China’s reproductive policies, including the One-Child, Two-Child, and Three-Child Policies, have been widely criticized for violating women’s reproductive rights through coercive enforcement measures such as forced abortion, sterilization, and employment discrimination. This Article argues that these policies violate international human rights law, particularly the right to freely determine the number and spacing of children as protected under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Despite international scrutiny, China has largely resisted direct responses to criticisms from treaty-based and charter-based human rights monitoring bodies, including the CEDAW Committee, the Universal Periodic Review and Special Procedures under the United Nations Human Rights Council. However, international pressure has had some influence, compelling China to make limited policy adjustments, such as abolishing explicit penalties for exceeding the birth quota and taking some measures to address employment discrimination. This Article further evaluates the effectiveness of existing international enforcement mechanisms and proposes additional strategies to enhance their impact. It suggests that human rights monitoring bodies should directly challenge China’s justification that population control policies are necessary for economic development and emphasize the equal importance of all human rights, including reproductive rights, under international law. By increasing international scrutiny and directly refuting China’s justifications, human rights institutions can exert greater pressure to prompt meaningful policy changes and enhance the protection of reproductive rights in China.

The global tuberculosis (TB) response is at a crossroads. In recent years, new ideas, technologies, and political commitments have reinvigorated the fight against this age-old disease that kills more people each year than HIV and malaria combined. But with key indicators just beginning to recover after moving in the wrong direction during the COVID-19 pandemic, hard-earned gains are at stake. In this rejuvenated yet challenging context, we critically review an idea and practice at the heart of the TB response—directly observed therapy or DOT. First, we explore DOT’s controversial method and history as a component of the World Health Organization’s recommended TB strategy. Second, we outline a rights-based disease response and examine DOT through the lens of human rights and related principles. Third, we review the evidence for DOT’s effectiveness. Fourth, we highlight DOT’s most salient and enduring problems. Finally, we propose two essential principles for the way forward to protect and promote the rights of people affected by TB.