At the World Economic Forum annual meeting last month, Bill Gates suggested a Conference of the Parties for global health, just like the COP for climate, which would ensure that health stays near the top of the global agenda. That is exactly what the world’s efforts for pandemic preparedness and response, or PPR, need.
The 194 World Health Organization member states are currently in intense negotiations to finalize a new international PPR agreement proposed at a special session of the World Health Assembly to work toward WHO’s objective: “the attainment by all peoples the highest possible level of health.”
In March 2021, 25 heads of government and international agencies issued an extraordinary joint call for a pandemic treaty. Since that time, WHO has waffled at what exactly is being negotiated, using a series of word salads: from a ““convention,” “agreement,” “instrument,” or “CA+,” to a “pandemic accord” and more recently to a “pandemic agreement.” We understand why WHO would use elastic language amid delicate treaty negotiations. But even for sophisticated international lawyers, such fluidity in language is disorienting. Much of the global health community is confused about what is being negotiated and its legal standing.
About the authors
Lawrence O. Gostin@lawrencegostin
Lawrence O. Gostin is distinguished professor of global health law at Georgetown University and faculty director at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is a member of the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention.
Sam Halabi
Sam Halabi is a professor at the Georgetown University School of Health and directs the Center for Transformational Health Law at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He holds a J.D. from Harvard, an M.Phil. from the University of Oxford, and undergraduate degrees from Kansas State University.
Olohikhuae Egbokhare@olohikhuae
Olohikhuae Egbokhare is an associate with the Health and Human Rights Initiative and the Center for Transformational Health Law at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Her interests include reproductive rights, access to affordable reproductive technologies, global health preparedness, and fair access to quality health care.
