 And today I will be your host. Before we begin our webinar, I will give you the rules in this webinar. Rules in International Webinar 1. Participants can join using Zoom account meeting ID 83507380763 with PESCOT webinar. 2. Participants must dress neatly and politely. 3. During the webinar, participants must write their name on the Zoom profile with their full name in accordance with the registered name. 4. During the presentation session, participants are expected to turn off or mute the microphone so as not to disturb the speakers and other participants. 5. During the webinar, participants are required to turn on the video features. 6. Participants may ask questions after being permitted by the moderator. 7. E-certificates will be given to participants who take part in the webinar from beginning to the end of the webinar. And also I would like to inform you to all the distinguished guests, speakers and participants that the internet connection in Indonesia had a problem since Sunday afternoon. But they say that it's been fixed and it looks like the internet connection is getting better. But if there's a problem with the connection during this webinar, we hope that you could understand. But of course we hope that this webinar can run smoothly for today. To the esteemed keynote speaker, Prof. Dr. Edward Omar Shariff-Yarria Esha-Empung, as Vice Minister of Law and Human Rights, the Vice Rector of Academics at Patimura University, Prof. Dr. Fredy Lewaka-Besi-MVD, Mr. Sean Herman, PhD, at Delhous University, Department of Pediatrics, Dr. Robin Pierce, at Tilbrook Institute for Law, Technology and Society, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Patimura University, Dr. Rory J. A. Q. N. Esha-Empung, Professor at Patimura University, Vice Dean of Student Affairs at Faculty of Law, and to all distinguished guests, speakers, moderators and participants, and the lecturers of Faculty of Law, Patimura University, As-Salaamu Alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh, Peace be unto you all, Shalom, Om Swastiastu, Nama Budaya, Greetings. It is an honor to welcome you to international webinar on COVID-19 vaccine process agreement and its restriction on health rights held by Faculty of Law, Patimura University. There are five agendas in this webinar. First, unfailing, singing the national anthem Indonesia Raya, welcoming speech from the Vice Rector of Academics of Patimura University, and also opening the show. Three, prayer. Second, keynote speaker at fans versus agreement of COVID-19 vaccine and its restriction on the right of health from Professor Dr. Edward Omar Sharif Yariin, As-Salaamu Alaikum, as a Vice Minister of Law and Human Rights. Third, plenary speakers, board call for papers presentation and field closing. Ladies and gentlemen, now I invite everyone to stand and join us in singing the national anthem Indonesia Raya. Ladies and gentlemen, please stand and join us in singing the national anthem Indonesia Raya. Have a seat, please. And now we would like to invite the Vice Rector of Academics at Patimura University on behalf of the Rector of Patimura University, who has unable to attend this event. Professor Dr. Freddie Lewaka-Besi, MPD, to give a welcoming speech before officially opening this event. To Professor Lewaka-Besi, the time is yours. Okay, thank you, MC. Good morning. As-Salaamu Alaikum, wa-rahmatullahi wa-wa-ka-tuh. Hello. Om Swastiastu, Namo Buddhaya. As-Salaam kebajikan. Honorable Professor Dr. Edward Omar Sharif Yariin, As-Salaamu Alaikum, Vice Minister of Law and Human Rights, as a keynote speaker. Our invite speaker, Dr. Swam H.E. Herman B.E. L.L.B.L.M. H.D. Haltlau Institute, College School of Law, Dalhous University, Halifax NS, Dr. Robin L.Persi, Senior Law Associate with the Fair Law Center for Haltlau and Policy by Technologian by Ethic at Hart-Hartlau School, and Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society, Tilburg University Netherlands, and Dr. Rory J.Akiwen, S.I.M. Home, then of Faculty of Law, Patimura University-Ambod, Honorable Dr. J.C. Taburi, S.I.M. Home, Vice Rector for General Affairs and Finance of Patimura University, All-Professor in the Faculty Law of Patimura University, Vice Dean of Faculty of Law, Patimura University, Head of the Law Study Program at the Patimura University, Head of Section of the Faculty of Law Patimura University, Head and Educators of the Faculty of Law Patimura University, and the Participant and Presenter of this International webinar. Ladies and gentlemen, our praises and gratitude let us pray to God the Almighty for this permission so that all of us can be in this Zoom room in the context of an International webinar with the title COVID-9 Vaccine Procuracy Agreement and its Restriction on Health Rights. Ladies and gentlemen, as well as know the COVID-19 pandemic has saturated the economy and social joint in various countries in the world. This pandemic can degrade various countries in the world to try to get out of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis by getting the right vaccine for their people. Indonesian as one of the countries that has deadly affected by the global COVID-19 pandemic releases the pandemic mitigation to tackle this pandemic will not have any significant because the availability to talks in Indonesian ability to deal with national health problem is still not optimal. It decrease the involvement of all countries but domestic and international to deal with the spread of COVID-19. One of leading for taking by countries is to overcome of current COVID-19 pandemic is to establish cooperation in the form to agreement between countries with vaccine companies in order to open that vaccine stock and made to need of both countries. In terms of quantity and quality of vaccine because actuality the most essential effort and all of our hard work today is to shift and live of the world community from the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time I would like to express our gratitude to Honourable Professor Dr. Edward Omar Shariff-Varia Esayampoom, Vice Minister for Law and Human Rights Republic Indonesia as the keynote speaker who has willing to participate in international webinar in the midst of his basic schedule. Good morning, we also cover our same appreciation to our invited speaker Mr. Strau, H.E. Harmon B.E. L.L.B. L.L.M. PhD, Dr. Robin L.P.R.C. and Dr. Roli J. Akiwen Esayampoom who give their time to the flow through an idea for this international webinar. We also do not forget to express to gratitude and high appreciation to the present and participant of the international webinar for their participation in provide input and building constructive discussion in today international webinar. Let's start with this little step combining our stroke and ID to find the best solution for humanity. Ladies and gentlemen, along with participants and presenters of the international webinar before ending this week, I hope this international webinar can produce intelligent and quality recommendation that can be used as solution in vaccine procurement agreement and their destination for the world community so our people can avoid the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, hoping for degrees and guidance of our multigad, I am I am officially opening the international webinar with the topic COVID-19 vaccine proposed agreement and restriction on the right to health. My God bless you all. Thank you for all your attention. Enjoy the webinar. Thank you. Thank you so much, Professor Lawakabasi for the welcoming speech and officially opening this event. And now I invite Ms. Madeleine to lead us in prayer this morning. She will pray as a Christian, so for other participants with different religions or beliefs, please pray according it. To Ms. Madeleine the time is yours. Ladies and gentlemen, before we start our event today, let us pray. Prayer began. Dear God, before we start our international webinar event today, we want to thank you for your kindness and your protection, and we can leave another day. God, we want to ask for your guidance and your blessing. Open all of us so that we can participate from the beginning to the end. God, may you bless our speakers and all people who are involved in this international webinar event. May you bless everything so it can run smoothly. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we pray amen. Thank you Ms. Madeleine for the latest in prayer this morning. And now ladies and gentlemen, moving into our next agenda, it is now my deep pleasure to introduce the Vice Minister of Law and Human Rights, Professor Dr. Edward Omar Shari Fieriyeh, as our keynote speaker, to deliver his keynote speech. And after delivering his speech, we will have a photo session with Professor Fieriyeh. To Professor Fieriyeh, the time is yours. Thank you very much for the ceremony. Distinguished Professor Lewa Kabeci, Vice Director for Academic Affairs. Distinguished Dr. Rory Akien, Dean of Faculty of Law Universitas Patimura, and the speakers and all participants in the webinar today. As we are entering the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, our major challenge has been shift globally from state's measures to treating and containing the disease to the massive effort in encoding vaccine as widely as possible. The issues of vaccine distribution in equality lack of access to vaccine, misinformation surrounding the safety of vaccination up to the virus anti-vaccination campaign have become major truth in our public discourse since the massive vaccination program commenced early this year. As many other public policy during this hardship of COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccination plan may not be as challenging as it seems. Governments around the globe have been trying to distribute the vaccine equally, giving spatial treatment for its income and developing countries, whether it is under the framework of bilateral, regional, and even international arrangement. The vaccine itself is deemed as a matter of the common good with public safety and help rely upon, immersed in the wide gap of vaccination rate, especially between rich and poor country. Human right discourse nevertheless has been instrumental for us in understanding and generating a common ground in this current impediment. In this respect, I would like to highlight three aspects based on the statement issued by the Comita on Economy, Social, and Culture Rights pertaining to vaccination and the right to the health. First, the Comita state that access to vaccine against COVID-19 that is safe, effective, and based on the best scientific development is an essential component of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest intangible standard of physical and mental health and the right of the everyone to enjoy the benefit of scientific progress and its application. This human rights law protects the right for access to vaccine. We begin to take all the necessary measures as a matter of priority available resources to guarantee all persons access to vaccine against COVID-19 without any discrimination. Human rights allow also concern with the international dimension of vaccination, given many state worldwide do not produce vaccine themselves. It is thus the duty of state to ensure access to vaccine against COVID-19 wherever needed, including by using their voting rights as members of different international institutional and organization and regional integration organization. As we can see, the law does not only impose obligation upon state per se, rather using international organization to also contribute to the achievement of universal and equitable access to vaccine and refrain from taking measures to obstruct this goal. Second, is the relationship between intellectual property and human rights? The committee encapsulates that most of the vaccine approved are subject to an intellectual property rights regime. It is fair that the private business entity or public research institution that create the vaccine, albeit with high financial support from public fund, receive reasonable compensation for their investment and research. At this point, we come up to another factor that contributes to the ongoing discourses of global vaccination. That is the economy value of vaccine. However, the committee proceeds to recall that intellectual property rights are not a human right, but a social product having a social function. Consequentially, state parties have a duty to prevent intellectual property and pattern legal regime from undermining the enjoyment of economy, social and cultural rights. As state in the World Trade Organization Declaration on the Trade-Lirated Attributes Agreement and Public Health, the intellectual property regime should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of the duty of state to protect public health. This is certainly a wake-up call for the long syllabus comprehension about the individual of right and property, the current situation salmon of the togetherness and solidarity in order to succeed in ensuring public health and safety globally. Lastly, as vaccine has mostly been produced by a business entity, the production and distribution of vaccine recalls for the importance of human rights-based business practice. As part of public's discourses, business and human rights have been forcing in Indonesia an effort to translate the United Kingdom's guiding principle into policy has been relative pervasive. Viewing the urgent need to consider business role and the current faction effort, the Comunia depicts that business entity, including pharmaceutical company, have the obligation at a minimum to respect government right. They have specific responsibilities regarding the realization of the right to health, including in relation to access to medicine and vaccine. In particular, pharmaceutical company, including innovator, generic, and biotechnology companies have human rights responsibility with regard to access to medicine, compressing active pharmaceutical ingredients, diagnosis, tools, vaccine, bio, pharmaceuticals, and other related health care technologies. Thus, we can see the business entity should also refrain from invoking intellectual property rights in a manner that is consistent with the right of every person to access and a safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19, or the right to state to exercise the flexibility of the TRIPS agreement. It is the time for business enterprise to develop human rights due diligence to ensure that all faster in their activity comply with the global effort to provide accurate vaccine. It is quite apparent the issue of globally equality of vaccination is a resultant of competing factors, not only dealing with public health versus economic interests, the idea of equality as a salmon, the role of international organization and any other agreements, business enterprise, and the population themselves to work hand in hand in pursuing a global solidarity and resilience. Thank you very much. Wassalamu'alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh, shalom om santi, santi, santi om, nama buddhaya. Thank you so much for the keynote speech. And now we are in the photo session with Prof. Yahya. So I would like to invite all participants to join on the video. And then we will have a photo session with Prof. Yahya. Thank you so much, Prof, for this morning. We hope that we will have you again in our next event in faculty of law. Thank you so much for this morning. We hope that we will have you again in our next event in faculty of law. You're welcome. Thanks. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, now we will begin the next agenda, the plenary session. And it will be led by our moderator, Ms. Maria Agnes Matakena Esha. Maria Agnes Matakena was a student at faculty of law, but in Muray University, with a focus in international law and foreign human rights policy. She recently completed her bachelor thesis depends on the topic of restriction on the enjoyment of the right to health of developing nations based on advanced process agreements of the COVID-19 vaccine by developed nations. We could see that her bachelor thesis is very related to our topic today. So ladies and gentlemen, please help me welcome Ms. Maria Agnes Matakena Esha, as our moderator for today. Thank you very much for that, our wonderful MC Quincy. Thank you and good morning everyone for joining us in this plenary session with three very esteemed speakers joining us from different sides of the world. I will be very honored to introduce very shortly. They will add on to the topic of our conference today under the theme advanced purchase agreement of the COVID-19 vaccine and its impact on the right to health, which Professor Eddy just delivered the material before. So we're very excited to have the fruitful discussion that follows from that. However, before I do introduce our wonderful speakers today and allow them to present their material, please allow me to explain the mechanism of this morning session. For the this morning session, there are a few things that I want to convey before that. Our wonderful MC has already delivered the guidelines for today's webinar. But one of the most main point is that please keep your microphones mute and be respectful in communication throughout the chat to either the speakers or other participants. This is very important in making sure that our session continues smoothly. Moving on to the rundown of the plenary session this morning, this session will be conducted in three parts. Firstly, we will hear the presentation of our three esteemed guests. Secondly, we will follow up with a discussion session, which is a question session where participants will be able to ask questions. However, to keep the discussion orderly, we ask that the participants please send their questions in through chat, where I will convey it to our esteemed speakers throughout the session. And then lastly, our last part of the session is conclusion and closing remarks or statements from our guest speakers. So without further ado, I would like to introduce our first speaker for this session, joining us from Dalhousie University, Canada, Mr. Sean Harman. He is a lecturer at the School of Law, Dalhousie, teaching in the areas of health, law, and ethics, health innovation, regulation regarding stem cells, prosthetics, medicines, devices, public health, law, and ethics, and human rights, with an emphasis on the disability and cultural practices. He often works at the intersection of law, policy, and ethics, and has a record of interdisciplinary research. Currently, his interests lie in global health injustice, the regulation of health professions, and both life science and medical device innovation regulation. This morning, he will be presenting on the topic of global health justice and vaccine procurement. The problem with APAs and the possible solutions and output of the law as a barrier or enabler of immunization projects. So Mr. Sean Harman, good evening. I assume it is already late in Canada. We really appreciate your presence here at our virtual seminar, and despite it is the time inconvenience, we are very honored to have you here with us today. So I would like to invite you to deliver your presentation, and I would like to remind you that you have 20 minutes to present, and then 10 minutes we will use as question and answer session at the end of all the speakers. So to Mr. Sean Harman, the time and place is yours. Thank you very much for inviting me. Am I able to share my screen? Yes, I think you are the co-host. Okay, is that working for you? Yes, very clear. Okay, and then let me just get it on to a slide show from the beginning. There we go. Okay, right. So I suspect that a lot of the speakers today will have some overlapping topics and overlapping points of view. I noticed that Maya's talk will already share some ideas with that of the keynote speaker. So I think that's positive. I think that will reinforce some very important points. This is what I'm going to try and get through during my 20 minutes. My ultimate question is what's wrong with vaccine procurement from a global health justice perspective? This is just a quick slide about the project team. So I'm on a project right now that's funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and we're looking at governance of immunization in Canada. So vaccines, I think we're all aware of the importance of vaccines to public health. Generally, public health interventions and gaining timely access to vaccines as they are needed. Now, of course, access is more critical, more pressing and more difficult during public health emergencies when the number of at-risk individuals in any given place will drastically outpace the number of doses that exist or that can be manufactured in the short term, which makes procurement particularly important. And, of course, we've struggled to secure, distribute and administer relevant vaccines in a timely, effective and non-discriminatory way, which given our long, long history with infectious disease might seem a bit bewildering and certainly should seem a bit bewildering. So our current context, from a rights perspective, it's pretty nice. We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which talks about all humans being born free and equal in dignity and rights. And everyone is entitled to those rights without discrimination. And we have the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which talks about, as has already been mentioned, the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. That's open to everybody and that everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. And that states have to assist with the diffusion of science and culture through multiple means. And of course, these rights, these sentiments are reiterated in international legal and policy instruments again and again from the UN Charter, the WHO Constitution, the Declaration of Velmaata, the Ottawa Charter, the Bangkok Charter, the Adelaide Statement and so on and so on. So the rhetoric of rights is quite strong and quite uniform, but our reality is rather a bit more abysmal. And we're confronted with this progressive development of science through private actors, intent on science for profit, knowledge enclosure. Our keynote already talked about trips and about the intellectual property, problems that arise. We have unequal everything in the world really. So health disparities in particular is what concerns us in the current context. Institution capacity in many countries to systematically deal with public health emergencies. And then we have a retreat from known needs is how I would describe it. So we need less wealth concentration, but we favor consumption, economic growth and wealth accumulation. We need greater attention to the social determinants of health, but we concentrate spending on technological innovations and acute care. We need greater data on ill health distribution and its interaction with unequal conditions across the life course, but we do not collect granular data. We need easier access to the benefits of science and essential medicines, but we still create barriers, legal barriers, trade barriers, policy barriers. Now what we've done with vaccines is we've created a market and it's rather unique market with some special features, but it's nonetheless a market with high value products that are nonetheless need to be affordable and to enter national and subnational systems capable of handling them. Now these characteristics have resulted in a small field of pretty sophisticated and powerful manufacturers with pretty reliable financial streams and which makes them capable of ignoring the needs of jurisdictions with less capacity. So vaccine procurement from a practical point of view typically follows one of four routes. They're self-procurement by states. This is the most common and it depends on the capacity of the country to undertake. There are interstate transfers. These are less common, but certainly occurred during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic and Canada has undertaken some in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. There's procurement and donation by international organizations and then procurement and administration by international organizations for those countries least able to handle the who don't have the architecture to distribute and deliver vaccines on their own. And I would argue that there are a variety of negative consequences of this. First of all, what we've created is a neoliberal market and a contracting approach to vaccines and this advances and fortifies an innovation and a distribution structure that's driven by commodification and commercialization, supply and demand sensibilities, an enclosure of scientific and commercial knowledge, and it advocates as benign and acceptable that there are highly variable abilities to pay, variable prices, discreetly negotiated unveiled arrangements and ultimately inaccessibility to essential medicines. So under this paradigm, there are a number of consequences of this and the one I would point to in particular in this talk is the third bullet in red that such manufacturing surge capacity as exists is often monopolized by high income countries capable of affording APAs, which are contracts between a manufacturer and a government which lays dormant until triggered by a predetermined event at which state becomes legally binding. So the health disparities that are international legal and policy regime, at least in the human rights context, is meant to deal with goes unaddressed and in fact is accentuated. And in the next four slides, I talked about four particular consequences of APAs. One is that typically payments are made even in the in the dormant phase by states, they pay annual pandemic preparedness fees. So these fees essentially cover access to a vaccine that may never be needed during the life of the contract. And so entering into these contracts and paying these fees is obviously prohibitive to certain countries. Even with concession that some not all but some manufacturers have have entered into, they're still not necessarily accept accessible. And that means that some countries don't have the safety net that APAs may represent. Next disease burden is not necessarily entered been a driver of vaccine access so in relation to APAs. So there's no or little correlation between the maintenance of an APA and the actual disease burden and need. And this was demonstrated again in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Now in some cases, if a country doesn't need as many vaccines as its minimum amount, when a contract is triggered, they can sometimes forego buying those or they can shift shift them on. But again, this will depend on the negotiating power of that that country on even negotiating power. So APAs can address vaccine doses for existing strains, emerging strains, unknown strains. And the event that a state's needs are less than the minimum number of vaccines available, they may be able to reduce their purchase. But again, they may not be able to do so. And finally, lack of transparency. Both the fees but also the content and the specific provisions of APAs are rarely publicized. And they're very hard to get a hold of. And this absence of transparency profoundly undermines the ability of countries to make informed decisions about APAs, to ensure fair treatment by manufacturers or to develop capacity that might advance their negotiating power. And it represents, I think, a clear effort by manufacturers to secure American advantages, contrary to rights of access to scientific progress and to access rights of access to essential medicines. So at root, the problem is that vaccines are treated as if they were sneakers or rolled steel or tires or t shirts. They're just common commodities. And my argument is that some later slides is that they're not actually some they're not common commodities. So if we think about APAs in Canada, you'll see this quote, I won't read it out. But Canada was meant to was intending to pursue vigorously the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. This was an announcement made in August 2020. By July 2021, a year later, the government released a news release after a summer of intense negotiations. We've got advanced purchase agreements with seven manufacturers and had bought more doses per capita than any other country. Ultimately, through APAs, Canada had secured access to 414 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines for a population of 37.6 million people, some of whom would be ineligible for vaccination because of age, infirmity, immune suppression, or whatever. Some 72 million have been actually delivered. By July 2021, about 71% of the Canadian population had been vaccinated. Vaccination was slowing down. We've got some vaccine stockpiled and another 60 million on order. Now, Canada has donated both money and vaccines through the COVAX program, but you can see the significance that APAs have had on Canada's attempt to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and with really not a whole lot of thought, I think, given to the wider global context, which is what this pandemic and many other pandemics would require. And so we see coverage rates vary uneven across the world and a growing equity gap that's resulting in a two-tier recovery profile. So we've got a rhetoric of togetherness, but certainly through the use or deployment of APAs, we, in reality, have a disparity and we have separation. This is just a quote here from Chad Love Pie on booster doses, which is an issue that is now arising with countries like Canada, the U.S. and Germany offering third doses or booster doses before some countries are even getting first doses to the majority of their populations. So what's an alternative approach? Again, this was raised in keynote speech and I think it is that we need to think of vaccines as global public goods. And these are something that once provided can be enjoyed beyond the actual purchaser or consumer, but without a mechanism for collective action, global public goods will almost always be underproduced. But given the global linkages and mobility that exists, the social convergence, pressure on common global resources and the fact that all human activity and production relies on human health, I think there's a strong argument made that health is a global public good or at a minimum at least the foundations of good health should be approached as global public goods, access to which should not be respected by market conditions and commercial sensibilities. And I think vaccines are surely an example of such a foundational good relating to health. And this characterization as a public good is further justified by the books that I've listed there, one of which is the significant amounts of public funding that has gone into both infectious disease research, but also COVID-19 vaccine research. Curiously, this additional funding into the private sector has not been conditioned on imperatives to ensure affordable pricing or equitable access and we certainly haven't seen equitable access. So what are some solutions? How might we improve access to vaccines and reduce the negative fallout of APAs particularly during public health emergencies? I'm offering three solutions and I'll try to get through them quite quickly here. The first is in relation to the international health regulations, which are really more about avoiding secrecy around infectious disease, establishing common mechanisms for declaring a public health emergency of international concern. And it's about trade and traffic. Now, despite the rhetoric of article three. So you compare this to the international law around and also the international health regulations don't have an enforcement mechanism, which is another problem. And you compare this to the international law around trade, which is clear, strong, monitored and vigorously enforced, which is one of the reasons why APAs have, I think, arisen in the first place. So we might think about how we could change the international health regulations, which is ultimately aimed at infectious disease and could potentially be amended to include a section on vaccine procurement during public health emergencies of international concern. It could address things like common practices, market evening provisions, critical populations to be served in all jurisdictions implicated before larger rollout. So these are some things that could be addressed through the international health regulations. Another solution is entirely new international law. As long ago as 2008, a framework convention on health had been suggested and is probably even more relevant today than it was then and more needed. And it could do things like set global norms and priorities for health systems and essential human needs while offering some countries flexibilities, establishing a fund, funding mechanisms, governing the proliferating number of actors. The health scene is quite a crowded space these days and not just with operators who are concerned primarily with health, but with many who are primarily concerned with trade. Obviously this would take a lot of political will and extensive work and not a small amount of money, but as we enter a period where we expect to see more pandemics and more health impacting climate related problems, this is probably something that's more pressing than ever. And a final solution is a range of programmatic solutions. So countries need to establish nine tags, which are expertly staffed. These nine tags need to develop multi-year vaccine plans, vaccine procurement plans, but with procurement approached as a strategic action and not an administrative support function, which is how procurement is often approached. And a well-balanced vaccine ecosystem with appropriate budget allocated to vaccination. In a lot of countries, Canada included, vaccines are dealt with through public health and the budget there is minuscule compared to the drug budgets, which are under a different budget line. Another suggestion is pooling. Countries within a region or sharing epidemiological characteristics could harmonize their processes for regular and emergency assessment of vaccine needs. They could develop joint vaccine demand for routine and emergency settings. In other words, purchasing together. Currently, discrepancies exist even within small regions. They need to share, generate evidence and around supplier performance. This is typically not done. They need to develop processes for mutual recognition of product registration, which is again not done. And common procurement rules would also help. Right now, that doesn't happen and that dissuades some manufacturers from operating more broadly within the field. And of course, all importantly is for a wider variety of actors to develop manufacturing capacity. So I think it's obvious the pandemic has not been felt equally around the globe. The usual suspects have leveraged greater resources and capacities to improve their situation. We've relied to a great extent on market approaches to science, market approaches to vaccine development and to access and to delivery. And these have proven inefficient and unfair. And procurement of vaccines through APAs entrenched these inequalities. And actors need to develop an understanding of a better understanding of vaccines and vaccination as global public goods. And I think this will help us reorient how we approach these types of emergencies. It was a bit of a whirlwind, but thank you very much. Thank you so much for that insightful presentation on APAs and the impact it has on the right to help. I think it's fair to point out that there were some very interesting points made about how vaccines that are supposedly made to curb the advancing bad effects of the pandemic somehow is treated as any other goods we find at the market like shoes or handbags. And it's fair to say that vaccines have become commodities that are easily bought just based on a country's ability to purchase. And I think that's a very excellent point made in your presentation. And to curb this, despite there being a lot of international laws and norms that are present to make sure that the right to health is secured in the international community, we see that disparity between countries ability to fulfill that. And I am very interested in the solutions that you have provided in your presentation about how we have to make sure that vaccines are treated more as a public good rather than a commodity or something that can just be bought on how you introduce maybe the possibility of new international law that can set global norms and principles within the distribution or the procurement of vaccines. I think the idea of your pragmatic solution how countries can cooperate together throughout multi-year contracts to just to develop and produce vaccines as well as pulling vaccines together and having common rules within the international community for vaccine procurement is very interesting. So I hope that the other participants also find this a very interesting topic to ask about. And so I invite the other participants to send your questions through chat so that we may discuss with Mr. Harmon. Mr. Harmon, allow me to maybe translate a small conclusion to our participants who might not have caught all what you have said. So for the participants, maybe briefly, APA or Advanced Purchase Agreement is a type of agreement that is used by countries to produce vaccines from various companies. It can be a company in its own country or from a foreign country. And this agreement is often used by countries. Why? Because this APA needs a lot of money to make vaccines. It can benefit their incentives to make vaccines. Now the problem is that in the future countries will be able to buy vaccines with a lot of money with a high price. It is a kind of agreement with countries that cannot do the same with a very high price that is made by the country. Because of that, Mr. Harmon offers several solutions in international law, in international law, how we can ensure access to vaccines so as not to use the agreement as a solution to make vaccines, not a commodity, but as a general public, the second solution is about the new international law that can ensure access to vaccines. And the third is the practical approach, that is coordination between countries to produce vaccines and distribute them in an ideal way. So I think that's maybe a short conclusion that I can give our other participants who might not have understood the whole context. So thank you very much, Mr. Sean Harmon, for a very insightful presentation. We will love to hear from you in the question and answer session. Following that presentation, I will now introduce the second speaker joining us from the Netherlands, Ms. Robin Pierce. She is a lecturer, senior law associate with the Petrie Form Center for Health Law and Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. She was formerly on the faculty of Tanish, Universite, Delft in the Netherlands, where her work focused on legal, ethical and policy implications of advances in biotechnology, including policy issues in the integration of nanotechnology, healthcare, regulatory policy and ethical issues in governance of synthetic biology and policy, legal and ethical issues arising from advances in Alzheimer's disease research and neuroscience. In 2014, Dr. Pierce was appointed Associate Editor of Science and Genetics with the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. In 2010, she was appointed program leader of the Cuba Center Program on Society and Genomics in the Netherlands. She has taught across disciplines, including such courses as remedies, social issues in biology, ethical, legal and social issues in the life sciences, public health ethics and the development of legal and political institutions. Continuing on from today's overarching theme, which is advanced purchase agreements at its impact on the right to health work for the COVID-19 vaccines. Firstly, from our keynote speaker and Mr. Ham before this, Ms. Pierce presenting on the topic of legal protection and health rights for the community against availability of the vaccines against COVID-19. Good evening, Ms. Robin Pierce. I assume it's also really late at the moment in the Netherlands, but we would also really like to convey our appreciation for your participation despite being very late and the time and time is very different here in Indonesia in Ambon. So without wasting time, I'd like to invite you to deliver your presentation. Another reminder, you have 20 minutes and I will try and remind you when you have five minutes left to present. Thank you very much. Time is yours. Thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me to participate and I think it's very important event. I hadn't planned to share my to use PowerPoint, but I think it probably is a good idea to do so. Let's see. Can you see my slides now? Yes? Okay. Thank you. Great. Okay. So indeed, as Dr. Harmon just said, there is a quite a bit of overlap in our presentations with the keynote speaker and the previous speaker, and I think they actually build on each other and I hope to go into some areas that compliment what Dr. Harmon just addressed. So really briefly, I will be looking at the right to health a little more, a little less actually on advanced purchase agreements and some of the problems and what it means for communities. And in this, I really want to focus on direct and indirect impacts, but I also want to examine what this means in the context of realities. So I'll look at the principle when principle meets reality, then I'll make some concluding remarks. So it's been said that epidemics are a category of disease that hold up a mirror to humanity to show us who we really are. And today, when we look in that mirror, there's likely to be some or substantial disappointment. And part of this has to do with the gap between aspirational and practice and action, what we actually do. And so when we look at this from a rights perspective, one of the things we're doing is trying to address that gap between aspirational and action, as Dr. Harmon has just done. And so when we look at human rights to offer a universal framework to advance justice and public health, and taking a rights based approach, we're looking to transform the power dynamic that underlies public health. So instead of having the population, people being passive recipients of government benevolence, the kindness of the government, instead individuals are recognized as rights holders and human rights, imposing obligations on duty bearers, government and other actors. But guaranteeing human rights for everyone poses a challenge for every country around the world, but of course, to differing degrees. Now, the focus of the right of health is characterized by attention to population health. We typically think of it in terms of infant mortality, industrial hygiene, prevention, treatment and control of epidemics and so forth. But it also goes into other issues, including ensuring that people receive medical service and attention when they need it. But the right is also understood to consist of protections and entitlements, both positive and negative. And so as this term that we're using quite a bit today, the right to a system of health protection, that is health care and underlying determinants of health, that provide equality of opportunity for people to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health. In the context of COVID, this would seem to require immediate and progressive steps to prevent a rising public health threat and requires furthermore that states take an additional measures to prevent or at least mitigate the impact of the disease. So it also this obligation requires that all states who are in a position to assist must do so. This includes sharing research, sharing medical equipment, supplies, best practices, approaches. And fortunately, I think we all are seeing quite increasing amounts of that kinds of sharing. Also coordination to reduce the economic and social impacts of the pandemic. I think one of the key aspects that I think is part of the reason that we're having this event today is facilitating accountability for realizing this highest attainable standard of health. But typically during pandemics, ethicists, public health professionals, human rights advocates raise a red flag about what is the right course of action for public health. And if we're looking at a pandemic situation, this has to be done through an integrated global policy. Well, it should be. It's best done through an integrated global policy. Now if we're looking at addressing the rights of communities, sometimes we'll look at health policy, public health policy on multiple levels. And we've looked at this through the governmental and the non-governmental actors who execute these decisions and strategies with the goal of promoting priorities in health care. And this term priorities is going to be key throughout this with the view, generally speaking, of ensuring that people are healthy. So we're looking in global health at issues that are beyond national boundaries, solutions that require global coordination and justice for all communities, health justice for all communities. But despite repeated pleas from WHO and other organizations for global solidarity in the COVID-19 response, many states have failed to provide sufficient international assistance and cooperation. This threatens the health and human rights of the most marginalized populations. And indeed, many states have faced difficulties in ensuring the availability and accessibility of COVID-19 related health care. And this is not just a matter of access to the vaccine. It's a matter of access to a number of aspects of COVID-related health care, diagnostic tests, ventilators, oxygen, and so forth, protective equipment. It requires then we look at this in the wider context. What is the absence of equal access to vaccines? What is the impact in the larger context? And it indeed, there are numerous sequelae on numerous levels. So where do international communities stand regarding the right to health? Well, nearly every country in the world has ratified at least one agreement agreeing to this. The right to health depends on a variety of interdependent and interrelated human rights through public health systems, not just preventive, but also curative, as I said in the beginning, and encompassing underlying social, political, and economic determinants of health. And I'll get to this in a bit more detail when we go to direct and indirect impacts. We saw in the case of HIV that there was a focus on structural factors underlying HIV transmission because activists demanded a public health response. And you see on this slide, they looked at several different types of ways of engaging the community and addressing this from a human rights framework that ensured agency dignity and access. So just a quick word, I want to highlight just a few aspects. I think Dr. Herman has done an excellent job of covering this and far more than I'm going to do. Before vaccines for the coronavirus were even approved anywhere, governments were making deals for billions of dollars to procure lots of the doses for their countries, even as these were still running in clinical trials. These yet to be approved vaccines were being purchased and massed in many, many countries. For example, the UK secured 250 million doses from four suppliers while it has a population of 66 million people. Now these strategies, this push and pull incentives of advanced purchase agreements are not new. We've seen them used before and seen them used successfully. But according to innovation policy scholar Sax and her colleagues, the COVID-19 vaccine agreements differ in at least three additional ways from the previous innovation promoting efforts, similar innovation promoting efforts. First, she says, she and her colleagues say, it's not at all clear that the advanced purchase commitments are needed to encourage companies to invest in the development of the vaccines. This is a global scale pandemic. There's an enormous market that were advanced purchase agreements really needed. And there's less concern that the disease will dissipate before the vaccine gets here. The second is that even if they're not needed to induce entry, they really can be valuable for increasing the speed of development. And third, and the most problematic is that this may lead to a lack or may and has led to a lack of supply for other countries. This is giving rise to the term vaccine nationalism. So there are some, as have been pointed out, good reasons for these agreements, but they also have sometimes problematic and even morally indefensible consequences. And this has resulted in a need for framework for both equitable, domestic, as well as global allocation of COVID-19 vaccines. So one of the questions is, is this a reconcilable tension, the vaccine nationalism, and the commitment to equitable access? Well, of course, as we all know, vaccine nationalism encourages governments to secure priority access for future vaccines. They serve the national interest. In fact, they serve the national requirement obligation to protect the health of its citizens. And they view every government as having a moral duty to give priority to its own population before helping citizens abroad. And so what the consequences of this are, of course, that other countries have difficulty getting access to vaccines as the leading to delays and manufacturing capacity that's filled by the wealthier countries. This can also drive up prices. And of course, we've seen instances of excessive purchase far beyond what is needed. Now, this mirrors, as Dr. Harman just explained, this mirrors the wider health and health care inequities and is grounded in broader structural inequalities, putting some populations at greater risk than others. And in many cases, the COVID-19 deaths and in many instances, the COVID-19 deaths and cases are highest among Indigenous populations, racial minorities, the working poor, prisoners, detainees and so forth. But I think it's important to look at why. What does it play here? So we're looking at instances of frontline workers. We're looking at instances of essential versus remote workers, again, affecting a particular segment of the population. We're looking at capacity for social distance, affecting poor populations rather than wealthier ones. Housing and infrastructure also come into play. So we're looking at a mirroring and escalation exacerbation of existing inequities. And so the direct impact is on the poor, is often on the poor marginalized, but the broader impacts reverberate widely in elongating the pandemic with all sorts of economic, social and educational sequelae. So we said back in the 70s that smallpox anywhere was smallpox everywhere. And what we're seeing here is that the sheer vulnerability of human health, the fragility of social institutions and our profound interconnectedness urgently brings this need for equitable, transparent methods of coordination, regulation and good governance at the global level. Now it would seem to have required, I'm actually going to quote from a Canadian bioethicist who has looked at this issue and recently and has basically says that, yeah, we could do this, we can understand in some ways why countries would want to prioritize their own population. But it would seem he says that this would have required to preserve the lives of people at greatest risk, the elderly, healthcare professionals, people involved in patient care and so forth. These people should have been prioritized globally. Instead, he critiques, countries of the global north have used their wealth to purchase vaccines many times their population over. And he turns his gaze onto his own country and notes that Canada purchased about 10 times 10 vaccine doses per resident, not knowing, of course, whether or not they'd work. And today, Professor Udo Schlenkig says that Canada sits on many more vaccine doses than it can possibly administer and apparently maybe has begun destroying expired doses or off and or offering third vaccine doses. In contrast, as has been pointed out by both previous speakers, Haiti, for example, this is only one example of many, only received its first shipment of vaccine doses in July 2021. That's 500,000 doses flown down from the US for a population of 11 million. And you saw the statistics in the previous presentation. So there's no question, global governance institutions fail to anticipate, prevent or redress this inequality. And as of March 21 several months ago, 78% of the 447 million deployed doses of COVID-19 vaccines were only in 10 countries. So we can listen to this Canadian by West. This is actually acknowledges the defense, as I said, and said, but there's a magnitude of other considerations. And this is a point that I think is worth making because it gets to the principle versus meets the reality aspect of my talk. And that is that he points out that there's a pragmatic argument to be made in this. And he says that unlikely, it's unlikely that the citizens of these democratic countries would have taken kindly to a government that would have shared their purchased vaccines with poorer countries. And democracies where governments want to be reelected such sharing would have guaranteed the government's defeat at the ballot box in the following elections. Nevertheless, continuing stockpiling of global vaccines continues. It's a huge social justice issue. The right to health comes to meets and with regard to the social justice issue. Social justice is sitting squarely at the core of this situation. Privileged and wealthy are afforded more privilege and wealth, while the less privilege and less wealthy are made even worse off. The impact, as I said, on the persons who do not fall into these categories is far more severe. We can also look at this as an exacerbation of the problem. The direct impacts on the right to health, right to protection from a deadly pandemic, a deadly virus, as well as the need to eradicate the pandemic. But when we fail to do that, it prolongs the pandemic. Of course, this is thought of in terms of equal rights. But what I would spend a few seconds on is the indirect impacts on interconnected rights. And so we're not just talking about access to vaccine. We're also talking about the other aspect of the right to health, which is the right to protections of interconnected rights. So beyond the health system, social determinants of health. So that includes adequate housing, safe drinking water, sanitation, food, social security, and protection from violence. These kinds of interconnected rights, all of which have been affected by lack of access to the vaccine. So lack of access to the vaccine. So we have all of these issues, but there's also other additional ones. For example, unvaccinated may be subject to travel restrictions. But even as, sorry. Okay, so I want to get quickly to the issue of principle meets reality and respecting the rights of communities to health and well-being. And these are both legal and ethical tensions, the two main opposing ideas with several in between. And essentially, it's getting at the question of how much commitment and self denial can be asked from wealthier countries in order to promote access to vaccines for other countries. Well, the reality is the impossibility of having enough vaccines for everyone in the near future has opened the floor for debate about priority. What are the values? What are the ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation? And I think that is also debatable, and I will challenge that. In a pandemic with a restricted supply of available vaccine, public health alone is unlikely to be sufficient to guide the decisions, especially in the early stages. Because if we take that view, then it means that human lives in the life years that we are able to live are not universally valuable, which is a different kind of position than we want to take. So on the other side of across the table from vaccine nationalism is vaccine cosmopolitanism. And this is a view of distributive justice. Community membership, your nation is simply irrelevant that allocation should be independent of your national identity, irrespective of borders, and prioritize supply to countries according to their need. Is there a middle way? Well, we looked at, we're all aware of the COVAX facility and how many have found this to be disappointing, primarily because of the 20% sufficiency to cover 20%. But the commitment, the resolution to facilitate trade acquisition, access and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines for all is important. But we will see, hopefully, that how this translates into regarding vaccine distribution. There are intersecting challenges, some of which have been spoken about today. For example, the privatization of health care services, facilities and goods, intellectual property rights, is spoken about with our keynote speaker. And then there's a huge irony of all of this. While we use human rights to defend and protect justice in the public health context, there's also a way that states can employ human rights language to construct a self-serving narrative. So we've got this essentially double-edged sword, where the right to health provides a level of difference to the state to decide who should receive access to health and at which point. So the state says, yes, we have a right, we have a mandate and obligation to protect our citizens. And in doing so, it may run, it runs into conflict with this other aspiration. And so the principle of progressive realization can also be used to justify these transgressions. But what I'd like to suggest, and I will in a moment, is that principle of progressive realization can be used in a positive sense of this context. So the meaningfulness of commitment in the context of principle meets reality really forces us to grapple with what does equitable access mean in a context of limited resources. And indeed, we many have called for a normative discussion to identify the actors who have this duty to provide equitable access and how far reaching these duties are. Is a country morally obliged to limit vaccine to high-risk groups, provide access to other citizens only once high-risk groups have been served? What is meant by COVID access, the concern? And prioritization is inevitable, or is it? I like the approach of viewing vaccines immunization as a public good. And how do we navigate among morally defensible strategies if prioritization is not necessary or if it is? So in guiding prioritization is typically done through three ways, equality between all patients, patients who benefit most from the medical resources to maximize the outcome, sort of utilitarian approach. And then third, allocating resources to those with the highest medical need, a much more deontological approach. But it's interesting, some countries don't even allow that kind of parsing out prioritization. For example, in Egypt, it's not allowed to deny a patient the right to receive a life-saving medical service to be replaced by another patient whose survival chance is higher. So there's a very complex field. But as I go to the close, thank you. As I go to the close, I just want to point out the concept of progressive realization, that there's a reality that most healthcare systems around the yes, must function with limited resources. And there's a need to provide adequate care levels to everyone who needs it and maintain currently accepted standards. So this concept of progressive realization is essentially a commitment to allocating resources for healthcare to be able to offer care such that everyone can achieve their highest possible level of health. So as science achieves these remarkable advances in COVID-19 vaccines, we've really, it becomes compellingly clear that we cannot exclude others from benefiting from this advance. Such injustice is not only legally, politically, and morally unacceptable, it undermines all of our humanity. So where does this leave us as a differentially situated global community? Well, it's quite clear. We will only succeed if there is a global momentum and commitment to global equitable access. 11 years ago, I wrote an article, Expressive Function of Public Health Policy, The Case of Pandemic Planning. And there the idea, borrowed from Cass Sastine, legal scholar, is that support for a law or policy may be primarily because of its expressive function. The statement it makes about underlying values. Rather, the real focus is on the social meaning of these regulations and therefore it can be a valuable tool to achieving other important goals. And so I want to ask, while we lament the gap between aspiration and commitment and action, where would we be without the expressive function? This commitment to equitable access plays a pivotal role, we hope, in the move towards equitable access for vaccines. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for another very insightful presentation that Compact has on the community through legal protection, health rights, and the availability of vaccines in the fight against COVID-19. I think it's very interesting to point out how you opened up the presentation in stating that the epidemic or pandemic is a mirror that reflects the inequalities already exist even before the pandemic, and how that is exacerbated through the pandemic, which is something very interesting because when you explain using human rights as a sovereignty so that nations can't pick and choose who deserves to access the right to health, somehow that idea of inequality can be lifted if we see human rights as something or see humans as basically holders of human rights and not have our human rights be dependent on another country or on our country's sovereignty or their ability to provide for us, which is how you talk about the impact it has on the community, the international community, and how actually progressive realisation should not only fall in the hands of once towards the owing population, but how progressive realisation can exist within the international community. So that people who may be in developing countries are not barred from benefiting these advance, just something that has already been stated by Mr. Harman previously in his presentation as well, how in article 15 we as humans have the right to benefit from these two, and I think it's very interesting regarding expressive function, which I think we will maybe hear more about in the discussion later. So yes, please allow me to maybe explain a little bit in Bahasa Indonesia for our other participants. For the participants in the presentation of Mrs. Robin Pierce, please explain about the impact of the vaccine against COVID-19 on the international community and how there is a legal protection to ensure that this does not become accessible to the vaccine. This can become a legal concept that we use is vaccine cosmopolitanism, which explains that we as human beings can access the rights of other human beings, not through our government or our country, but only as a human being so that the right or the right of human beings is something that is in the world, so that the right of human beings is not covered by the government or country, and that is why it uses it as a concept to make this vaccine as something that everyone can access. So the presentation is very related to the presentation about international law and how Mr. Harmon explained the effect of international law in managing access. Mrs. Pierce explained how the concept of international community can access the vaccine. So thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Pierce. We will now continue on to our third presenter today. We have the Dean of the Faculty of Law at Padinguna University, Mr. Rory R. Q. N. He will be presenting on the aspect of enforcement of business competition law of the pandemic era. If the previous two presentations were from the aspect of international law, Mr. Rory R. Q. N. He will delve deeper into the national manifestation of these principles and human rights and conventions that actually talk about the fulfillment of the right to health in the pandemic and through our vaccines, Mr. R. Q. N. He will explain how actually one of the actors that maybe hasn't really been discussed in this seminar is about the companies and how there is a competition law that protects or even regulates how they act within the pandemic. But before I say too much about this, I would like to invite Mr. Rory R. Q. N. to present on this topic. Thank you, Agnes. Good morning, all participation. I see you are very happy today, Ms. Agnes. Why? It's a very good discussion yesterday. Yes, yesterday I just completed my bachelor thesis defense on a topic that is not very different from our topic today. So I'm still very excited about this topic and I still have a lot of thoughts kind of running through my head. So thank you for mentioning that. Success always for you, Ms. Agnes. To Mr. Sean Herman and Ms. Robin Pierce, my fellow estimate panelist and all participation. First, I present based on the topic of competition law enforcement in the pandemic. I apologize in advance to Mr. Herman Pierce that I will deliver my material in Bahasa Indonesia. But the moderator will Ms. Agnes will translate in English. Okay. Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Salam sejahtera untuk kita sekalian. Next. We draw certain basic updates, mudia, benefits, swagmasticate, justice, directed. Next. What we have said is that law actually functions as a way to protect the interests of humanity so that interests can be fulfilled. People must be protected by the laws and this must be implemented. The implementation of these laws should be implemented. However, there can still be ways that people violate these laws through the enforcement of law. We see that there is the reality. The reality is that there are three very important factors that need to be fulfilled this law can be implemented, which is respect, which is about how law has to be legal, it has to be certain and there has to be benefits and lastly there has to be justice. The government in between 1558 to 1564 is called Fiatisticia at the period of Monduz. Even though the world needs justice, the law must be broken. This is Fiatisticia at the time by delucius Capulnius Bisog Sayesanomius, who lived in Abad in 1943. In fact, COVID-19 pandemic has not destroyed the world. The world is only self-sustaining, the world is confused, the world is just lying, but it has not been destroyed. But the law still has to be protected. For whatever happens law must still be upheld, must be still enforced. So even if the pandemic has really dire consequences, whatever happens, it means that we still need to make sure that law is set to be issued and enforced based on what the king Ferdinand I from Hungary has conveyed in 1558, which is on the principle of Fiatisticia at the period Monduz. All these things were done for the people. For COVID-19, only the public had a chance to get protection. For example, the medical treatment required for COVID-19, self-sufficiency, Then the rapids and the swabs, the antigens are very sensitive in the public opinion, so this law must be discussed so that the public gets something that in any case, the rights of the country's people in Indonesia must be protected and in accordance with our constitution. So why it's important to enforce law even during a global pandemic that can be quite difficult at times, it's because law actually provides protection towards the actions that can be empowered or with a power that can actually use their power to do unfair things to other people. Therefore, law needs to exist and be protected to ensure that these things don't happen. Through this we see that society or the people require or hopeful that the law must always be upheld, it certainly must be upheld because without that there won't be their protection towards things that are injustice and that's why law actually functions to be certain to make sure that the society can remain peaceful. Besides legal certainty there has to also be the benefit of law and law needs to exist fully to benefit humanity. Law is that law does not completely mean justice because justice is something that is very subjective and that something for mystery that is fair could mean something else for John. This idea of justice that is very subjective is something that is clear within the impact of the COVID-19. We see that the COVID-19 has shown that people are really quick to fulfill their needs and their right to health by panic buying which reduces this access to different medical supplies because everyone is trying to buy as much for themselves without seeing the access to medical supplies not being able to do this therefore it becomes the rapid test. Thank you very much. According to article 33 paragraph 2 we see that the ideas that were conveyed by Harold J. Blaski that says that the role of the country or their objective is actually to create a situation or condition where their people are able to fulfill their full needs for what maximum. Jeremy Bethlehem, this also supports the idea brought forth by Jeremy Bethlehem that about the principle of utilitarianism that talks about how extra happiness is actually happening due to this government or the state must implement or the people act their population. This is article 33 of article 2. This article is about the production of the country's important products and the control of the population of many people in the country. Supplementalism is to say that the country's control can be understood by the government or the government especially to improve and increase production. The control of the country does not mean to reduce the production of the country's important products and to reduce the number of people. It will only be limited to the power, business, and the country's control of the production of the country for the benefit of many people. Article 33 verse 2 states that the different institutions within the country have a really important to the country because they are the ones that provide for the continuation of life in the future. The protection of life, actually the responsibility that last week was built by the country. So, supermore conveys that the country, the state has to actually be in the direction of how this can actually be implemented and how they can maximize the production for these products that protect the society. The role of the country is not in this definition just about the production aspect but it's also important for the state to how people can access these products without disregarding the rights of the production. If the country, especially with COVID-19, cannot provide for the products and products that are available to the public, such as the COVID-19 target and so on, then the country can work together. This was mentioned by Mr. Harman and Ms. Robin. So, in the case of the pandemic, it's safe for countries cannot directly produce medical supplies for the population. And that puts the country in the direction of how people can access the products and products that are available to the public. So, in the case of the pandemic, it's safe for countries cannot directly produce medical supplies for the population and that puts the position of the state to actually be able to cooperate with private companies and businesses to provide the necessary medical equipment. This function exists so that we can see that the country can possibly even grab the package. Next. Here we have some regulations that the monopoly that can happen The law number 5, 1995, actually regulates about the monopoly tactics and the competition between companies and businesses that is not healthy. Carthal is a company that produces products with the means to control production, price and sales, and to control the monopoly position. There are different products in order to control the production and prices in the market. The law number 5, 1995, actually regulates the monopoly position between companies and businesses that is not healthy. According to law number 5, there are several tasks that should be done. First, there is a law that can control the monopoly and the percentage that is not healthy. There is a law that can control the monopoly and the percentage that is not healthy. And there are other characteristics that include the operation according to the situation. For example, as you all know, we cannot assume a business contract in the middle of the COVID pandemic. There are products and assets. There are products and assets, especially for vaccine making. If it is in a normal condition, it has to be tender. But the KPPU made a promise that this is not a normal condition. So, it gives the opportunity to the businesses, the state, the government and the businesses to make the products and assets without tender. It is related to products that control the lives of many people. According to the COVID-19 pandemic, the vaccine is considered to control the lives of many people, so that it is tender. In Indonesia, we have the commission of competition between companies, evaluation commission. And this commission actually works to make sure that during global crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, production of vaccine. So, in a normal condition, production of vaccine is actually the new concept that allows companies to do that. Although this commission has actually implemented a law that during a health crisis, such as this, how does that have a large impact on the population, but as a vaccine to all of them? Next. Next. Earlier in another country, for example, in South Africa. South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic, it requires law enforcement, as well as health insurance. In Germany, for example, in the competition, they apply some practice in the business world to prepare the competition. It is no longer the government of Germany or the commission, dealing with the COVID-19, but it is no longer the government of Germany or the commission of Germany. It is no longer the government of Germany or the commission of Germany. Because in the context of COVID-19, it is all in the meantime, because the condition is not normal, just like in Indonesia. But in Indonesia, the law enforcement is a bit annoying, because people are confused, because there is miscommunication, misunderstanding between the dealer, between the company, or between the shareholder of the money with the people or the consumers. But in Indonesia, we see this idea of disregarding general practices that would actually be implemented during the COVID-19 crisis, such as in South Africa, where we see the enforcement of more regarding banks and the banks and the health services are being modified for the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in Germany regarding football competition and how they disregard company or business competition in order to make sure that they stay back where the group is. Last. I think it's up to you both, Magheira, in accordance with the constitution, the duty is to provide quality equipment and equipment, and the price can be paid by the people. The conditions that we have, with the rapid tests that are expensive, the sweat tests, and then the support of the doctors to solve the COVID-19 pandemic are very rewarding for the people. The country hasn't collapsed. COVID-19 is still in our hands, but the duty of the constitution is to make the people happy, as Jeremy Bentham said, by preparing quality equipment and equipment, and providing support with COVID-19 conditions. Thank you, Ms. Agnes. Even if it is hard for them to fulfill these obligations, it is still to make sure that the prosperity of their citizens can be fulfilled. And if they continue to fulfill certain products, then the country will face much more to fulfill their rights than the access to a product such as a small pack. It sums up Mr. Arori Akuen's presentation. So with that, it concludes our three presentations for this morning. I apologize, because we're actually running a little bit late on schedule, but I think that it would not be fair if we did not engage in some discussion, some questions as a section. So there are already some questions within the chat, already some discussion happening within the chat. So is my voice clear or is there still some problems? It's a little bit better. Is it, is it better now? Okay. I'm glad to hear that. Okay. So I'm, even though there's some discussion happening in the chat, I think it would be really good if we just do it within the forum. So first of all, we have a question by, we have a statement by Mr. Harb that actually says that the idea of vaccine cosmopolitan is interesting and grounded in solidarity, but it would require a completely different approach to purchasing. I think it is the question. I think he conveys this question, a question to Ms. Rob, how do you think states could do a lot of things about the world? I lost the sound. I'm, I'm so sorry for the technical difficulties. Am I audible? Okay. I was just, so I just read out the question that Sean Harman delivered in the chat and I'm pretty sure that question was towards your material. And I was just wondering if you would be able to answer the question of how do we get states to give up some of their sovereignty in relation to purchasing so that high risk groups around the world can say people more than over us. Yeah, it's, it's the question of the day, isn't it? It's the big challenge. I think there are probably at least a couple of responses to that. One is, we talk about it in terms of being altruistic, but in fact, there's as much self-interest involved in the sharing of vaccines as it's altruism. So I don't think we need to necessarily rely on that. I think there is this factor. We also know that where there are pockets or large pockets of regions of unvaccinated people that there's more opportunity for mutations of the virus, which is how we ended up with Delta, that can be even worse not only prolong the pandemic, but make it worse. So there's, I think there's, there's that. I think building in mechanisms of accountability, what those would look like. I'm not sure whether these would be mandates and sort of global governance that come short of imposing penalties, but certainly imposes sort of expressive functions, expressive obligations. Thank you. Thank you for that answer. So in conclusion, do you think the answer is more politics as opposed to law? Well, I think you can't do it without either, frankly. I think politics without law is open. It leaves the door open for all sorts of, but law without politics is basically letters, words on a page. And so I think they have to work in concert. Thank you for that. So we're allowed to say this is an international policy and international law. In fact, among the two aspects, how can we do a framework or a cooperation that involves all countries. And that requires a process. Not only through international politics, but also through international law. And so that international law can be imposed, the policy must also, the same political goal must also be achieved through international law. So thank you very much for that, Ms. Robin. We have some questions also from the, from Patimora University International Office from Ms. Revenci-Rugubrek. She firstly asked Mr. Sean Harmon regarding the cases of blood cuts that occurred in the number of countries due to the immunization of AstraZeneca. I think Mr. Sean has already tried, has already answered that in the question, in the chat box, however, maybe you can maybe convey a little bit of the understanding you have regarding that. Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Good. Yeah. Yeah. It created a bit of controversies here, certainly. And there was a bit of a change in the recommendation profile related to that particular vaccine. And some people choosing not, not to get it. I think that the stock was, was donated outward. But I mean, one of the, one of the things that this raised, certainly this, that reality sort of coming, coming to the surface gave the, the, those who were against vaccination, some, some ammunition to use. And it required, you know, The problem is a lot of people. There's a lot of noise out there around around immunization and so it was one of those instances where a lot of care had to be taken by the government and how it conveyed to publics, you know, what it was doing and that in a situation like this, where it's very dynamic. New evidence is being generated all the time and so recommendations around a vaccine can change and this isn't because of conspiracies or people being secretive it's because new evidence comes to light and so certainly it was a a bit of an issue here, but I think it's still being, I think that vaccine is still being used. I think maybe regarding your statement as well the disanimation of information from the government towards the people is actually very important because whilst the access to vaccine is very hard but actually to get people to actually get vaccinated is also not the issue in itself so yes, thank you for so important. Yes, so it's, it's, it's something to consider as well not just the access but even if people get access. How is the, how is vaccination being portrayed in the media and how do we get people to come up, come on board of the immunization train. So thank you for that. Maybe just because we have some questions for Miss Pierce and then Miss Rory after this as well. There's also another question that I have as moderator just to wrap up the questions for you. Regarding international law and regarding intellectual property. And the equal access to vaccine. How do you think international law can act as a way to both protect international intellectual property, but also ensure equitable access to vaccines because regarding Miss Robin's presentation as well. The intellectual property is actually very important to ensure that there is incentive to continue to create vaccines, but at this point of time, the pandemic is raging it's still raging and we still need more vaccines and somehow APS you use the trips agreement and use intellectual property to create this monopoly price so how do you think we can balance between those two things. I think it's difficult and it's a problem. First of all, we have to recognize that that rights to intellectual property are not on the same level as rights to health. They're just not fundamental, you know, intellectual property right aren't fundamental rights rights to health rights to physical integrity these are fundamental right so they don't balance. The difficulty is that we've created some quite strong infrastructure around the one but not necessarily around, around the other. And, you know, I think also what what this fruit what this pandemic has shown is that I think obviously an intellectual rights were important and were important to the developers but but there there would have been innovation I think this was this was, you know, raised by a couple of the speakers and certainly my Robin that there was, there was going to be innovation happening. Because there was a lot of money to be made regardless of how strongly I think the protections are around around the intellectual property of the medicines that are that are being generated. And so, you know, we've recognized that intellectual property can be a barrier to access and so we have compulsory licensing. It's part of the international law around trade but we certainly don't use it very often. So when we think about who's acting and, and what it is that they deserve as far as returns, we have to recognize that all, you know, all of these investments have a significant amount of public money that's invested in them and so we need to, we do need to think about what is a fair return for the private actors that are stepping up. So maybe if I can just add one was I maybe just a short explanation if public money is the case here and how vaccines are actually a product of the investment, how does that translate into international community where maybe Indonesia requires a vaccine is not investing in companies that are in the US or in the UK and how, how do we access that even if we are not invested within that and even if the countries or the states in the US are investing. It is also that problem of them having an interest to fulfill the rights of their country, first and foremost so how do you think the international community benefits from that. Yeah, that's a hard one and I'd be interested to hear what some of the other speakers think about that I mean I guess, you know, the right to access to the benefits of science isn't premised on on contributing to to that science so we need to be cognizant of of that right. When we're thinking about the extent to which we need to contribute in order to benefit, I think. Thank you very much for, for your explanation I think it, it has explained a lot. Also, that's a lot of room for further research and hopefully in the future we see some way that we can access vaccines more credibly. But without having to depend on, you know, the goodwill of nations but actually there being an international legal regime that you previously said in your presentation so thank you for that. So now we actually have some. I just add that certainly what what would beneficial. Quite aside from law is. We needed a greater diversification of manufacturing capabilities. And we use so in Canada, for example, we have no vaccine manufacturing capabilities we used to, and we divested ourselves of that. And because of pandemic now there's a lot more talk around needing to rebuild our vaccine manufacturing capability. And I, and, and there's even talk of that way we could provide vaccines to the world. And I think that greater vaccine manufacturing capability in different parts of the world will be important to responding to further pandemics. Yes, that's that's a very interesting point mate so it's not just about the obligation of states to contribute internationally but actually the ability of other states to produce our own vaccines. I think that's, that's a very great point. Thank you for that. Mr. Harvin. Now we're going to continue to miss the fancy's question to miss Robin pierce is relating to human rights to get the vaccine. Do you think it is a right or an obligation because there are so many citizens who do not want to be vaccinated. I'm mute. Oh, okay, I was having difficulty on muting. That's a really challenging question I think it's without question, it's a right. How we realize or implement that rights is, is why we're here today, whether or not it's an obligation. It's complex, because it needs it rubs up against other liberties and rights, and to sort of categorically make that classification that it is an obligation, a legal obligation. I think it may be sort of painting an issue that has inconvenient now, but stands on, I think important liberties that we recognize in the society. I think this is one of the instances where we can engage in the sort of behavioral economics types of approaches to facilitate nudge encourage people to do to do to get to take the vaccine, but in recognition of extremely important liberties, I think we should probably explore those non mandatory considerations before we go to the mandatory vaccines. I hope that answers the question. There's also another question of meddling. She talks about she's asking about the right to vaccines, not only by not only by citizens of other refugees that live in camps and some shortage of vaccines, how do you think in approach to internet international law, how can we provide for them and make sure that they are. Yeah, I think that's an extremely important question as well. And, and, you know, it's often overlooked refugees are often that the person the invisible population, and indeed they fall very much within the category of marginalized persons that is a priority for public health. And so, you know, let's look at the language of the human rights, human rights, not, you know, national citizen so it's very clear that refugees should be included with regard to this well who has that obligation. If there is a lack of sort of national identity or attachment association, then, you know, we can then pull out the, the sovereignty, the sovereignty issue that states can utilize to justify not honoring human rights for the persons outside of their territories. So it's a complex issue I think we can look at this aspirational commitment to human rights and the right to health, and look at different ways to make that to make that an accountable obligation. And so, you know, I really enjoyed Sean's recommendation about expanding manufacturing capacity, because basically where I think this needs to go is giving the concept that the principle of progressive realization, giving it T, and expanding the manufacturing capacity is one of the ways making it a public good is another way so that we can honor this as a human right, as opposed to operating out of national interest. Thank you for that, Miss Robin thing that has a big correlation with your principle on vaccine cosmopolitanism about how as human rights, as humans should have access to rights, not just because of our citizenship but because we are humans at the very very first place. So I think I hope that answers Miss Madeline's question regarding the access to vaccines to refugees, and just how different stakeholders in the national community can fulfill that. So we have one last question for Mr. Rory, a key one from Miss reference see a little break. Regarding can the vaccine be traded or sold at a certain price, considering that nowadays people are getting free vaccines, but some are getting them at a certain cost. Maybe Mr. Rory, sorry, so the question asked by Miss Vensi regarding Rory is, does the value of vaccines can be kept? Or does the vaccine can be sold or sold at a certain price, considering that nowadays people are getting free vaccines? Yes, thank you Miss Vensi for the question. Why do I want to be invited by the moderator to participate? Participants also understand what is being asked by Miss Vensi. In your opinion, it is one of the implementation of the economy, implementation of the PASAL 33, verse 2. I have already said that the country has to provide quality equipment and equipment, especially those who want to finish the lives of many people with affordable prices. That is the answer to the question. Even if the country that is carried out by the PASAL 33 is producing and selling, it is not released from the PASAL 33, verse 2. No matter how much the price is, it has to be paid by the people, or it can be bought by the people. PASAL 51, verse 599 regarding the monopoly, it actually gives the right of monopoly to the MN. Because that is a way to ensure the PASAL 33, to determine the price or to respect the price. That can be done by the country through the MN. The important thing is to finish the lives of many people and it is important for the country. If it is not important and does not finish the lives of many people, it is usually given to the market. But personally, if you look at the development of the economy, the APD, the price variation, the PAS, and the sweat, the country actually has to take care of the price that can be paid by the people. We know that, especially the citizens of the country, we may be able to be paid by the country to raise the price. In fact, for the people who want to do private activities, this is very important. This is actually the condition of COVID-19, which I started with the law must be banned. Because even the world for COVID-19 has not yet destroyed the world, even the countries of Indonesia. Therefore, the process of regulation must be implemented. If the KPPU gives a permit, the country cannot give a permit. The country must be banned, the country must be banned. Because according to Friedman, one of the countries as a provider. So, this is actually a prevention. But this depends on the will of the country or the Indonesian government. Maybe in a short conclusion in English. According to Article 22 of our constitution is that countries have a obligation to fulfill the basic needs of their society. This includes access to products, especially medical products during the pandemic. Mr. Rory says that this can be done through countries intervening. Whether that be intervening in state-owned companies or even private companies, countries should be able to set a price for these vaccines. And this is because countries or states or governments at the very core are actually servants of the population of the society. And that should be one of their main goals. And especially during the pandemic, even if it's hard to implement a law or to fulfill certain regulations in our national legal system. The world hasn't ended yet, so therefore the law must still be upheld. And I think that this concludes Mr. Rory's answer to Ms. Fancy's question. So I think because we've used up to half an hour over our lost time, I think as moderator I'm going to cut the discussion session there. I thank everyone and all the participants that were able to contribute in this session. It has definitely made the session more lively. So thank you for that. Before we end this plenary session, I'm going to ask each of the speakers to give a short closing statement. Hopefully, one to two sentences regarding the plenary session today and topic on the last part of the session. Thank you, Mr. Agnes. This is a follow-up. Short translation. The world might come to an end, though the pandemic might wreak havoc, but states might still have their responsibility to deal with all the life of the citizens. And just like what Gary Becker said, happiness is good for the destruction of our citizens. So thank you that Mr. Agnes for that. Now I would like to ask Mr. Rory to give a short closing statement. Thank you. I would simply like to address the fact that we are looking at a situation of limited resources. And so I think one of the ways that we can approach this is through giving teeth to aggressive realization and not progressive realization for the short term, but for the broader term for the longer term. So not how do we get vaccines for this population? How do we ensure that everyone gets access to the vaccine? Thank you for that. Such an sounding statement that hopefully something that whoever gives this and have access to, maybe promote that statement can fulfill that. So what Mr. Robin said is one of the important things that must be expected from the pandemic is the progressive realization. That the pandemic is becoming a space for us to grow and see the future. So thank you for that Mr. Agnes. Lastly to Mr. Harmon, maybe you can give your closing statement. Thank you. I guess as a party thought, it would be that there was a lot of rhetoric toward the start of the pandemic about being an opportunity for us to come together and it didn't really happen the way we may have wanted it to. And I think it'll be important for not just the international legal system but for domestic governments to take lessons from what's been happening in ways that we sort of haven't in the past. And to really reflect on what's happened and what could have been done better and to not put public health in the sort of impoverished position that it has traditionally held. Thank you. Thank you for that Mr. Harmon. I think there's very strong statements to end this session with just a short translation for other participants. This pandemic should be something that the international community can learn to work with the world's health crisis. But things don't work out. So it has to be something of an evaluation. It's not just for the international community but also for domestic governments. How can we face the future crisis? How can the health system be better and more effective? So thank you for that. And in conclusion for this plenary session, I think we have discussed and learned a lot of things firstly regarding global health justice and vaccine procurement from the aspect of international law and how the vaccine is something that should be accessed by everyone is somehow made into a commodity. And there are solutions that we can take or implement. However, that needs a lot of global coordination. A lot of actually invested interest from many different stakeholders, especially countries with larger bargaining power. But furthermore than that, we see that that that invests interest must also be translated into a domestic arena within four states towards their own citizens. So throughout this plenary session, we see this progression of understanding between international health regimes or international health laws and how that regulates a vaccine in Mr. Harmon's presentation and how Ms. Robin actually explains that in the form of progressive realization, how we can do vaccines or how we can access vaccines as humans on the basis of vaccine cosmopolitanism and following that we see Mr. Rory RQ and how he translate those main principles on the international scale into the domestic competition laws in Indonesia. So I think it was a very full discussion, a very insightful, extremely insightful presentations and I hope all the participants were able to gain some new knowledge or maybe even interest in this realm of law, because I think it's a very important study and aspect that I think many more people should be interested in and develop in the future. So on behalf of the Faculty of Law, on behalf of our readers at the Faculty of Law, we would like to convey our utmost gratitude for our two guest speakers from Canada and the Netherlands, Mr. Sean Harmon and also Ms. Robin Pierce. We're very grateful for your participation and your clearing of your presentation, despite the time differences that is a bit iffy. So thank you. Thank you very much. We hope that in the future we can also conduct more cooperation with you guys, maybe another presentation or even we can learn more from you through other methods or means between between you personally or even your institution or faculty. We're looking forward to that opportunity or possibility in the future. With that, I close my responsibility as a moderator for today's planning session. I apologize if I've said or done anything that may have offended anyone or have made this a planning session less smooth. I also invite the our Dean of Faculty actually just whispered in my ear that he's hoping maybe in the future you could bestow your wisdom on maybe other students at the faculty if that's a possibility and he's very excited to have that possibility. So that's an opportunity maybe we can discuss on that. So actually as I was saying, close my responsibilities as a moderator thank you everyone for your participation orderly participation. I'd also like to invite the guest speakers, maybe if it's a possibility to have some energy left I know it's a bit late from where you are but we have paper presentations after this you have to rooms or two panels. But it's totally okay if it's probably time to rest. So thank you for that. I conclude my responsibilities as the moderator today, and I give back the floor to Quincy as the MC. Thank you. Thank you Agnes for leading such a fantastic session this morning. And I also want to say thank you for our invited speaker, Mr. Aman, Mr. Pierce and also Mr. Arun for such an insightful presentation this morning. And moving on to our next agenda. We will have a call for paper presentation but we will have a brief for 10 minutes before we start a paper presentation. And for the comments I'll prepare the room for all participants. In this session we will have two rooms with very interesting topics and the comments will assign all participants into the room. So see you in 10 minutes.