This week, the Working Group on the Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) will resume its eight round of negotiations on May 16-17th, scheduled only 10 days ahead of the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) on May 27th, where it is planned to vote on the whole package of draft amendments. Concerns have been raised globally by academics, parliamentarians and civil society that the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the WGIHR do not respect their own procedural requirements of Article 55(2) IHR (2005) that prescribes a four-month review period prior to a vote.
Article 55 Amendments
1. Amendments to these Regulations may be proposed by any State Party or by the Director-General. Such proposals for amendments shall be submitted to the Health Assembly for its consideration.
2. 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 strange situation may be unfathomable for many. Negotiating delegations and country representations are surely composed of prominent diplomats and lawyers. However, when the matter was discussed at the fifth WGIHR meeting in October 2023, it didn’t cause them much discomfort. During the public discussion, WHO Legal Officer stated that Article 55(2) would not apply to the WGIHR as a sub-division of the WHA, disregarding the fact that Article 55(2) didn’t make such distinction, and that the WGIHR had initially intended to respect it by giving itself the January 2024 deadline. One Co-Chair of the WGIHR said that the negotiations of the previous package of amendments adopted in 2005 had continued until the morning of the 58th WHA session. This is a false precedent. The 1969 version of the IHR, amended in 1973 and 1981, had not contained any such procedural provision on amendment submission. The four-month requirement was only added to the 2005 version approved by the WHA at that meeting, and so became applicable after that time. It is therefore obvious that what happened in 2005 did not violate Article 55(2) since it did not exist.
Regrettably, the WGIHR went along with proposals to continue the work until May 2024, as noted in the meeting report.
5. The Co-Chairs noted that, in reference to decision WHA75(9) (2022), it appeared unlikely that the package of amendments would be ready by January 2024. In that regard, the Working Group agreed to continue its work between January and May 2024. The Director-General will submit to the 77th World Health Assembly the package of amendments agreed to by the Working Group.
We are witnessing some sort of cover-up, either voluntarily or not, of the violation of Article 55(2) by leaders and supra-national bodies that will make laws for the rest of the world. Governments subsequently did not raise eyebrows at the WHO’s recent unfounded claims that it had fulfilled the requirements of Article 55(2) by circulating a compilation of 308 proposed amendments in November 2022 – those that have been largely modified or deleted through multiple rounds of negotiations. These claims must be rejected since, as previously demonstrated, Article 55(2) requires the final text to be ready four months ahead of the WHA vote.
The whole IHR amendment process has since become a theatre. The negotiations on a draft pandemic agreement and the IHR draft amendments are probably the most closely watched intergovernmental processes ever. Worried by a future dictated by unelected health bureaucrats to restrain private and business activities without oversight and accountability, the public have made noise and reported and informed their elected representatives about their dismay. For example, this open letter has garnered more than 14,000 online signatures from concerned citizens around the world. Scrapping the four-month period will not only prevent governments from properly reviewing the text before signing up, but also means the public will have less or no time at all to manifest their concerns and opposition.
It is truly shameful that WHO and the WGIHR agreed to disregard Article 55(2) when this could have been an opportunity to demonstrate their seriousness. Internal egos and external pressures probably drive them to be seen as tireless pandemic fighters, despite the catastrophic COVID-19 response. Regardless, the whole world can now see a mockery by intergovernmental bodies ignoring their own rules. What is left of international rule of law?
Have governments realised that they have been misled by the repetitive messages from the G20, WHO and World Bank that there would be more harmful pandemics to come and that the world urgently needs new pandemic agreements? If they return to their senses, there may still be time for them to use Article 56(5) IHR to raise disagreement with the WHO’s interpretation of Article 55(2) at the coming WHA, demanding a deferral of the vote until legal requirements are fulfilled.
Article 56 Settlement of disputes
5. In the event of a dispute between WHO and one or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of these Regulations, the matter shall be submitted to the Health Assembly.
If they fail, their only appropriate option will be to massively vote against both pandemic texts at the 77th WHA.
Will there still be hope for the rule of law to apply in international forums?
Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organisation partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.
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.
Well I am impressed with this article. It gives a very thorough and up to date overview of the situation in the Netherlands regarding the farming crisis;
”The only way out for farmers seems to be to accept the offer by the government to sell their ownings for 120 percent of the value with a restriction not to be allowed to start another farm within the EU area. Many farmers still refuse the offers made. ‘Even when they pay 400 percent of the value I won’t leave, my son is going to be the next generation farmer.’
The draft agreement does not present information on effects on farmers’ income and consumers’ behavior. The advisory report from Wageningen University and Research (WUR) writes that they cannot advise on this topic as they do not have the information. With the reduction of cattle, farming land and a transition to regenerative farming they will be able to meet the goals on climate change. However, 30,000 jobs will be lost and €6.5 billion of added value.
Dutch citizens will be financing the €28 billion climate plan by extra taxes on food prices for example on milk products, meat, compounds for vegetation protection, and fertilizers while inflation is high and purchases are expensive.
Also, a prepared law for zero taxes on vegetables and fruits to promote healthy foods supposed to pass for January 2024 seems to make a U-turn. According to a report from SEO Economic Research it will be too complex and too expensive and it is not sure the introduction of this law will promote health. However, keeping taxes on vegetables and fruit will generate €550-950 million in income for government.”
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-future-of-traditional-farming-and-healthcare-in-the-netherlands/
Will the changes in Government help bring a halt to this madness ?
Not holding my breath, Freddy. The opposition want Rutte out immediately and a caretaker PM installed until elections take place in the autumn. I’ll keep my eyes peeled for any updates in the meantime. Also hopefully JaneDoe might be able to give her insights as I don’t follow politics too closely tbh, but I expect whoever fills Rutte’s shoes to still have the Agenda 2030 requirements very much as their objective.
Yes the WEF maniacs will take some stopping .
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1731/rr-2
This may be a game changer?
Turns out Pfizer changed it’s manufacturing process between the trial and roll-out.
Change in DNA template for the mRNA and change in LNP manufacturing.
The ‘roll-out’ vaccine was only tested on 250 people.
There is now a question about Informed Consent, as the product changed and the information was based on a different product.
Interesting times.
my apologies if this is old news, I only came across this over the weekend.
Andrew Bridgen and Neil Oliver tried to debate the subject with a doctor on GB News. All the doctor could do was insult people. I’m glad he is not my doctor: –
https://rumble.com/v2yw4ac-andrew-bridgen-mp-and-dr-david-lloyd-discuss-the-pfizer-covid-vaccine.html
It’s often been pointed out but just imagine a non freak person making a similar speech !!!
The sad thing is that the good bishop made a reasonable pastoral point, that in teaching that God is our Father, one has to be aware of those whose earthly fathers or stepfathers have let them down.
But that is a completely different matter from tossing words like “abusive patriarchy” around. The fact that the church of England’s bishops are a disgrace to the gospel doesn’t entail that episcopacy itself is a bad thing, but merely that earthly authority of all kinds can be abused.
Funnily enough, one seldom hears bishops taking a similarly apologetic line on abuse when 1 Peter 2:25 refers to Jesus as “the shepherd and bishop of your souls.”
On the subject of LTNs:
– Eh, what? ‘radicalised groups of people against cycling‘? Where’d he pull that idea from? (No doubt the same place too many government (all levels) ideas are pulled from). I used to work in Southwark twenty-something years ago; some cyclists were a real danger to pedestrians then. LTNs aren’t the cause of people’s disapproval of some cyclists.
– ‘…risk stoking opposition to broader aims such as net zero‘. So, not all bad then?
Substitute ‘Terf’ for the J word (rhymes with huw) and you can see that we’ve been in this situation before. It doesn’t end well.
On a more general note, H L Mencken pointed out in the 1920s that pragmatic politicians inflame anxieties about *or even create a perception of imminent serious harm from) “imaginary hobgoblins”, and then claim success when the harm does not materialise. Eventually the populace realises it has lost power (by more authoritarian legislation) and money (by way of taxes needed to defeat the hobgoblin) and tries to restore the balance, possibly by armed conflict. However, the next generation repeats the process, albeit with different hobgoblins.
Interesting MD4CE meeting yesterday evening, exploring how to disrupt the narrative, presented by Jonathan Engler of HART.
He made some interesting observations about how some individuals on this side of the situation are inadvertently still supporting the narrative. He use Dr McCullough’s ongoing support for the need for pandemic preparedness as an example & some ATL articles on this site. Plus that articles written to counter what was published ATL re no flu in 2020 were denied publication. There were a lot of comments BTL regarding supporting the official limited hangout agenda.
Worth a watch: https://rumble.com/user/cbkovess
“The left’s war on correct grammer has betrayed the poor”
This excerpt is from the CEO of Coca-Cola,
talk about a grammatical word salad! this even has rocket and cold potato thrown in!
“We are keeping consumers at the centre of our innovation and marketing investments, while also leveraging our expertise in revenue growth management and execution.
“Our growth culture is leading to new approaches, more experimentation, and improved agility to drive growth and value for our stakeholders.”
And the translation of all that shyte is as follows:
Mr Quincey added: “There will be price increases across the world in 2023.
Well why didn’t you just say that?
I bet this guy could describe the inside of a ping pong ball using no less than a thousand words!
With pictures.
Here’s the picture, look in-between the next set of brackets!
(
)
Wow that’s realistic!
Don’t ask me how I know.
“If you see a TERF, punch them in the f——— face!”
Said Hitler in drag!
And right there is hate speech!!!
The police reaction???
(Tumbleweed blows past, crickets chirp in the distance!)
This is also incitement to violence. The Home Sec needs to get chief plod in for a severe talking to.
Ooops! Who’d have thunk that the BBC would stoop so low??? Good to see that they’re being called out on this.
(Major sarc alert)
https://insiderpaper.com/syria-revokes-bbc-accreditation-ministry/
So now the BBC is not even honest enough for a country like Syria? Wow, that is low
From today, 10 Jul 2023. File under N.S.S.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/woke-before-wicket/
Cricket – the defining sport of this country, the very essence of Englishness being set up for bastardisation and collapse.
They cannot destroy the country without destroying cricket. Of course the ECB will oblige.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/07/10/the-bbc-nonce-the-acceptable-face-of-pedophelia/
I don’t know who the ‘nonce’ is but Kit Knightly rips into the MSM in a satisfying style.
Well the BBC do have a nonce statue as the main emblem on the front of broadcasting House so what should we expect?
“Hottest days ever? Don’t believe it”
I dont! This record temperature was measured half way up the tailpipe of a F35 jet!