How should we think the relation between ideal theory and non-ideal theorization when we consider arguments in favor of global health with justice, such as Gostin coins the expression in his latest book (2014)? One of the most salient features of the non-ideal world is the fact that states are driven by prudential motives and self-interest. Insofar as the development of international health discourse has been driven by the “securitization” of health issues in the name of national and international security, can we afford to rely solely on moral arguments in order to foster greater global health cooperation? Skeptics of the human right to health movement have reasons to doubt it. However, it is as important to acknowledge that the prudential/instrumental take on health issues in order to internalize international cooperation within state’s domestic and foreign policies is a problematic approach yielding limited results in terms of global health outcomes.
