The original ethical commitments of the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty have been dramatically eroded during the recently concluded negotiation process.
The treaty was established in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and aims to strengthen global collaboration on prevention, preparedness and response to pandemic threats.
Our research identifies a series of major changes to the language and obligations of the treaty that raises concerns about the ethical trajectory of the agreement and its capacity to support a co-ordinated, equitable global response to health emergencies.
Though the pandemic treaty was guided by a cosmopolitan ethic that emphasised the equal moral worth of all people, emphasising solidarity, equity, and collective responsibility, our study finds that the revised text marks a notable departure from those intentions.
A comparison with the working draft reveals that the revised agreement consolidates broad principles such as solidarity but notably reduces the specificity of global obligations to those most in need.
The principle of sovereignty has been elevated to the pandemic treaty’s central organising value. Commitments tied to equity and human rights are less directive and more open to interpretation.
These changes signal a broader retreat from cosmopolitan co-operation towards the protection of individual state interests.
The pandemic treaty now includes fewer principles grounded in cosmopolitan ethics and correspondingly weaker obligations to act on them.
The ethical dilution may undermine the agreement’s capacity to address the public health shortcomings exposed by Covid and to mitigate similar threats in future.
During the pandemic, states often reverted to self-interested behaviours.
Many states pre-purchased enough vaccines to vaccinate national populations many times over, reducing the amount available to low-income countries unable to enter pre-purchase agreements.
In an interconnected world, where the actions of one individual, group and state affect distant strangers, self-interested behaviours exacerbate global inequities and can ultimately prolong pandemics and other public health emergencies.
A cosmopolitan framework, therefore, is practical as well as ethical.
We argue the diminished force of obligations placed on states in successive treaty drafts is symptomatic of ethical amnesia, a failure to uphold previously endorsed ethical commitments because of political expediency in the aftermath of the crisis.
During the pandemic, countries made calls to recognise global solidarity and associated obligations, to protect the health of all.
These now appear fleeting and disingenuous, as the pandemic treaty overlooks the very structural inequities it was intended to address.
Although there are predictable challenges in developing a treaty acceptable to all parties, the revisions reflect how state self-interest continues to erode well-intentioned global health goals.
At the opening of the 12th Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, WHO director-general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reminded negotiators "to come together, to see beyond purely national interest to the global interest — because the world can only be safer if every individual nation is safer".
Multilateralism is important in addressing global problems. The pandemic treaty should set the behavioural norms and expectations.
Although the treaty negotiations have now concluded, our research underscores the importance of returning to its original ethical commitments during implementation as the weakened ethical architecture of the treaty may compromise its effectiveness.
Current outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, mpox and the Marburg virus serve as stark reminders that a shift towards more co-operative, ethically grounded approaches to global public health remains essential.
The finalisation of a pandemic treaty is an important milestone, but implementing states must not lose sight of the treaty’s founding principles.
Rather than turning back to self-interested behaviours, states should use their sovereignty to strengthen obligations in the pandemic treaty and embed a collective motivation for co-operation into domestic and international policies.
Without stronger commitments to multilateral problem-solving and cross-border solidarity, the risk of repeating fragmented and inequitable responses remains high.
Reaffirming commitments to equity, solidarity and shared responsibility is vital to ensure the treaty serves as more than a symbolic achievement and becomes a meaningful tool for just and effective global health governance. — Newsroom
• Emma Anderson is a PhD candidate in the University of Otago’s Bioethics Centre; Dr Elizabeth Fenton is a lecturer in the Bioethics Centre at the University of Otago; John Crump is a Prof of Medicine, Pathology, and Global Health at the University of Otago. Last week New Zealand announced it would subject a draft Pandemic Treaty to a full National Interest Test before deciding whether or not to sign up to it.
