Context: Accelerated globalization has produced obvious changes in diplomatic purposes and practices. Health issues have become increasingly preeminent in the evolving global diplomacy agenda. More leaders in academia and policy are thinking about how to structure and utilize diplomacy in pursuit of global health goals. Methods:In this article, we describe the context, practice, and components of global health diplomacy, as applied operationally. We examine the foundations of various approaches to global health diplomacy, along with their implications for the policies shaping the international public health and foreign policy environments. Based on these observations, we propose a taxonomy for the subdiscipline.Findings: Expanding demands on global health diplomacy require a delicate combination of technical expertise, legal knowledge, and diplomatic skills that have not been systematically cultivated among either foreign service or global health professionals. Nonetheless, high expectations that global health initiatives will achieve development and diplomatic goals beyond the immediate technical objectives may be thwarted by this gap. Conclusions:The deepening links between health and foreign policy require both the diplomatic and global health communities to reexamine the skills, comprehension, and resources necessary to achieve their mutual objectives.

The launch of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) in February 2014 capped over a decade of global efforts to develop new approaches to emerging and reemerging infectious diseases-part of the growing recognition that disease events, whether natural, accidental, or intentional, threaten not just public health, but national, regional, and global security interests. In 2005, the United States, along with other Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO), adopted the revised International Health Regulations [IHR (2005)]. The IHR (2005) conferred new responsibilities on WHO and the global health community to coordinate resources for capacity building and emergency response, and on the now-196 States Parties to develop the core capacities required to detect, assess, report, and respond to potential public health emergencies of international concern. Both GHSA and the IHR aim to elevate political attention and encourage participation, coordination, and collaboration by multiple stakeholders, while leveraging previously existing commitments and multilateral efforts. GHSA and the IHR (2005) are platforms for action; how efforts under each will complement each other remains unclear. Mechanisms that measure progress under these 2 overlapping frameworks will aid in focusing resources and in sustaining political momentum for IHR implementation after 2016.

Early detection of emerging disease events is a priority focus area for cooperative bioengagement programs. Communication and coordination among national disease surveillance and response networks are essential for timely detection and control of a public health event. Although systematic information sharing between the human and animal health sectors can help stakeholders detect and respond to zoonotic diseases rapidly, resource constraints, and other barriers often prevent efficient cross-sector reporting. The purpose of this research project was to map the laboratory and surveillance networks currently in place for detecting and reporting priority zoonotic diseases in Jordan in order to identify the nodes of communication, coordination, and decision-making where health and veterinary sectors intersect, and to identify priorities and gaps that limit information sharing for action. We selected three zoonotic diseases as case studies: highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1, rabies, and brucellosis. Through meetings with government agencies and health officials, and desk research, we mapped each system from the index case through response – including both surveillance and laboratory networks, highlighting both areas of strength and those that would benefit from capacity-building resources. Our major findings indicate informal communication exists across sectors; in the event of emergence of one of the priority zoonoses studied, there is effective coordination across the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture. However, routine formal coordination is lacking. Overall, there is a strong desire and commitment for multi-sectoral coordination in detection and response to zoonoses across public health and veterinary sectors. Our analysis indicates that the networks developed in response to HPAI can and should be leveraged to develop a comprehensive laboratory and surveillance One Health network.

Cooperative bioengagement efforts, as practiced by U.S. government-funded entities, such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Cooperative Biological Engagement Program, the State Department’s Biosecurity Engagement Program, and parallel programs in other countries, exist at the nexus between public health and security. These programs have an explicit emphasis on developing projects that address the priorities of the partner country as well as the donor. While the objectives of cooperative bioengagement programs focus on reducing the potential for accidental or intentional misuse and/or release of dangerous biological agents, many partner countries are interested in bioengagement as a means to improve basic public health capacities. This article examines the extent to which cooperative bioengagement projects address public health capacity building under the revised International Health Regulations and alignment with the Global Health Security Agenda action packages.