What Next After WHO Pandemic Agreement?

[Chief]

The World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement (attached), adopted on May 20, 2025, during the 78th World Health Assembly, marks a significant milestone in global health governance. This legally binding pact, initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic and negotiated over three years, aims to enhance preparedness and response to future pandemics while addressing inequities exposed by previous crises.



The agreement was approved by Committee A on May 19, 2025, and formally adopted in a plenary session on May 20, 2025, with 124 votes in favor, no objections, and 11 abstentions. This process, launched under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, reflects a global commitment to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, following the devastating impacts of COVID-19.

Key Components and Detailed Breakdown​

The agreement encompasses several critical elements, each with specific implications:

• Objectives and Principles:
  The primary objectives are to prevent pandemics, improve response capabilities, and foster collaboration among countries, WHO, civil society, and the private sector. Principles include respect for human dignity, equity, solidarity, sovereignty, and evidence-based decisions, as outlined in the preamble and Article 3.
• Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS):
  This system ensures equitable access to pathogens and benefits, such as vaccines and treatments. Pharmaceutical companies must provide 20% of real-time production to WHO, with distribution based on public health risk and need, prioritizing developing countries. This addresses inequities seen during COVID-19, where access was uneven.
• Financial and Logistical Mechanisms:
  A Coordinating Financial Mechanism mobilizes resources for pandemic efforts, while the Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL) ensures timely and equitable access to health products, particularly for developing nations. These systems aim to prevent supply chain disruptions during crises.
• Implementation and Alignment:
  The agreement aligns with the International Health Regulations (IHR), amended in 2024, and will enter into force after 60 ratifications, following a signature and ratification process. This ensures a structured approach to global implementation.
• Sovereignty and Autonomy:
  The agreement explicitly reaffirms national sovereignty, with Article 3.1 stating the sovereign right of states to legislate within their jurisdiction and Article 12.1 recognizing rights over biological resources. Crucially, Article 22.2 clarifies that WHO has no authority to direct, order, or prescribe national laws or policies, nor mandate actions like travel bans, vaccination mandates, or lockdowns. This preserves national autonomy, ensuring countries retain control over their health decisions.
• Human Rights and Equity:
  Article 3.2 emphasizes full respect for dignity, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the right to development, with a focus on non-discrimination and protecting vulnerable populations. The preamble recalls conventions like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, integrating human rights into pandemic responses.
• Emergency Measures and Restrictions:
  Article 14.4 stipulates that emergency trade measures must be targeted, proportionate, transparent, and temporary, ensuring they do not create unnecessary barriers to trade or disrupt supply chains. This limits potential restrictions, focusing on balanced and necessary actions.

Implications for National Autonomy​

The agreement’s structure suggests it does not compromise national autonomy. By affirming sovereignty and limiting WHO’s role, it ensures nations can make their own health policy decisions. Official statements, such as those from the WHO, confirm the agreement does not grant sovereignty to WHO, addressing concerns about potential overreach.

Rights, Restrictions, and Sanctions​

The agreement does not mention sanctions for non-compliance, focusing on voluntary cooperation and capacity-building. Article 3.2’s emphasis on human rights and freedoms, alongside references to international conventions, suggests rights are protected, not restricted. The KFF analysis notes there is no mechanism for punishing member states, reinforcing that arbitrary sanctions are not part of the framework. This reduces risks to people’s lives, prioritizing equitable access and global solidarity.

Safeguards Against Tyrants and Self-Interests​

While the agreement does not explicitly address tyrants or self-interests, its design provides implicit safeguards. The voluntary nature, with countries required to ratify individually, ensures participation aligns with national interests. Sovereignty clauses (Articles 3.1, 12.1, 22.2) prevent any entity, including WHO, from overriding national decisions. The cooperative structure, fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders, acts as a check against domination by any single actor.

Learnings and Broader Implications​

The negotiation process, taking over three years, underscores the complexity of aligning global interests, highlighting the need for proactive engagement during non-crisis periods. The focus on equity, as seen in PABS and GSCL, addresses past inequities, suggesting future pandemics must prioritize resource distribution to prevent prolonged impacts. The integration of human rights principles sets a precedent for ethical global health governance, balancing security with individual freedoms.

Table: Key Provisions and Implications​

Provision	Details	Implication
Sovereignty (Article 3.1, 12.1)	Affirms states' right to legislate and control biological resources.	Protects national autonomy, prevents overreach.
WHO Authority (Article 22.2)	WHO cannot mandate actions like lockdowns or travel bans.	Ensures nations retain control over policies.
Human Rights (Article 3.2)	Emphasizes dignity, freedoms, and non-discrimination.	Safeguards individual rights during crises.
PABS and GSCL	Ensures equitable access to health products, prioritizing developing countries.	Addresses inequities, saves lives globally.
Emergency Measures (Article 14.4)	Trade measures must be targeted, proportionate, and temporary.	Limits arbitrary restrictions, ensures balance.

Summary of critical aspects, illustrating how the agreement balances global cooperation with national sovereignty.

Conclusion​

After COVID19, many issues were raised on how the situation was handled. People's eyes were opened to the fragility of life and freedom. People became aware of how being dependent on a system could curtail their freedoms and how things we depend on could be easily taken away in an instant. There was no strategy, we kind of groped in the dark to find our way out. Lessons were learnt.

In the light of this new agreement, what does it spell for your freedom of self-determination? Do you read any sinister motive?