Editing Implications of the Pandemic, Part 1 (section)

==== Challenge to Sovereignty? ====
Public health policy is the sovereign subject and function of nations, and though the treaty reiterates this fact, it also attempts to impose obligations on the member states and direct the actions of governments during a period of vulnerability, drawing concern. The powers of the WHO, delineated by its Constitution, are restricted to its authority to undertake international health work. WHO necessarily does not hold jurisdiction over national health work, therefore, the organization or its staff cannot enforce decisions such as imposing lockdowns, mandating vaccinations, or dictating the opening or closing of borders, as such decisions remain within the sovereign domain of each nation. However, the recommendations of the WHO and its treaties so formulated, run the risk of superseding the recommendations of the national level health organizations and policy making advisory bodies.

At the Health and Democracy Conference held at the EU Parliament, Strasburg on 13 September, 2023, Philipp Kruse, one of the lawyers involved in the citizens’ initiative, delivered a speech urging the EU to reject the WHO’s treaty. One of the crucial arguments stated by Kruse, through his reading of the agreement, was that the treaty was an attempt at expanding the powers of the WHO permanently over the sovereignty of 195 member states nations and the self-determination of peoples. The proposed contents of the treaty and changes to the IHR (International Health Regulations) can be seen as intrusive. Moreover, he criticized the phrase “One Health” (from Article 5 of the draft, which seeks to incorporate environmental and animal health factors into public health) as being vague and indeterminate, which is problematic since many an obligation may be read into the phrase at a later stage, either by the WHO itself, while formulating rules/guidelines, or even, by the International Court of Justice which is tasked with the interpretation of treaties to settle disputes. Further potential risks outlined by Kruse were that WHO would, through the treaty, declare states of health emergencies, recommendations, etc. and acquire the right to impose globally/regionally public emergency restrictions, lockdowns, surveillance (to identity zoonotic outbreaks, as mentioned in , and experimental treatments (Article 18 of the draft). Moreover, the WHO would gain the right to declare information as being related to health, and claim sole proprietorship of all such health and vaccine-related information, apart from being able to interfere in social communications and engage in censorship.

The WHO lacks critical institutional structures for financial management, transparency, and accountability, and therefore, as a unelected and undemocratic body, the expansion of its powers and ability to dictate the health policy of sovereign nations is rightly seen as an alarming change (the same criticism may be extrapolated to the United Nations and the corpus of international law as a whole, as well). Once a treaty has been accepted and ratified by the member states, it imposes certain responsibilities and obligations on the states that are irreversible — and acquire more force with the passage of time — which more powerful nations often forsake without consequences but weaker nations more often than not must obey.