An Effective Pandemic Treaty: The First Steps Toward Stronger Global Governance

Introduction

This article argues that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed major weaknesses in global public health governance and demonstrated the need for a new international pandemic treaty.

The authors focus on the limitations of the World Health Organization and the existing International Health Regulations framework, claiming that current rules lack adequate enforcement power and failed during recent health emergencies.

They propose a stronger treaty built around three core reforms.

Why Existing Global Governance Failed

The article defines global governance as the institutions, norms, and procedures through which states cooperate to address transnational problems.

According to the authors, pandemics are a clear example of a challenge no state can solve alone because infectious diseases cross borders rapidly.

They argue that failures were visible not only during COVID-19, but also during:

• H1N1 influenza pandemic

• Ebola virus disease

• SARS

Thus, they see a new treaty as an urgent necessity.

Proposal 1: Strong Notification Obligations

The authors argue that early warning is the most effective way to prevent outbreaks from becoming global pandemics.

They propose that states should be legally required to notify the WHO within 24 hours after learning of an event that may constitute a pandemic threat.

Why It Matters

Even short delays in reporting outbreaks can allow disease to spread internationally.

The article criticizes instances where governments allegedly withheld or delayed information during outbreaks, citing China during:

• SARS

• early COVID-19

Enforcement Mechanisms

The authors say a treaty should empower the WHO to ensure compliance, potentially including:

• diplomatic consequences

• economic sanctions

• authority to investigate unofficial reports

They also suggest WHO should be able to verify credible information appearing on social media.

Proposal 2: Binding Rules on Travel Restrictions

The article argues that many states imposed excessive border closures and travel bans during pandemics despite WHO guidance questioning their effectiveness.

Under the IHR, states were supposed to justify such measures and notify the WHO, but the authors say many ignored these obligations.

What They Propose

A new treaty should make WHO recommendations on travel restrictions binding during pandemics.

If a state disagrees, there should be:

1. mandatory consultation with WHO

2. scientific evidence sharing

3. dispute resolution mechanisms

Role for the ICJ

The authors propose a compromissory clause giving the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over disputes involving unnecessary travel restrictions and economic losses caused by them.

They note that travel bans can severely harm economies, especially tourism-dependent states.

Proposal 3: A Conference of Parties (COP)

The article recommends creating a permanent institutional body similar to treaty conferences used in environmental and anti-corruption law.

This would be a Conference of Parties (COP) for the pandemic treaty.

Functions of the COP

It would:

• monitor implementation

• review national preparedness

• assess compliance

• coordinate future reforms

Peer Review System

The authors suggest a review model where:

• each state submits self-assessments

• two other states evaluate compliance

• reports identify strengths and failures

• false declarations may trigger penalties

They compare this to the treaty review system under the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

Sovereignty vs Global Cooperation

The authors acknowledge critics may argue these proposals interfere with state sovereignty.

However, they contend that pandemics and climate change require stronger international institutions because purely national responses are insufficient.

Their position is that unrestricted sovereignty during pandemics can worsen collective harm.

Wider Public Health Message

The article also broadens the discussion to healthcare capacity, arguing that global preparedness should include:

• accessible medical systems

• emergency treatment capacity

• stronger health infrastructure

Conclusion

Bhaumik and Jain conclude that COVID-19 showed the danger of a “me first” approach by states.

They argue that a future pandemic treaty should move beyond weak coordination and establish enforceable global rules.

Their three central pillars are:

1. rapid mandatory outbreak reporting

2. binding rules on travel restrictions

3. a permanent compliance and review conference

Overall, the article frames pandemics as a governance challenge requiring stronger international legal institutions rather than voluntary cooperation alone.

The authors are identified as final-year law students at National Law University Odisha.