World Health Organization (WHO) member countries are in the process of negotiating a new communicable diseases treaty to address future pandemics. Not yet Claire Wenham, Mark Eccleston-Turner and harry upton However, it is unclear how the treaty will be integrated with existing legal instruments.
In 2021, World Health Organization (WHO) member countries will simultaneously begin negotiations on two overlapping (and potentially conflicting) documents aimed at revising the International Health Regulations (IHR) and a new document, the Pandemic Convention. I did it. A Pandemic Agreement is a convention, agreement or other international instrument intended to “strengthen prevention, preparedness and response to pandemics” under the World Health Organization’s constitution.
In practice, ensuring that the two tools are harmonized, that they complement each other and, more importantly, that no conflicts arise, has been a particularly difficult challenge. This is especially important considering that members of these tools can vary significantly. IHR is predictable. near Although universally adopted by WHO Member States, this is unlikely to be the case for the Pandemic Agreement.
IHR amendments were most recently agreed at the World Health Assembly in May 2024, but negotiations on the pandemic treaty continue in earnest, with the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) now set to complete its work “as soon as possible” . A final report on progress is expected no later than the next World Health Assembly in 2025. Now that the content of the IHR has been revised, negotiators have the opportunity to ensure proper harmonization across the two documents.
Pandemic emergency due to pandemic treaty
There were sporadic references to the concept of a “pandemic emergency” throughout the Pandemic Treaty negotiations, with the first mention appearing in the draft text in June 2023. In many of these references, decisions regarding pandemic emergencies include: The WHO Director-General (authority granted by the 2024 IHR) will act as a trigger to ensure that specific actions or activities are carried out in the context of the Pandemic Treaty.
The March 2024 draft includes 12 references to the pandemic emergency across six articles. Some of these references call for investments in “interdisciplinary emergency health teams” that can be deployed during “pandemic emergencies,” or measures designed to improve responses during pandemic outbreaks, such as efforts to protect safety and security. It’s related. Number of healthcare workers during pandemic emergencies.
A further article sought to impose an obligation on the World Health Organization (WHO) to “work to improve access to products related to infectious diseases through the transfer of technology and know-how, including through cooperation with relevant international organizations, especially in situations of infectious disease emergencies.”
Other articles have guided parties on best practices related to government-funded purchase agreements for “pandemic emergency response-related products” and sought to strengthen regulatory authority and response action deployment processes for “pandemic emergency response-related products” . -Deficiency compensation mechanisms and strategies for liability management during pandemic emergencies”. These have all been major obstacles to ensuring equitable access to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic and are likely to reappear in future pandemics.
The additional provisions seek to increase transparency about government-funded research and development for medical countermeasures during pandemic emergencies and to develop “agreements that promote equitable and timely access to such products during pandemic emergencies.” I did it.
The final reference to “pandemic emergencies” in the March 2024 draft relating to research and development requires States Parties to the Treaty to “continue to invest…in development in the event of a pandemic emergency.” It is worth noting that each of these references explicitly refers to an infectious disease emergency and not to a “public health emergency of international concern”, which is referenced elsewhere as a separate trigger for taking specific action under the Treaty.
However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the revised Pandemic Agreement drafted just a month later, in April 2024, makes no mention of a ‘pandemic emergency’ or a ‘pandemic emergency’. This means that in a matter of a month, negotiators went from a working draft with a clear operational link to the pandemic emergency system incorporated in the revised IHR to a draft that appears to have completely abandoned this link.
Remarkably, the draft text submitted to the World Health Assembly in May 2024 restored pandemic emergency language to the treaty text. As a result, it is unclear whether the IHR’s new pandemic emergency mechanism will have legal or practical links with the new pandemic treaty.
The need for consistency
The removal and reinsertion of pandemic emergency language in the draft Pandemic Treaty creates much uncertainty about the relationship between the Treaty and the newly revised IHR.
While it is clear from previous drafts that negotiators had envisioned a significant operational role for the pandemic emergency concept within the agreement, its removal “overnight” from the text raises questions about the extent to which a declaration of a pandemic emergency will have any impact. On the operation of the Pandemic Treaty.
This uncertainty was further exacerbated by the sudden reappearance of pandemic emergency language in the May treaty draft. Considering that the IHR is the main international legal instrument related to health emergencies, it is important for the INB to draft and work on a draft text that has a clear relationship to the IHR. with On the contrary, I am against it.
Note: This article gives the views of the author and not the position of EUROPP (European Politics and Policy) or the London School of Economics. Main image source: Nikon 1 /Shutterstock.com
