and mitigation measures into society. Most of these were enacted as emergency legislation, and this poses certain additional challenges in terms of the rule of law, given the often limited impact assessment or the absence of judicial review. These key characteristics that carry an element which can only be deemed appropriate given temporal limitations. From divergent national responses to combat COVID-19 to broader multilateral agreements on global health security, inequities have come to the fore. Assessing the proportionality of measures adopted to achieve legal aims necessitates an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration and examination, as well as embedding mechanisms to systematically monitor broader implications for global health, and societal cohesion and resilience. Law is a part of interdisciplinary collaboration needed to achieve efficient commitments in order to combat the COVID-19 pandemic effectively. Even though law itself is not a panacea, remedying broader societal inequities, it is an essential step needed towards implementation of effective health policies into society. Indicative examples on aspects of interest and steps taken by payers to ensure equitable access for all will be elaborated upon. An overview on the implications of dynamics between developed and developing countries will also be presented, with due emphasis on the future of both European and global health and partnerships for accessibility and accountability.
The response to COVID-19 and legal determinants