The field of global health law encompasses both “hard” law treaties and “soft” law policies that shape global health norms. Transitioning from “international health law” to “global health law and policy,” global health policymakers have increasingly looked to soft law instruments to address public health needs in a rapidly globalizing world – within the World Health Organization and across global health governance. Yet, as policymakers have expanded the landscape of soft law policy instruments to advance global health across state and non-state actors, the COVID-19 response revealed the limitations of this soft law approach to global health threats, with states now seeking hard law reforms to strengthen global health governance. As hard and soft law can provide complementary approaches to preventing disease and promoting health, future research must conceptualize how these normative frameworks interact in advancing global health.

We study H-structures associated with $SU$-rank 1 measurable structures. We prove that the $SU$-rank of the expansion is continuous and that it is uniformly definable in terms of the parameters of the formulas. We also introduce notions of dimension and measure for definable sets in the expansion and prove they are uniformly definable in terms of the parameters of the formulas.

On June 1, 2024, the World Health Assembly reached consensus on a package of amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR). These amendments follow nearly two decades of implementation and an intensive multilateral process prompted by the global struggle against COVID-19. This article critically examines whether the amended IHR reflect lessons learned from the pandemic, potentially ushering in a new era for global health law in pandemic preparedness and response, or if they deflect attention from the need for deeper structural reforms. While the IHR remain the only near-universal legal framework for preventing and addressing the international spread of disease, these amendments emphasize equity and solidarity, and potentially shift the IHR from a technical instrument to one focusing on inherently political issues. This analysis examines key IHR amendments and their implications for the future of global health law, particularly in the context of equity, financing, and implementation.

In this paper, I argue against a widely held view about interpersonal moral relations inspired by Benjamin Cardozo’s landmark judgment in Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Company, which I call the Relational Fault Requirement. The requirement holds that in order for A to commit a directed wrong against B, A must be at fault in relation to B. I present two ways of understanding wrongs that violate this requirement: (1) that one is wronged if one is harmed by a wrongful action, and (2) that one is wronged if one is harmed by a wrongful action and the outcome one suffers is sufficiently similar to the grounds on which the action is wrong. Accepting either of these ideas requires rejecting the Relational Fault Requirement and encourages us to rethink the core elements of directed wrongdoing.

We prove various iteration theorems for forcing classes related to subproper and subcomplete forcing, introduced by Jensen. In the first part, we use revised countable support iterations, and show that 1) the class of subproper, ${}^\omega \omega $-bounding forcing notions, 2) the class of subproper, T-preserving forcing notions (where T is a fixed Souslin tree) and 3) the class of subproper, $[T]$-preserving forcing notions (where T is an $\omega _1$-tree) are iterable with revised countable support. In the second part, we adopt Miyamoto’s theory of nice iterations, rather than revised countable support. We show that this approach allows us to drop a technical condition in the definitions of subcompleteness and subproperness, still resulting in forcing classes that are iterable in this way, preserve $\omega _1$, and, in the case of subcompleteness, don’t add reals. Further, we show that the analogs of the iteration theorems proved in the first part for RCS iterations hold for nice iterations as well.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s religious rhetoric and policies stand in sharp contrast to his predecessors during the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Front (EPRDF) period, who carefully and deliberately kept the political discourse free of any religious references. Many were taken by surprise by his pronounced Pentecostal faith. This surprise is arguably a reflection of how scholars and observers have ignored developments within Ethiopia’s Protestant community – and religious dynamics in general – that Abiy is a product of. This paper examines how religious developments within Ethiopia’s Protestant community produced and shaped Abiy as a Pentecostal politician. The paper also seeks to understand some of the main characteristics of the prime minister’s religious ideas and the possible impacts they may have had on his political decisions. My discussion centres on two major aspects. Countering the claims that Abiy aims to ‘Pentecostalize’ Ethiopian politics, I examine what possible implications he might have for Ethiopia’s secular framework and demonstrate how he uses religion in an inclusive way, viewing it as a resource to bring prosperity to Ethiopia. Secondly, to understand the actual content of the prime minister’s religious worldview, I analyse the affective affinities between the so-called prosperity gospel and positive thinking teachings.

The federal government has a long history of trying to find the right balance in supporting scientific and medical research while protecting the public and other researchers from potential harms. To date, this balance has been generally calibrated differently across contexts – including in clinical care, human subjects research, and research integrity. New challenges continue to face this disparate model of regulation, including novel Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools. Because of potential increases in unintentional fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism using GenAI – and challenges establishing both these errors and intentionality in retrospect – this article argues that we should instead move toward a system that sets accepted community standards for the use of GenAI in research as prospective requirements.