The upcoming vote in Geneva, Switzerland in late May of this year will determine the acceptance of two documents that aim to revolutionize international public health and the response to emergencies declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General. The proposed Pandemic Agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) seek to establish legally binding agreements requiring States to follow WHO recommendations on human rights and healthcare.
Despite the potential impact on health, economies, and human rights, these agreements are still being negotiated less than seven weeks before the scheduled vote. Rushing the process without allowing countries enough time to assess the implications is concerning, especially considering the lack of evidence supporting the urgent need for these measures.
While the agreements are being framed as promoting equity, the rushed timeline risks excluding States with fewer resources from participating fully in the development process. This approach echoes colonial-era practices and undermines the principles of equity and respect for States’ rights.
A group of legal experts has called for a postponement of the adoption deadline to ensure the integrity of the process and respect for the rule of law. The current rushed approach risks institutionalizing confusing legal regimes that may not adequately address the unique needs and contexts of individual States.
The open letter addressed to the WHO Director-General and other relevant parties highlights the need for transparency, equity, and lawful procedures in the development of these agreements. It emphasizes the importance of extending the deadline to allow for a more thorough and inclusive process that considers the diverse needs of all countries involved. On March 2, 2023, the issue was brought to the attention of WHO’s Principal Legal Officer, Dr. Steven Solomon. He stated that the 4-month requirement of Article 55(2) did not apply since the draft amendments originated from a subdivision of the WHA. However, this interpretation disregards the fact that Article 55(2) does not specify which entity proposes the amendments. Additionally, the Terms of Reference of the IHR Review Committee set a timeline for the WGIHR’s work to submit proposed amendments to the Director-General by January 2024. Violating the IHR could lead to international responsibility for the organization and individuals involved.
The processes of the WGIHR and the new Pandemic Treaty are intertwined and cannot be separated. The new Pandemic Agreement cannot be adopted before revising the IHR, as it must align with the revised structure, scope, and institutions of the IHR. Clarity is needed on the competences and relationships between the treaty bodies and Member States to avoid disruption.
Equity and democratic legitimacy are crucial in the negotiation processes. Member States require at least four months to review proposed amendments and seek political approval. The lack of representation from low- and middle-income countries in the negotiation processes introduces inequity and undermines fairness.
Claims of urgency in developing new pandemic management instruments have been deemed exaggerated. The evidence shows that the risk of outbreaks is not increasing, and changes must be carefully considered to address the diverse public health priorities across Member States.
An appeal is made not to adopt the IHR amendments or the Pandemic Agreement at the 77th WHA. Following U.N. principles and conducting negotiations in good faith is essential to maintain the integrity of the law-making process.
It is urged that the WHO and its Member States uphold the rule of law and ensure fairness in input and deliberation. Extending deadlines will allow for a more comprehensive legal framework for pandemic prevention aligned with international norms.
The article can be signed by the public at OpenLetter-WHO.com to support equity, evidence-based policy making, and fairness in international public health. Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
