{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019970951343500364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014524328249818446, 'mean_word_length': 5.528436018957346, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (2005)

evident during the negotiations that while developed countries were mostly interested in the international aspects of the convention that could have the strongest impact on the tobacco market, developing countries fought the hardest for domestic measures which, as some negotiators argued, did not require international regulation by their nature (e.g., second-hand smoking, liability of tobacco companies, and sales of tobacco products by and to minors). By pushing for strong "domestic measures" in the convention, ministries of health tried to gain leverage within their respective governments with respect to stronger national interests through the device of international legal obligations. Secondly, as noted before with respect to international health law in general, the FCTC interacts with several other areas of international law and its effectiveness largely depends on how different regimes and measures will be reconciled in practice in case of conflicts. As usual, the WTO agreements loom large: just think of the impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on the restriction of international advertising of tobacco products, the interaction between the Agreement on technical carriers to trade and FCTC-based measures on labeling or product regulation, or how the prohibition to use expressions such as "light" or "mild" cigarettes may affect the right to trademarks provided for in the TRIPS Agreement. What general conclusions can we draw for the future of international health law? First'of all, we can expect an ongoing tension between the need for international regulation, especially in the age of globalization, and the inherent difficulties I described before at regulating issues beyond infectious disease control. Two problematic areas that are currently being discussed as requiring a normative approach are the control of the harmful effects of alcohol consumption and the migration of health personnel from developing to developed countries. Secondly, it is far from settled that new rule-setting initiatives will be launched in WHO. It is indicative that the recent negotiations on treaties on reproductive cloning and the human rights of persons with disabilities, respectively, have been held in the United Nations General Assembly rather than WHO's Assembly. Thirdly, there is arguably already enough "law in the books" for most areas of international relations having an impact on public health—if this is correct, WHO's challenge may be more in cooperating with other international bodies to ensure that public health imperatives are properly considered and addressed than in trying to develop new international legal instruments.