It is about surrendering sovereignty.

jearungby
Jun 18
2 min read

What does the WHO's new pandemic treaty say?

By Jeanne Rungby, specialist.

The WHO's international pandemic treaty, adopted in May 2025 by the World Health Assembly, aims to coordinate global responses to health crises. It emphasizes "collaboration, transparency and preparedness," but these are just words and surface language.

What is reality?

The actual content of this treaty, which has not yet been ratified, raises serious concerns regarding

· national sovereignty,

· corporate influence and

· democratic control.

Main points

The purpose of the treaty is to establish a legally binding framework for countries to share information and resources and coordinate efforts during pandemics, including provisions on early detection, data sharing, access to vaccines, and WHO-led coordination.

The controversial aspects include:

· access to pathogens and

· benefit sharing (PABS),

· intellectual property rights and

· expanded powers for the WHO in emergency situations, which could potentially override local legislation.

Ratification process: Requires ratification by 60 countries to enter into force, 30 days after the 60th ratification. Key annexes, such as the PABS, are still under negotiation and are expected to be finalized in 2026.

Countries that abstained: 11 countries (e.g. Iran, Russia, Slovakia and the Netherlands) abstained, citing:

· concerns about sovereignty,

· vague wording and

· intellectual property rights issues.

The concerns can be clarified:

· Erosion of national sovereignty and local control over health policy.

· Lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.

· Favoring pharmaceutical monopolies, which limits access to generic drugs.

· Privacy risks through expanded data sharing powers.

· Potential enforcement mechanisms, such as sanctions for non-compliance.

It is time for the following to happen:

· We demand a public debate on parliamentary control.

· The extent of corporate lobbying must be made public

· Awareness must be raised about the consequences for the healthcare system and civil liberties.

· We must work for the postponement or rejection of ratification until justice and sovereignty are ensured.

· Promote international solidarity among nations that oppose.

· Media, lawyers and activists must be involved to challenge the treaty.

This is therefore a call for strategic resistance and public debate.

Conclusion: The treaty is formulated as a tool to protect public health, but risks centralizing power in the hands of the WHO and corporate interests, which could undermine national autonomy and public rights. With ratification not expected until 2026 at the earliest, civil society has time to resist and demand a treaty that prioritizes public interests over corporate and bureaucratic control.

Read more from author and lawyer Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, World Council for Health