Storm surges, flooding, heatwaves, and prolonged drought, as ever more regular features of life under deteriorating climate conditions, are unmistakably violent. Their effects on the lives of vulnerable human populations and ecosystems across the world are widely known to be devastating. Yet a legal order that denies the victims of such ecological persecution safe haven, no matter how great its use of force (e.g., detention, arrest, forced return) cannot, by definition, be violent. The power of law, used to protect states’ rights to exclude from their jurisdictions growing numbers displaced involuntarily by global climate harms, in being a source of ‘legitimate right’, is never the same as violence. This article challenges the ongoing validity of this assumption. It points to some of the ways in which legal instruments are used today to deny those displaced by climatic conditions sufficient normative status to guarantee their safety. What is needed instead is a new critical normative understanding of the evolving relationship between climate change, violence, justice, and law, one that re-assesses the democratic justificatory grounds for the current positions of non-responsibility for the climate displaced whilst re-affirming such people’s legal and political status as equal co-members of the politically constituted international community of humanity.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The need to visualise the complexity of the determinants of population health and their interactions inspired the development of the rainbow model. In this commentary we chronicle how variations of this model have emerged, including the initial models of Haglund and Svanström (1982), Dahlgren and Whitehead (1991), and the Östgöta model (2014), and we illustrate how these models have been influential in both public health and beyond. All these models have strong Nordic connections and are thus an important Nordic contribution to public health. Further, these models have underpinned and facilitated other examples of Nordic leadership in public health, including practical efforts to address health inequalities and design new health policy approaches. Apart from documenting the emergence of rainbow models and their wide range of contemporary uses, we examine a range of criticisms levelled at these models – including limitations in methodological development and in scope. We propose the time is ripe for an updated generic determinants of health model, one that elucidates and preserves the core value in older models, while recognising the developments that have occurred over the past decades in our understanding of the determinants of health. We conclude with an example of a generic model that fulfills the general purposes of a determinants of health model while maintaining the necessary scope for further adjustments to be made in the future, as well as adjustments to location or context-specific purposes, in education, research, health promotion and beyond.