By Dipak Kurmi
After more than three years of intense negotiations and 13 exhaustive rounds of meetings, member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) have finally agreed on a draft of a legally binding pandemic treaty, a landmark accord designed to ensure better global preparedness and response in the face of future pandemics. This draft, hailed as a “significant milestone” by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is poised for ratification at the World Health Assembly in May. Despite its ambitious aims, the treaty’s strength and efficacy remain subjects of considerable debate among public health experts and policymakers.
The genesis of the pandemic treaty lies in the bitter lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic. Negotiations officially began in December 2021, during the surge of the highly contagious Omicron variant. By that time, glaring inequalities in vaccine distribution had come to the fore: wealthy nations had stockpiled millions of vaccine doses, while many lower-income countries struggled to obtain even minimal supplies. A 2022 study published by Nature estimated that over one million lives could have been saved if vaccines had been equitably shared, underscoring the moral and practical imperatives behind crafting a more coordinated global response.
The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, in its 2021 report, criticized the global handling of COVID-19 as a “toxic cocktail” of poor strategic choices, systemic inequalities, and uncoordinated efforts, culminating in a catastrophic human tragedy that claimed more than seven million lives worldwide. The treaty thus emerges from a global consensus that the world cannot afford to repeat the same mistakes. It seeks to create a framework that can mitigate loss of life, economic disruptions, and societal upheaval in the face of new pathogenic threats.
A central pillar of the draft treaty is the proposed “pathogen access and benefit sharing” (PABS) system. This mechanism aims to facilitate rapid and equitable access to pathogen-related information and biological materials, enabling pharmaceutical companies and research institutions to accelerate the development of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. In theory, the PABS system could democratize scientific discovery and ensure that no region is left behind when novel threats emerge.
However, while the agreement’s ambition is undeniable, its actual power is markedly limited. One of the treaty’s most glaring weaknesses is its inability to impose binding authority over national governments. Clause 24, paragraph three of the draft explicitly states, “Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter, or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws, as appropriate, or policies of any Party.” Furthermore, the treaty confirms that the WHO cannot enforce mandates related to travel bans, vaccination requirements, therapeutic protocols, or lockdown measures.
This non-coercive nature severely undermines the treaty’s effectiveness. In a repeat of the vaccine nationalism witnessed during the COVID-19 crisis, individual countries could, once again, prioritize their own populations over collective global needs, without fear of sanction. Pharmaceutical companies might hesitate to invest in research and production if there are no legally guaranteed mechanisms to protect their intellectual property or to ensure that their products reach all corners of the globe equitably.
Dr. David Reddy, Director General of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, emphasized the importance of safeguarding intellectual property rights, warning that without legal certainty and robust protections, the private sector’s motivation to innovate in response to emerging pathogens could wane. “Intellectual property protection and legal certainty are essential for the innovative-based pharmaceutical industry to invest in high-risk research and development and enable voluntary partnerships that we will need in the next pandemic,” Reddy explained.
Adding to the treaty’s vulnerability is the absence of the United States from the agreement. Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. had previously moved to withdraw from the WHO altogether, a stance that has significantly influenced its current disengagement from the pandemic treaty negotiations. Given America’s preeminent role in the global pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, its non-participation is a major blow to the treaty’s credibility and practical viability. Lawrence Gostin, a renowned specialist in health law and policy at Georgetown University, starkly put it: “There is no sugar coating it. The absence of the U.S. leaves a gaping hole.”
Without U.S. support, not only does the treaty lose substantial political and economic clout, but the likelihood of meaningful cooperation from the largest producers of vaccines and medical supplies also diminishes. In an interconnected world where pathogens cross borders with ease, unilateral actions and fragmented responses are recipes for disaster. The COVID-19 pandemic proved that in a global health crisis, no country can truly stand alone.
Moreover, the operationalization of the PABS system remains murky. How pathogens will be shared, under what legal frameworks, who will oversee compliance, and how benefits such as vaccines and therapeutics will be equitably distributed—all these crucial details remain undefined. The success of the system depends heavily on trust, transparency, and mutual commitment among nations, qualities that were sorely lacking during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The WHO’s pandemic treaty does succeed in symbolizing a collective recognition of the need for a more just and resilient global health architecture. Yet symbolism alone will not save lives when the next crisis strikes. The hard realities of geopolitics, economic interests, and national sovereignty continue to impede the creation of truly binding global health instruments.
There are calls among experts for future iterations of the treaty to address these gaps. Binding commitments to share vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics during pandemics, clear guidelines for the operation of PABS, and frameworks for equitable access based on public health needs rather than purchasing power must be at the center of any meaningful reform. Additionally, mechanisms for independent monitoring, accountability, and enforcement—perhaps through sanctions or incentives—should be explored to ensure compliance without undermining national sovereignty.
While the draft pandemic treaty marks a historic step forward—the WHO’s only second legally binding treaty after the 2003 tobacco control agreement—it remains, at best, an imperfect and incomplete shield against future health crises. The journey toward a safer, more equitable global health system has begun, but its success will depend on bridging the substantial gaps between aspiration and action. Without stronger commitments, greater inclusivity, and enforceable agreements, the world risks facing the next pandemic with the same vulnerabilities that COVID-19 so devastatingly exposed. The world cannot afford to let this fragile pact be another missed opportunity in humanity’s ongoing battle against global health threats.
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
