Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), as a system of allocative efficiency for global health programs, is an influential criterion for resource allocation in the context of diplomacy and inherent foreign policy decisions therein. This is because such programs have diplomatic benefits and costs that can be uploaded from the recipient and affect the broader foreign policy interests of the donor and the diplomacy landscape between both parties. These diplomatic implications are vital to the long-term success of both the immediate program and any subsequent programs; hence it is important to articulate them alongside program performance, in terms of how well their interrelated interventions were perceived by the communities served. Consequently, the exclusive focus of cost-effectiveness on medical outcomes ignores (1) the potential non-health benefits of less cost-effective interventions and (2) the potential of these collateral gains to form compelling cases across the interdisciplinary spectrum to increase the overall resource envelope for global health. The assessment utilizes the Kevany Riposte’s "K-Scores" methodology, which has been previously applied as a replicable evaluation tool1 and assesses the trade-offs of highly cost-effective but potentially "undiplomatic" global health interventions. Ultimately, we apply this approach to selected HIV/AIDS interventions to determine their wider benefits and demonstrate the value alternative evaluation and decision-making methodologies. Interventions with high "K-Scores" should be seriously considered for resource allocation independent of their cost-effectiveness. "Oregon Plan" thresholds2 are neither appropriate nor enforceable in this regard while "K-Score" results provide contextual information to policy-makers who may have, to date, considered only cost-effectiveness data. While CEA is a valuable tool for resource allocation, its use as a utilitarian focus should be approached with caution. Policy-makers and global health program managers should take into account a wide range of outcomes before agreeing upon selection and implementation.

This article examines the utilitarian approach to environmental law, evaluating its effectiveness in balancing economic development with ecological preservation. Through a detailed review of literature and analysis, we explore the ethical underpinnings, applications, and limitations of utilitarianism in environmental policy-making, alongside alternative ethical frameworks including ecocentrism, biocentrism, rights-based approaches, deontological ethics, and the Capability Approach. The methodology involves a comprehensive literature review, focusing on theoretical explorations and case studies that illustrate the utilitarian approach in action, as well as its criticisms and the corresponding strengths of alternative ethical perspectives. Our findings reveal that while the utilitarian approach offers a pragmatic framework for decision-making by emphasizing the maximization of overall welfare, it faces significant challenges. These include the potential for overlooking social inequities, difficulties in quantifying long-term ecological impacts, and a tendency to value nature solely for its utility to humans. In contrast, alternative ethical frameworks provide valuable insights into the intrinsic value of nature, the importance of considering rights and duties, and the need for policies that ensure fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. In conclusion, the article argues for a pluralistic and integrative approach to environmental governance. It suggests that drawing on the strengths of both utilitarian and alternative ethical frameworks can lead to more nuanced, just, and sustainable environmental laws and policies. This approach necessitates ongoing dialogue among diverse stakeholders, aiming to reconcile economic development with moral obligations to present and future generations, as well as the non-human world. Through such collaborative efforts, we can better navigate the complex ethical landscape of environmental conservation and governance.