COVID-19 Pandemic and Reimagination of Multilateralism through Global Health Diplomacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ongoing pandemic COVID-19 has made it very clear that no one is safe until everyone is safe. But how can everyone be safe when the pandemic has broken every nerve of the economy and put an extra burden on the already crippled healthcare systems in low-income countries? Thus, the pandemic has changed the orientation of domestic as well as global politics, with many geopolitical shifts. The exponential growing infected cases and more than four million deaths has demanded a global response in terms of multilateralism. However, declining multilateralism and the need for its reforms was a much-delayed response. Given this context, this paper aimed to link the decline of multilateralism in the face of the pandemic by highlighting various instances of its failure and success; and highlighting the need for its revival. The article critically examines and evaluates the responses of multilateralism and global health diplomacy (GHD) during the pandemic. The ongoing black swan kind of event (an unexpected event) has obligated global leadership to think in terms of the revival of multilateralism through GHD. Historically, multilateralism through GHD has been shown to play an important role in managing and combating pandemics. The article further discusses various theoretical aspects such as sovereignty and hegemonic stability theory as reasons for the failing of multilateralism. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of foresight in reviving multilateralism in the pursuit of a more sustainable future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".