Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Patent Rights, Access to Medicines, and the Justiciability of the Right to Health in Kenya, South Africa and India

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions

  • 1149 Accesses

Abstract

The human right to health is accorded recognition in a number of international legal instruments and in the basic law of several countries across the world. The recognition of the right to health in legal instruments, however, is not a guarantee that it is being enjoyed on an equal basis in every country in the world. There are several reasons why certain people, particularly poor patients living in developing countries, do not enjoy the right to health. One contributory factor in this regard is the current global structure for the protection of intellectual property rights as embodied in the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS Agreement’). Patent rights have a direct impact on the right to health, especially in developing countries where patented pharmaceutical products are usually priced beyond the reach of poor patients. One of the international agreements that provides for the right to health is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘ICESCR’). Article 12(1) of the ICESCR mandates the states parties to the Covenant to ‘recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’. In 2000, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘CESCR’) adopted General Comment No. 14 in an attempt to provide further definition for Article 12 of the ICESCR. Paragraph 12 of General Comment No. 14 is very relevant to the question of access to medicines. It enumerates four essential, interrelated components of the right to health: availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality. In particular, it provides that essential drugs must be available in a country.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), (1996) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx.

  2. 2.

    United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2000). General Comment No. 14 on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4.

  3. 3.

    As defined by the World Health Organization Action Programme on Essential Drugs http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s2237e/s2237e.pdf.

  4. 4.

    World Health Organization (2015) (available http://www.who.int/topics/essential_medicines/en/ accessed 22.01.15).

  5. 5.

    UN CESCR 2000, para 12(b).

  6. 6.

    Hristova (2011), p. 356; United Nations Human Rights Council (2013) A/HRC/23/L.10/Rev.1.

  7. 7.

    UN CESCR (2000), para 33.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., para 34.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., para 35.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., para 36.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., para 43(d).

  13. 13.

    Ibid., para 47.

  14. 14.

    See for example Drahos (1999); Helfer (2003); Yu (2007a) pp. 1039–1114; Yu (2007b), pp. 709–753; Torremans (2008); Grosheide (2010); Helfer and Austin (2011); Gold (2013); Plomer (2013).

  15. 15.

    Gold (2013), pp. 186–187.

  16. 16.

    Helfer (2003), p. 48.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Plomer (2013), p. 151.

  19. 19.

    Gold (2013), p. 188.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Helfer (2003), p. 48.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Millum (2008); Marks (2009), pp. 80–99.

  24. 24.

    UN CESCR (2005) General Comment No. 17 on the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author, article 15(1)(c) of the ICESCR (2005), paras 1 and 3.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., para 2.

  26. 26.

    Yu (2007a), p. 1073.

  27. 27.

    Chapman (2001).

  28. 28.

    UN CESCR (2005), para 2.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., para 13.

  31. 31.

    Yu (2007a), pp. 1081–1082.

  32. 32.

    Drahos (1999), 14, pp. 13–14.

  33. 33.

    UN CESCR (2005), para 15.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., para 16.

  35. 35.

    Yu (2007a), p. 1089.

  36. 36.

    UN CESCR (2005), para 10.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., para 2.

  39. 39.

    Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. (1996, September 6). Case CCT 23/96, decision of the South African Constitutional Court, para 75.

  40. 40.

    Gold (2013), p. 189.

  41. 41.

    Sell (2007), p. 59.

  42. 42.

    Correa and Matthews (2011), p. 21 (available http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/hivaids/Discussion_Paper_Doha_Declaration_Public_Health.pdf.accessed. 23.01.51).

  43. 43.

    Ghosh (2008), p. 106.

  44. 44.

    Drahos (1998), p. 367.

  45. 45.

    Soobramoney v. Minister of Health. (1997, November 27). Case CCT 32/97, decision of the South African Constitutional Court, para 29).

  46. 46.

    Ferraz (2013), p. 385.

  47. 47.

    Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign (No. 2). (2002, July 5). CCT 8/02, decision of the South African Constitutional Court.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., para 4.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para 44.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., para 50.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., para 67.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., para 80.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para 81.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., para 135(3)(a).

  55. 55.

    Ferraz (2013), p. 388.

  56. 56.

    Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign (No. 2). (2002, July 5). Op cit. n 47, para 71.

  57. 57.

    Ferraz (2013), p. 388.

  58. 58.

    Minister of Health v. New Clicks. (2005, September 30). CCT 59/2004.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., para 514.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., para 659.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., para 706.

  62. 62.

    Dhanda (2013), p. 406.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., pp. 406–407.

  67. 67.

    Consumer Education & Research Centre and others. v. Union of India and others. (1995) SCC (3) 42.

  68. 68.

    Para 24.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., para 26.

  70. 70.

    Paschim Banga Khet Samity v. State of West Bengal. (1996) 4 SCC 37.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., para 9.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., para 16.

  73. 73.

    State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

  75. 75.

    Ibid.

  76. 76.

    Ibid.

  77. 77.

    Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and others v. Union of India and others. (2006, August 22). SCC Writ Petition (civil) 210 of 1999.

  78. 78.

    Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) v. Union of India and others. (2014, April 17). W.P.(C) 7279/2013, decision of the High Court of Delhi.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., para 11.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., para 14.

  81. 81.

    Ibid., para 27.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., para 34.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., para 35.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., para 42.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., para 44.

  86. 86.

    Ibid., para 45.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., para 64.

  88. 88.

    Ibid., para 67.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., paras 68 and 69.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., paras 85 and 86.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., para 89.

  92. 92.

    Pfizer Inc. v. Cosmos Limited. (2008, April 25). Case No. 49 of 2006, decision of the Kenyan Industrial Property Tribunal at Nairobi, p. 1.

  93. 93.

    Ibid., pp. 3–4.

  94. 94.

    Ibid., p. 13.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., p. 16.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., p. 17.

  97. 97.

    Kenyan National Assembly Official Record (Hansard) (2001, June 12), p. 1043.

  98. 98.

    Patricia Asero Ochieng et al. v. Attorney General. (2012, April 20). Petition No. 409 of 2009, decision of the Kenyan High Court.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., para 1.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., para 14.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., para 39.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., para 42.

  103. 103.

    Von Braun and Munyi (2010), p. 243.

  104. 104.

    Harrington and O’Hare (2014), p. 22.

  105. 105.

    Ibid.

  106. 106.

    Ibid.

  107. 107.

    Patricia Asero Ochieng et al. v. Attorney General. (2012, April 20). Op cit. n 98, para 35.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., para 34.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., para 76.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., para 66.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., para 75.

  112. 112.

    Micara (2012).

  113. 113.

    Patricia Asero Ochieng et al. v. Attorney General. (2012, April 20). Op cit. n 98, para 75.

  114. 114.

    Ibid., para 82.

  115. 115.

    Para 85.

  116. 116.

    Ibid., para 88.

  117. 117.

    Nzomo (2014) (available https://ipkenya.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/president-assents-to-anti-counterfeit-amendment-act-2014/ accessed 24 January 2015).

  118. 118.

    Pfizer Ltd. v. Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd. (2005, March 24). Case No.: 87/2439, (2005) BIP 1; [2005] ZACCP 1, decision of the Court of the Commissioner of Patents for the Republic of South Africa.

  119. 119.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  120. 120.

    Ibid., p. 22.

  121. 121.

    Aventis v. Cipla. (2011, October 20). Unreported Case No.: P93/8936, decision of the Court of the Commissioner of Patents for the Republic of South Africa.

  122. 122.

    Ibid., para 2.

  123. 123.

    Ibid., para 3.

  124. 124.

    Ibid., para 26.

  125. 125.

    Aventis v. Cipla. (2012, July 26). Case Nos.: 139/2012 & 138/2012; [2012] ZASCA 108, decision of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., para 46.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., para 44.

  128. 128.

    Ibid., para 45.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., para 55.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., para 56.

  131. 131.

    Ibid., para 57.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., para 58.

  133. 133.

    Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla Ltd. (2008, March 19). I.A. 642/2008 in CS(OS) 89/2008, decision of the High Court of Delhi.

  134. 134.

    Ibid., para 85.

  135. 135.

    Ibid., para 86.

  136. 136.

    Ibid.

  137. 137.

    Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla Ltd. (2009, April 24). FAO (OS) 188/2008, decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi).

  138. 138.

    Ibid., para 81.

  139. 139.

    Novartis v. Cipla Ltd. (2015, January 9). I.A. No. 24863/2014 in CS(OS) 3812/2014, decision of the High Court of Delhi.

  140. 140.

    Ibid., para 89.

  141. 141.

    Ibid., para 83.

  142. 142.

    Ibid., para 87.

  143. 143.

    Ibid., para 89.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., para 91.

  145. 145.

    Natco v. Bayer. (2012, March 9). Compulsory Licence Application No. 1 of 2011, decision of the Indian Controller of Patents.

  146. 146.

    Ibid., para 11.

  147. 147.

    Ibid.

  148. 148.

    Ibid.

  149. 149.

    Ibid., para 15.

  150. 150.

    Bayer v. Union of India and others. (2013, March 4). OA/35/2012/PT/MUM, decision of the Indian Intellectual Property Appellate Board.

  151. 151.

    Ibid., para 22.

  152. 152.

    World Trade Organization (2001).

  153. 153.

    Ibid., para 4.

  154. 154.

    Bayer (2013), para 20.

  155. 155.

    Ibid.

  156. 156.

    Ibid., para 44.

  157. 157.

    Bayer v. Union of India and others. (2014, July 15). Writ Petition No. 1323 of 2013, decision of the Bombay High Court.

  158. 158.

    Bayer v. Union of India and others. (2014, December 12). Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) NO(S). 30145/2014, decision of the Supreme Court of India.

References

  • Chapman, A. (2001). Approaching intellectual property as a human right: Obligations related to article 15(1)(c). Copyright Bulletin, 35(3), 4–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, C., & Matthews, D. (2011). The Doha Declaration ten years on and its impact on access to medicines and the right to health. Discussion paper. United Nations Development Programme. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/hivaids/Discussion_Paper_Doha_Declaration_Public_Health.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2015.

  • Dhanda, A. (2013). Realising the right to health through co-operative judicial review: An analysis of the role of the Indian Supreme Court. In O. Vilhena, U. Baxi, & F. Viljoen (Eds.), Transformative constitutionalism: Comparing the apex courts of Brazil, India and South Africa (pp. 405–413). Pretoria, South Africa: Pretoria University Law Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, P. (1998). The universality of intellectual property rights: Origin and development. In: Intellectual property and human rights. Proceedings of a panel discussion held by the World Intellectual Property Organization in collaboration with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, 9 November 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, P. (1999). Intellectual property and human rights. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 3, 349–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraz, O. L. M. (2013). Between usurpation and abdication? The right to health in the courts of Brazil and South Africa. In O. Vilhena, U. Baxi, & F. Viljoen (Eds.), Transformative constitutionalism: Comparing the apex courts of Brazil, India and South Africa (pp. 375–404). Pretoria, South Africa: Pretoria University Law Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, S. (2008). When property is something else: Understanding intellectual property through the lens of regulatory justice. In A. Gosseries, A. Marciano, & A. Strowel (Eds.), Intellectual property and theories of justice (pp. 106–121). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, E. R. (2013). Patents and human rights: A heterodox analysis. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 41(1), 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosheide, W. (Ed.). (2010). Intellectual property and human rights: A paradox. Cheltenham, England/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, J., & O’Hare, A. (2014). Framing the national interest: Debating intellectual property and access to essential medicines in Kenya. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 17(1–2), 16–33. doi:10.1002/jwip.12020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, L. (2003). Human rights and intellectual property: Conflict or coexistence? Minnesota Intellectual Property Review, 5(1), 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, L., & Austin, G. (2011). Human rights and intellectual property: Mapping the global interface. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hristova, M. (2011). Are intellectual property rights human rights? Patent protection and the right to health. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 93(3), 339–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenyan National Assembly Official Record (Hansard). (2001, June 12).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, S. (2009). Access to essential medicines as a component of the right to health. In A. Clapham & M. Robinson (Eds.), Realizing the right to health (Swiss human rights book series, Vol. 3, pp. 80–99). Zurich, Switzerland: Ruffer & Rub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micara, A.G. (2012). TRIPS-plus border measures and access to medicines. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 15(1), 73–101. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00431.x.

  • Millum, J. (2008). Are pharmaceutical patents protected by human rights? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, e25. doi:10.1136/jme.2007.022483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nzomo, V. (2014). President assents to Anti-Counterfeit (Amendment) Act 2014. IP Kenya. https://ipkenya.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/president-assents-to-anti-counterfeit-amendment-act-2014/. Accessed 24 Jan 2015.

  • Plomer, A. (2013). The human rights paradox: Intellectual property rights and rights of access to science. Human Rights Quarterly, 35(1), 143–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, S. K. (2007). TRIPS-Plus free trade agreements and access to medicines. Liverpool Law Review, 28(1), 41–75. doi:10.1007/s10991-007-9011-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torremans, P. (Ed.). (2008). Intellectual property and human rights. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2000). General Comment No. 14 on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2005). General Comment No. 17 on the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author, article 15(1)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/17.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Council. (2013). Access to medicines in the context of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. A/HRC/23/L.10/Rev.1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), (1948).

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Braun, J., & Munyi, P. (2010). New enforcement mechanisms challenge the legality of generics in the name of public health: The emergence of anti-counterfeiting legislation in East Africa. African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 18(2), 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2015). Essential medicines. http://www.who.int/topics/essential_medicines/en/. Accessed 22 Jan 2015.

  • World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference. (2001, November 14). Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P. K. (2007a). Reconceptualizing intellectual property interests in a human rights framework. UC Davis Law Review, 40(3), 1039–1149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P. K. (2007b). Ten common questions about intellectual property and human rights. Georgia State University Law Review, 23(4), 709–753.

    Google Scholar 

Case Law

  • Aventis v. Cipla. (2011, October 20). Unreported Case No.: P93/8936, decision of the Court of the Commissioner of Patents for the Republic of South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aventis v. Cipla. (2012, July 26). Case Nos.: 139/2012 & 138/2012; [2012] ZASCA 108, decision of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer v. Union of India and others. (2013, March 4). OA/35/2012/PT/MUM, decision of the Indian Intellectual Property Appellate Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer v. Union of India and others. (2014, July 15). Writ Petition No. 1323 of 2013, decision of the Bombay High Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer v. Union of India and others. (2014, December 12). Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) NO(S). 30145/2014, decision of the Supreme Court of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and others v. Union of India and others. (2006, August 22). Writ Petition (civil) 210 of 1999, decision of the Indian Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consumer Education & Research Centre and others. v. Union of India and others. (1995, January 27). 1995 SCC (3) 42, decision of the Indian Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla Ltd. (2008, March 19). I.A. 642/2008 in CS(OS) 89/2008, decision of the High Court of Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann-La Roche v. Cipla Ltd. (2009, April 24). FAO (OS) 188/2008, decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minister of Health v. New Clicks. (2005, September 30). CCT 59/2004, decision of the South African Constitutional Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign (No. 2). (2002, July 5). CCT 8/02, decision of the South African Constitutional Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) v. Union of India and others. (2014, April 17). W.P.(C) 7279/2013, decision of the High Court of Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natco v. Bayer. (2012, March 9). Compulsory Licence Application No. 1 of 2011, decision of the Indian Controller of Patents.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novartis v. Cipla Ltd. (2015, January 9). I.A. No. 24863/2014 in CS(OS) 3812/2014, decision of the High Court of Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paschim Banga Khet Samity v. State of West Bengal. (1996, May 6). (1996) 4 SCC 37, decision of the Indian Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patricia Asero Ochieng et al. v. Attorney General. (2012, April 20). Petition No. 409 of 2009, decision of the Kenyan High Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfizer Ltd. v. Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd. (2005, March 24). Case No.: 87/2439, (2005) BIP 1; [2005] ZACCP 1, decision of the Court of the Commissioner of Patents for the Republic of South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfizer Inc. v. Cosmos Limited. (2008, April 25). Case No. 49 of 2006, decision of the Kenyan Industrial Property Tribunal at Nairobi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. (1996, September 6). Case CCT 23/96, decision of the South African Constitutional Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soobramoney v. Minister of Health. (1997, November 27). Case CCT 32/97, decision of the South African Constitutional Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga. (1998, February 26). (1998) 4 SCC 117, decision of the Indian Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University College Cork, Corcaigh, Ireland

    Emmanuel Kolawole Oke

Authors
  1. Emmanuel Kolawole Oke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel Kolawole Oke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law and Criminology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, United Kingdom

    Alice Diver

  2. School of Law, Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom

    Jacinta Miller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Oke, E.K. (2016). Patent Rights, Access to Medicines, and the Justiciability of the Right to Health in Kenya, South Africa and India. In: Diver, A., Miller, J. (eds) Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24014-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24016-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation