Right to health trough litigation? Can court enforced health rights improve health policy and priority setting in poor countries?

Background A majority of the world's governments are obliged through international treaties or national constitutions, or both, to respect, protect, promote and fulfill the human right to health. Cases regarding the right to health care are increasingly b rought before the courts in a number of low- and middle-income countries ? first in Latin America, later also in Africa and India. So far there is little systematic knowledge of the wider impact of such cases on health policy and health service delivery. Aim The project aims to systematically investigate whether litigation can make health policies and -systems in poor countries more equitable by forcing policy-makers to take seriously their human rights obligations. Material and methods - Systematic r eview of court decisions and publications on health litigation - Document review (judgements, health policy documents, legislation, budgets) - In depth interviews of key informants (health policy makers, health personnel and administrators, NGOs, patient organisations, judges, litigators) - Legal analysis of health jurisprudence - Policy analysis - Budget impact analysis - Ethical analysis, impact on equity and accessibility Expected results The project is expected to bring more systematic knowledge on litigation as an instrument for implementing human rights obligations with respect to health. It will identify positive and negative consequences of health rights litigation on the development and implementation of a comprehensive and equitable health po licy. It will also explore how new forms of jurisprudence can engage the public and policy makers in a constructive dialogue about health rights and justice.