In a move hailed by its architects as a “historic turning point” for global health cooperation, the World Health Assembly has formally adopted the world’s first-ever Pandemic Agreement – a legally binding framework intended to prevent the catastrophic missteps that marred the global response to COVID-19.
The agreement, years in the making, commits all 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) to share data, resources and vaccine technologies in the event of future pandemics. Its backers argue that the treaty will shore up international solidarity, bolster early warning systems, and ensure that life-saving medical interventions are distributed fairly – not just hoarded by the richest countries.
Yet the fanfare in Geneva masked mounting tensions beneath the surface. While WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus lauded the agreement as “a triumph of multilateralism,” critics have warned that the treaty’s vague enforcement mechanisms, coupled with creeping global governance, risk undermining national sovereignty without guaranteeing real preparedness.
At the heart of the agreement lies a commitment to equitable access to diagnostics, vaccines and treatments – a principle whose absence during the COVID-19 pandemic led to yawning disparities between the Global North and South.
Under the new accord, countries are required to share genome sequences of emerging pathogens in real time, and to contribute a proportion of medical supplies to a WHO-coordinated global stockpile. Wealthier nations will also be expected to transfer know-how and manufacturing technologies to developing countries under what is being called the “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing” system.
But while such mechanisms were designed to level the playing field, several countries – particularly from the G7 – have expressed unease over intellectual property provisions and the potential for WHO overreach.
India and Brazil, both manufacturing powerhouses, have voiced concern that their pharmaceutical sectors could be coerced into unfavourable technology transfers, while receiving little reciprocal access to innovation from Europe or the US.
“This is not just about public health – it’s about geopolitics, patents and power,” said Dr Vinita Kulkarni, a health policy analyst at the Centre for Global Governance in Delhi. “The danger is that the treaty becomes another mechanism for the powerful to dictate terms while preaching equity.”
Perhaps most controversially, the agreement obliges governments to adopt WHO guidance as the “coordinating authority” during international health emergencies – a clause that has triggered fierce debate, particularly among libertarian-leaning governments and campaigners wary of ceding control to an unelected global body.
In the United Kingdom, a group of 37 MPs led by Sir John Redwood have called for a parliamentary debate on whether the treaty infringes upon British sovereignty. “We cannot hand over national decision-making on lockdowns, vaccine policy or border controls to an international agency,” Sir John said. “Pandemic preparedness must not mean surrendering our democratic institutions.”
The WHO has attempted to allay such concerns, insisting that the agreement “respects the sovereignty of member states,” and that implementation remains voluntary unless states choose to codify it in domestic law.
Despite the controversy, there is little doubt that the pandemic agreement is a response to the glaring failures of the COVID-19 era: fragmented data, vaccine nationalism, and sluggish coordination.
Dr Tedros described the deal as a chance to “break the cycle of panic and neglect” that has long characterised global responses to outbreaks. “We must not wait until the next crisis to fix the cracks in our system,” he said during the closing session of the assembly.
Still, analysts warn that the treaty’s success will depend less on words than on willpower.
“Treaties are only as strong as the political commitment behind them,” said Professor Margaret Liu, a public health law expert at the University of Oxford. “What’s needed now is funding, trust, and a genuine willingness to act on shared obligations – not just sign them.”
As the ink dries on the WHO’s new pandemic accord, the world is left grappling with an uncomfortable truth: while the global health system may be more coordinated on paper, the fractures of nationalism, distrust, and competing interests remain as sharp as ever. Whether this treaty binds or unravels those threads will be the ultimate test of its legacy.
Main Image:
