*Originally published in 2020. Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber, or make a donation, to support our work.

Covid-19 is bending and at times nearly breaking the EU’s capabilities to act as global health crisis manager. The far-reaching multi-sectoral impact and the internationally entangled nature of the health crisis are challenging not only Europe but the whole international community. Transnational health crises demand an international response and can offer windows of opportunities to introduce change. The EU might be able to emerge stronger out of the crises if it learns from the past and further elaborates sustainable health crisis management structures. However, the best prevention against health crises remains a solid investment in health systems. This article will show that a successful EU’s crisis response depends on four key aspects. Firstly, the creation of sustainable and rapidly available medical and human resources on EU level. Secondly, the willingness and ability to proactively contribute to an international response. Thirdly, the delegation of responsibilities to the European Commission in health crises. Lastly, the involvement of civil society actors to include social impact assessments in policy planning and implementation.

To provide an understanding of global health crises, the article will begin by revisiting characteristics of transnational health crises and their framing as risks or opportunities. After teasing out challenges and untapped potential of crises, barriers and drivers for a successful health crisis response will be deducted from the past. The analysis of EU’s global health crisis management in previous settings will allow to draw lessons for the current Covid-19 outbreak.

Transnational health crises need transnational responses

Health crises severely affect the well-being of people and the functioning of health systems, their emergence can have multiple reasons which may be located in the biological realm such as diseases but can go well beyond (e.g. climate change). As witnessed within the Covid-19 outbreak, other sectors like the economy or foreign policy can be heavily impacted. Not only do health crises often traverse multiple sectors but they also can cross national boundaries making state-level responses insufficient and at times ineffective. Transnational crises surpass the organizational, policy and legal tools of governments (Boin and Rhinard 2008), thus, a coordinated response from local to global levels is needed. Moreover, non-state actors like NGOs or the private sector are often playing an active role in health crises (e.g. providing access to health care services) and must be considered in policy responses.

The EU in turn has two major advantages in responding to transnational crises in comparison to state actors. Firstly, the regional scale of the health crisis can be better assessed due to the European Center for Disease Control’s (ECDC) early warning mechanisms for communicable diseases. Secondly, the EU can play a unique role in coordinating efforts if member states accept the Union’s authority. The EU might even have the potential to enhance a global response by sharing its regional experience on the international scene.

The finding that transnational health crises are in need of transnational responses hasn’t really sunk in yet on member states’ level. This is reflected in the bizarre orchestra of national measures particularly at the beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak in Europe. The EU for its part has been too involved in coordinating member states’ policies to view its scope of action on global scale and has only recently lifted its gaze towards the international sphere.

Crises as windows of opportunities

Crises may exacerbate existing societal tensions, inequalities and shared vulnerabilities. Experiences from the refugee crisis show that there is a risk of radicalisation in European societies expressed in Euroscepticism, outward nationalism and populism (see e.g. Modebadze 2019). This may also pose challenges for the current Covid-19 outbreak. In many cases, crises in Europe are painfully disclosing the Union’s weakness in providing a coordinated and coherent response as member states are acting within national logics barely recognizing the EU as the leading coordinator.

However, crises may also be described as drivers of change. Research on the political aftermaths of disasters has shown that formal change like the creation of institutions as well as informal change such as the mobilisation of civil society actors are likely to emerge after major crises. In the wake of the Tsunami in 2004, Indonesia has for example developed an early warning system, new........

© E-International