The COVID-19 pandemic revealed alarming gaps in global health governance, demonstrating the urgent need for stronger international cooperation to tackle future health crises. In response, the World Health Organization (WHO) initiated the drafting of a pandemic treaty aimed at enhancing pandemic preparedness and response across borders. However, a recent study in The Journal of Public Health highlights significant shifts in the treaty’s guiding principles that could undermine the very values it was designed to uphold.
A Shift Toward Nationalism
The pandemic treaty was initially envisioned with a global approach, emphasizing international solidarity, equity, and shared responsibility. These values were intended to ensure that states cooperate not only for their own benefit but for the collective well-being of all people, regardless of nationality.
However, the latest draft of the treaty (April 2024) reveals a significant shift, with the principal of sovereignty elevated to the forefront. This change indicates that states may now prioritize national interests over collective global health goals. The researchers point out that this reorientation could hinder the global cooperation needed to address future pandemics effectively.
The Omission of Key Principles
Several key principles that were present in the 2022 draft, such as Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and community engagement, have been omitted from the final proposed agreement. This omission may signal a weakening of commitments to addressing health disparities, particularly those between high- and low-income countries. These principles were seen as vital for ensuring equitable access to resources and building public trust in global health initiatives.
Compromises in the Ethical Framework
The proposed revisions show a concerning trend of ethical dilution, where the commitment to global health justice has been compromised in favor of policies that are easier for states to accept. The authors argue that by softening the obligations related to equity and solidarity, the treaty risks becoming a “pandemic treaty lite” — one that is less about global cooperation and more about safeguarding national interests.
Implications for Global Health Security
By placing sovereignty at the center of the agreement, the revised treaty reflects a return to a pre-pandemic status quo where nationalism often trumps global health interests. The study highlights that this shift could lead to challenges similar to those faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as vaccine nationalism, where wealthier countries secured resources at the expense of lower-income nations. This undermines the principle of equitable access to health resources, a fundamental aspect of global health security.
Compromising Future Pandemic Preparedness
The treaty’s evolving focus on state interests over collective action may jeopardize future responses to pandemics. The lack of strong, enforceable commitments to global cooperation could delay coordinated efforts, hindering the timely distribution of resources and response measures. The study calls for greater scrutiny of the treaty’s provisions to ensure that it is not merely a diplomatic compromise but a tool for real, global health progress.
As negotiations continue, it is essential for policymakers to reflect on the treaty’s original vision and ensure that it prioritizes the health and well-being of all individuals, regardless of nationality.
READ MORE:
Anderson, E. M. R., Fenton, E., & Crump, J. A. Pandemic treaty textual analysis: ethics and public health implications. Journal of Public Health, 16 April 2025.