The WHO pandemic treaty in the crossfire: sovereignty, freedom of expression and direct democracy on the brink

Critical elements of the WHO pandemic agreement in relation to state sovereignty, freedom of expression and direct democracy

1. Risk of restriction of national sovereignty through Articles 1 and 2 of the WHO pandemic agreement: Centralised control through the WHO pandemic agreement could place national health strategies and production capacities under international control, which would significantly restrict the sovereignty of states. By setting global standards and specifications for technology transfers and "know-how", states could be forced to relinquish their autonomy in preparing for and managing the pandemic.
   • Article 1 of the WHO pandemic agreement defines key terms such as "manufacturer" and "PABS materials", which could lead to international regulation of resources. The provisions on technology transfers and "know-how" (Art. 1(j) and (k)) could place national technologies and production capacities of countries such as Switzerland under international control and impair national sovereignty in this area.
   • Article 2 aims to establish centralised global governance to prevent and respond to pandemics. This could undermine national health strategies as decisions are made at the international level that may not align with the priorities of individual states. In combination, these regulations could take away states' autonomy in pandemic preparedness and response and lead to a forced alignment with global standards.
2. Supranationality over national lawsThe WHO is appointed as the authoritative body that can also influence the national laws and measures of the member states. This could lead to a surrender of national sovereignty, as WHO decisions could take precedence over national law.
   • Article 3(1)"The sovereign claim of states..." is up for discussion.
3. Control over data and researchThe far-reaching powers to collect and control scientific data, particularly in the areas of health research and patents, may dictate to countries how they manage their own data. This could raise concerns about transparency and trust in democratic processes.
   • Article 11Transfer of technology and expertise"; clear framework conditions for the use of data should be defined.
4. Centralised system for access to pathogens and equitable benefit sharing (PABS): The PABS system could become a centralised power structure that controls access to biological resources globally and undermines the national sovereignty of states. In addition, the PABS system could come into conflict with national and international laws, particularly in relation to biosafety, export controls and data protection, and there is a risk of misuse or inefficient utilisation of resources without sufficient accountability. Of particular concern is the possibility of technological and biotechnological resources from high-potential countries (such as Switzerland) being made available to multinational companies. This could lead to a shift in competitive advantages in favour of global players and jeopardise national interests.
   • Article 12Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS)
5. Distribution of roles in an emergencyWHO is given extensive control rights during pandemic emergencies, potentially leading to a prevalence of centralised power and depriving local governments of their decision-making abilities.
   • Article 13Global supply chains and logistics to ensure access to medical products.
6. Protection of freedom of expressionSome of the measures, such as universal access to public health, could hinder the exchange of uncomfortable opinions and debates. For example, under the pretext of health protection, critical voices that deviate from the official WHO line could be suppressed or stigmatised.
   • Article 18"Strengthening science and health awareness...", which could potentially be used to crack down on dissent.
7. Financial pressure at national levelThe requirement for countries to continuously mobilise resources and guarantee their financial means could force states to make decisions in accordance with the WHO, regardless of their own political or economic priorities. As a wealthy country, Switzerland would have to make particularly high contributions here.
   • Article 20Sustainable financing and coordination.
8. Dangers of the COP (Conference of the Parties) and risks of a centralised power structure: The COP could become a shadow government that undermines national sovereignty. Its non-transparent decision-making processes could enable uncontrolled influence. By creating subsidiary bodies, it could establish uncontrollable structures that restrict the freedom of action of states. In addition, control over financial resources could lead to inefficient use of resources, while COP decisions could come into conflict with national laws or international regulations.
   • Article 21Establishment of the Conference of the Parties (COP)
9. Who can make decisions? Decision-making within the WHO could override or undermine requirements for majority approval, which calls into question the principle of direct democracy. It is unclear whether all votes are equal or whether larger organisations have more influence.
   • Article 22Voting rights regulations for regional organisations.
10. Legal provisions on dispute resolutionThe article on the settlement of disputes could lack transparency and thus work against access to legal justice in the event of a conflict. Unclear rules allow the WHO to dominate the process and marginalise national institutions.
    • Article 25"Dispute resolution" through diplomatic channels without clear deadlines.

These points together paint a picture that raises serious concerns about national sovereignty, freedom of expression and direct democratic practices. While the World Health Organisation aims to set a global standard for health and safety, the more critical debate remains necessary to ensure that this does not come at the expense of the fundamental rights of member states and their citizens.

With the Sovereignty Initiative we could stop treaties with supranational organisations such as the WHO and preserve the sovereignty of our country.

Sources:
The current WHO pandemic treaty: Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement
The current changes to the WHO pandemic treaty, which were discussed in Geneva in November: Report of the meeting (27 November 2024)