Choice Facing Countries: Expand Scope Or Preserve Core Functions? [Amendments to the International Health Regulations]

Newsletter Edition #15 [Treaty Talks - IHR]

Hi,

As countries begin to negotiate the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), some early choices are beginning to emerge, whether to expand the scope instrument, or build on its existing functions to make these rules stronger ahead of the next big health emergency.

This edition tries to capture the various elements so far in these discussions, namely the various proposals submitted by member states to amend these rules; what the review committee of experts have had to say on the proposals from countries; and finally how are these discussions progressing in tandem with the talks at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body.

In many conversations while reporting for this story, I was fascinated by what one source told us: the motivations of law and politics are moving in opposing directions. So what we will see in these negotiations in the coming months, will be shaped by whichever impulse is stronger, but also on what is ultimately doable over the next few months.

We hope you enjoy reading this edition. Given the complex legal questions that these negotiations reveal, we will be grateful if experts on IHR whether based in Geneva or in the capitals, would speak to us on how these changes are being perceived at national levels. Please get in touch with us.

Also, please bear with us with these 4,000 words-plus editions in recent weeks. We understand the long form format is not always preferred, but we strive to present as comprehensive a picture as possible for our readers.

Consider supporting our journalism that ensures nuance, detail, and accuracy. Readers paying for our work helps us meet our costs. We are in this for the long haul. Become a paid subscriber if you value our work.

Until later!

Best,

Priti

Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com. Follow us on Twitter: @filesgeneva

---

STORY OF THE WEEK

Choice Facing Countries: Expand Scope Or Preserve Core Functions? [Amendments to the International Health Regulations]

Scores of WHO member states have lent support to proposals to amend the International Health Regulations (2005), presenting more than 300 amendments to the key instrument that currently governs health emergencies. In less than a year, WHO member states are expected to come to an agreement on the scale and direction of the changes to this instrument. As always countries are expected to make both political and technical choices on how they want to use this opportunity to amend the IHR.

This story analyses key themes in the suggested amendments now under negotiation. It also reflects some of the technical recommendations on the proposals by the IHR Review Committee of Experts. The IHR Review Committee was established by DG Tedros, as decided by the World Health Assembly [Decision WHA75(9)]

Countries will meet next week at the Working Group set up for conducting the negotiations for the amendments to the IHR.

These discussions are crucial, given the underlying nature of the legal provision of the IHR, that essentially means that these rules become effective unless countries specifically opt-out. And yet, these discussions have been held away from the public glare, compared to the relatively more open process at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body set up to pull together a new Pandemic Accord. Member states appear keen to preserve the diplomatic spaces in these sensitive negotiations indicative of the high stakes involved in the process.

Image Credit: Pexels [CQF-Avocat]