There has been some confusion in recent weeks as to the timeline and status of proposed amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations, and in particular as to the significance of December 1st 2023. I aim here to clarify the situation and to signal next steps for those of us concerned by the inertia of our parliamentarians in the face of the WHO’s extraordinary ambitions.
Key concerns
A full analysis of the WHO’s original proposals — the only version currently published by the WHO — can be found in this lawyer-prepared briefing note which also addresses concerns stemming from the financial arrangements of the predominantly privately-funded WHO.
The WHO is expected to release new drafts of the legal texts imminently, but as currently drafted the amendments to the IHR and the new Pandemic Preparedness Treaty propose to grant significant new powers of direction and resource allocation to be exercised by the WHO during and in anticipation of international public health emergencies.
The proposals as published would empower the WHO to give binding directions to individual member states and regions, or globally, spanning a broad range of areas including: mandating financial contributions to fund pandemic response activities; overriding and potentially accelerating national safety approval processes for vaccines, gene-based therapies, medical devices and diagnostics; restricting citizens from travelling; and — astonishingly — requiring citizens to quarantine and undergo mandatory testing or even vaccination. The current published draft of the new Treaty includes provisions pursuant to which the WHO could in principle impose significant public spending commitments on member states including the U.K.
To date the IHRs have been structured so as only to grant the WHO the power to issue expressly non-binding recommendations. Unlike the EU legal regime, in which regulations issued at European level can have direct legal effect, binding on citizens and businesses as a domestic national legal matter, the WHO framework would operate slightly differently, albeit with the same intended effect. Specifically, as currently framed, the IHRs would empower the WHO to issue directions which would be binding on member states as a matter of international law, and which would oblige those member states then to implement and enforce the relevant measures at national level.
The significance of this change can barely be overstated, rewiring the relationship between national governments and the WHO and hardwiring into international law a top-down, paternalistic approach to public health. Additional provisions would give the WHO strengthened institutional capacity to globally coordinate and prevent the spread of mis- and dis-information transforming the WHO, effectively, into a a turbo-charged global censorship agency.
With the exception of a small handful of MPs, the majority of U.K. parliamentarians have so far remained oblivious to the threat these proposals signal for U.K. democracy and national autonomy. A reasonable and welcome intervention by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, Steve Brine MP, over the summer was met by an astonishingly evasive response from Health Minister Steve Barclay MP. You can see that exchange, and UsForThem’s letter explaining our continuing concerns, here.
Making this yet more troubling is the fact that suggestions that the proposals stand to make the WHO’s pandemic pronouncements legally binding under international law risk being labelled ‘disinformation’. See for example this ‘fact check’ from the Associated Press, which misleading focuses on the Pandemic Treaty to establish its ‘fact check’ conclusion, while ignoring entirely the proposals to grant powers to issue legally-binding recommendations clearly set out in the main package of original IHR amendments. The counter-suggestion used in that and other articles that the WHO could not in any event enforce against a member state which breached an international law obligation under the new Treaty or the IHRs rings hollow too, as national governments tend to avoid routinely breaching international legal obligations because doing so has serious collateral implications for, e.g., the cost of public borrowing. These types of ‘fact check’ are, in my opinion as a lawyer, misleading and in most cases manifestly incorrect.
Whilst it is the case that any proposals still in draft form might change, the legal effect of the drafts as published is to give the WHO new explicitly binding powers. Among the amendments proposed for the IHRs is a change to the definition of the categories of ‘recommendation’ which the WHO is empowered to issue, explicitly removing the words “non-binding” in each case, and supplementing this with a commitment that WHO member states “undertake to follow” those directions. Although provisions in the pre-amble to the draft Pandemic Preparedness Treaty purport to recognise and assert the primacy of national sovereignty, those preamble statements conflict with the substantive provisions of both draft texts insofar as they envisage the WHO being able to issue directions which member states would — as a matter of international law — be committed to implement.
The December deadline
The December 1st deadline concerned a narrow but significant amendment which the World Health Assembly, at the initiative of the USA, adopted at its meeting in May 2022.
The so-called ‘Article 59 amendment’ shortens the period in which WHO member states are required to give notice that they plan to reject any amendment to the IHRs, from 18 months to 10 months. Though pockets of resistance to the WHO’s ambitions appear now to be growing, the Article 59 amendment looks to have been widely accepted by WHO member states and should therefore become legally effective for most, if not all, including the U.K. and the U.S., in time for the next World Health Assembly in May 2024.
As regards the main package of substantive amendments to the IHRs, which are being negotiated alongside the proposal for a new Pandemic Preparedness Treaty among WHO member states, that package remains under negotiation and the December 1st deadline has no immediate relevance for the negotiation process.
Pockets of resistance
In the weeks leading up to the December deadline, news broke across social media platforms of a series of countries apparently rejecting the WHO’s proposals. In some cases this has involved groups of parliamentarians or other representatives writing to their respective government officials; in others it appears to have involved Government ministers and leaders themselves expressing doubts about the WHO’s ambitions.
What is not yet clear is which if any WHO member state governments in fact submitted notices of a decision to reject and opt out of the Article 59 amendment.
In Estonia, for example, it has been widely publicised that 11 MPs wrote directly to the WHO to express their rejection of not only the Article 59 amendment but also the broader package of IHR amendments and the parallel Pandemic Preparedness Treaty. The legal status of that letter in Estonia is presently unclear, however, because (as reported by journalist Simon Ameba) though the letter purported to exercise Estonia’s right to opt out, it was apparently signed by just 11 of the 101 members of the Estonian parliament.
In Slovakia, the recently re-elected Prime Minister Robert Fico is reported as having said during his party’s conference that his Government will not sign up to the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty, but again whether this reflects the Slovak Government’s official position, and whether Slovakia has expressed its position to the WHO in any formal sense, is not yet clear.
Perhaps most significantly, New Zealand appears to have lodged an urgent reservation with the WHO, in the form of a letter stating that the country will not yet support amendments to the International Health Regulations; effectively a stalling process to allow the incoming Government more time to consider whether the amendments are consistent with a ‘national interest test’ required by New Zealand law. What this might mean in practice is hard to discern: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon on one occasion seemed to play down its significance saying “as a new Government, [we] want to be able to take a pause and make sure that it meets a national interest test”, adding that this would not necessarily result in rejection but that “we’re just saying there’s a decision that needs to be made”. However, according to the same report the New Zealand Health and Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry has formally notified the WHO of New Zealand’s reservations about the amendments “in their entirety”.
Reports of resistance among parliamentarians in the Philippines, Australia and South Africa are also emerging, although again the initial reporting has not clarified whether this refers to the Article 59 amendments, to the full package of IHR amendments or to both; and the extent of official support for those positions is not yet certain.
Momentum growing
It is encouraging to see that, while seemingly not yet reaching a level of coordinated action to have prevented the Article 59 amendment taking effect, there is a growing momentum now to question and challenge the WHO’s ambitions to acquire new powers and significant new resources from its member states.
That is momentum on which U.K. parliamentarians could certainly now capitalise, with support from the public, to persuade the relevant Government Ministers at the FCDO and the DSHC (a number of whom have recently been appointed) to apply a more critical mind to the Government’s apparent assumption that the U.K. wishes to remain a core advocate for the WHO and to support its coronation as a global public health authority.
The main package of amendments to the IHRs
At its last meeting in Geneva, the IHR Working Group acknowledged that it will not have reached a point of agreement in time for a final set of amendment proposals to be circulated to member states before the end of this year, as had originally been planned.
That caused a minor legal headache for the WHO because Article 55 of the IHR requires that “The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration”. This had been thought to mean that a final draft of the IHR amendments needed to be circulated by mid January at the latest. Fortunately, for the WHO at least, its head lawyer was able to conclude on a technical reading that this did not matter, as long as the WHO had circulated to member states before January 2024 both the original set of proposed amendments and a more recent interim version of those amendments.
So the current plan is that an interim draft version of the IHR will be circulated to all member states (and — we must hope and expect — published for us all to see) at or around the time of the next IHR Working Group meeting, which is scheduled to take place in Geneva later this week on December 7th and 8th. Negotiations will then continue between December and April 2024, in anticipation of the final draft text of the amendments becoming available probably only during May, leaving most likely just a few weeks for member states to decide whether to vote in favour of the package at the 2024 World Health Assembly scheduled to run from May 27th to June 1st 2024.
If that package is then adopted by a simple majority of member states at the WHA, the amendments will become binding under international law with effect from May 2025 in all member state countries that do not opt out of those amendments by March 2025 (10 months after adoption, on the basis that the Article 59 amendment has taken effect).
While these are encouraging signs, the dam is far from breaking and if the next drafts of the proposals reveal that widely-held concerns persist, as we expect to be the case, there will be a critical three month window early next year in which to rally parliamentarians and decision-makers in the U.K.
Ben Kingsley coordinates the strategic legal aspects of UsForThem’s campaigns, having completed a career as a partner in the law firm Slaughter and May advising on regulatory, financial crime and commercial law. His new book, coauthored with Molly Kingsley and Arabella Skinner, The Accountability Deficit: How ministers and officials evaded accountability, misled the public and violated democracy during the pandemic is available now at Amazon and other book stores. This article was first published on the UsForThem Substack page. Subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Why not just give the job to that fellah, Mary Wanaker?
It is actually time to put the BBC out of its misery.
I’m sorry kids but Aunty Beeb has to go to Switzerland for an appointment with Dignitas. She’s delusional and incontinent and we just can’t look after her any more. It’ll be painless, I promise.
Auntie? Gender Gestapo en route.
The only way to do it is to stop funding them. Don’t pay the TV tax.
The Uniparty state will never ever put the BBC out of its misery as you suggest. The British people who despise the BBC have to do that by not paying the licence fee and never, ever voting for the Uniparty.
Put it out of our misery.
The state has no business running a news and media empire nor forcing people to pay for such a thing
I don’t care what changes they make and who they sack, it cannot and should not be saved
Before TV and Radio there were newspapers. Let’s all remember which notable countries had state newspapers.
“The state has no business running a news and media empire nor forcing people to pay for such a thing”
They don’t. Nobody is forced own a TV. We junked ours 20 years ago, sick of funding the Propaganda Arm of the Liberal Elite.
Sorry. Nothing to do with the state. All the more so as you can watch anything you want using the internet, and VPNS will mask your ID to use the iPlayer if you want to watch BBC trash.
You are technically correct in that no-one is forced to own a TV, but if you want to watch TV you are legally obliged to pay a tax even if you don’t watch the BBC.
Do not have a TV, most radio is dire nowadays also preaching messages I do not want, so for simple entertainment used to listen to TalkSport on football. Stopped during covid as every 3 minutes pushing the jabs, but now as with BBC too is full of women commentators who add nothing, unable to give any interesting chat on former players etc.and also trying to push womens’ football.
Our once extraordinary and mighty institution, surely the most respected media organisation anywhere in the world, and with the longest history, has more or less become the mouthpiece of the Labour Party. What a crying shame.
Who can forget all the wonderful programming: it nurtured great comedians and comedies like Blackadder, Fawlty Towers and OFAH; it pioneered spectacular nature documentaries with David Attenborough; it gave us lovely children’s programming like Blue Peter, and cool teens shows like Top of the Pops; it generally gave us fair and impartial news, with dignified newsreaders; it catered to all of Britain, to all British people, and no wonder we nicknamed it Auntie. It was a national treasure.
And of course, it gave us epic sports programming: Match of the Day, Grandstand, Wimbledon, World Cup, Rugby, Cricket…and of course Football Focus! Legendary programs that were part of our lives growing up.
Now it’s the Labour Party’s Ministry of Truth, belting out leftist messaging whether we like it or not, and helping to spread the message by ‘correcting’ any programs that need fixing. And the result is a collapse in public opinion: it is now despised by the public. Cultural vandalism of a national treasure.
Strangely, all of these ‘Labour’ policies are being implemented by the ‘Conservatives’, despite what the latter claim they believe.
Agree with the above but “no wonder we nicknamed it Auntie”…?
I get the impression that nobody in the audience did so. Its a term beloved of the insiders and employees
Not just the mouthpiece of the Labour Party. The mouthpiece of Liberal Progressives, eco fundamentalists and Cultural Marxists who can be found even in political parties claiming to be Conservative.
Maoist Focus.
I have no idea why anyone watches television unless they’re into pain. Of course the resons are obvious – the addictive, depressing and trance-inducing effect of looking at a screen (which coincidentally makes mind control far easier), the fact that it is easy if you have to do hard physical work all day just to sit back and let your brain be filled when you get home. And in a lonely atomised society it might provide company for many poor souls whilst poisoning them at the same time. And that is before you even consider the especially pernicious content of the BBC. It is vile and I am glad that young people barely watch it or listen to it.
I would agree most TV is pretty dire now, but if I had given up watching I would never have seen Breaking Bad,Better Call Saul or Stranger Things (all Netflix) which are all excellent. There must be many other series, and some of them would have been from the BBC (pre woke days) which were also good viewing. More recently the ITV dramatisation of the post office Horizon scandal showed the power that a well made programme can have. Selective viewing is surely the answer, rather than outright never watching anything on the box out of principle.
The boomers are dying off. My generation, generation X has no time for the BBC. Later generations even less. It is literally dying by the day. Didn’t have to be that way but that’s what happens when you start worshipping money. You never control it, even less than with heroin. It controls you and it makes you do far worse things than opiates would ever make you do.
Is this your culture now? You sit around and talk about this nonsense? Can you not see how you look to the outside world?
Lets face it tv watchers, Jefferson said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Not only were you not vigilant you were happy creating and participating in the construction of the black iron prison. You need to find a place of atonement first.
Thanks. It sounds so boring that I will never bother with it.
Saint and Greaves please – that was funny.
The BBC never misses an opportunity to push the woke agenda. It’s why I’ve stopped watching anything it produces.
If you don’t like ‘Football Focus” don’t watch it. There’s plenty of other stuff on.
Why anyone watches BBC at all is beyond me. I’ve not watched or listened to BBC for years and don’t pay the TV licence tax.
Everyone that watches or funds the BBC are complicit in what they do. So stop whinging and deprive them of their funding.
Oh dear you clearly aren’t learning the lessons Aunty is trying to teach, more lessons for you with detention with Gary
You often get the same on Sky Sports News where they will rant on about some gay or gender issue for the first 12 minutes before they finally get around to talking about sport. ———-Professional footballers should not be taking knees of waving flags and allowing themselves to be used for political purposes. —–I hope they don’t start preaching to fans about the climate or Net Zero next because football actually has a carbon footprint about the size of Belgium.
As a soon to be late STH holder at West Bromwich Albion. They are still taking the knee to serial criminal George Floyd, whereas the dead of two world wars get 1 minute per season. Shoot me now. West Bromwich Albion have been captured by the Woke crowd.
Joey Barton on X gives his dry, drôle, forthright insights in a thick Liverpudlian accent that you could cut with a chainsaw, into what has happened to footie, and footie programmes on the BBC as well as women’s footie, which he calls nonsense pottery.
I am not a fan of footie, nor Joey Barton – but I am warming to him.
In the past the men watched the football and the women usually were not interested and went and did something else. Imagine if men suddenly within the space of a 5 years all started to want to form Netball Leagues and get jobs commenting on Netball, would that not be a bit odd? ——Yes
Or if men were suddenly to force themselves into the beauty industry: start making ‘get ready with me’ videos; talking about our ‘weekend resets’; our morning shower routines; getting teary-eyed when talking about our ‘hectic week’ ahead etc
Women would hate it, they would think it’s an invasion of their space, and they would despise these weirdo men for trying to behave like women. They want real men – men who are responsible, respectful, hardworking, skilful, kind and considerate. They definitely don’t want pathetic dweebs
I’m sorry but I can’t bear women buffing out at the gym, playing rugby and doing boxing etc, it’s repulsive. They’re trying to compete at men’s tasks, but unfortunately it’s difficult/impossible to compete with men in this respect – with increased fitness, better diets, and almost unlimited carbs and protein, some men are absolutely huge these days!
Instead why not try to make themselves as beautiful, magical and effeminate as possible? Actually it’s a superpower: a man goes weak at the knees at the sight of a beautiful woman, and she can get him to do whatever she pleases! It’s the exact opposite of the messages that are being fed to young women now