The Restructuring of the World Health Organization Raises Concerns About the Global Health Regime which has been recognized for a long time as an essential participant in global health issues and resources, has recently been the subject of some proposed reforms, which have raised concerns regarding the possibility that it may evolve into a global quasi-regime.
Changes to the agreement governing International Health Regulations might give the World Health Organization (WHO) much more authority, which would have severe repercussions for the countries that are a part of the organization.
Increasing the Authority of the WHO
The International Health Regulations, which were established in 1969, stipulate that all member states must identify, evaluate, report, and effectively respond to any public health emergencies that have the potential to spread to other countries. Nevertheless, with the current COVID-19 pandemic, China’s lack of transparency in providing data and permitting an investigation into the origins of the virus has put the WHO’s efficacy in coordinating global health responses into doubt.
In order to address these concerns, the World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a number of changes to the IHR. These changes include granting the director-general the authority to control the distribution of medications and the power to overrule decisions regarding health measures that have been made by individual nations. The World Health Organization (WHO) would then have a significant amount of influence over global health crises, which might give it the authority to restrict material that it deems to be inaccurate or misleading.
Dangers to the Nation’s Sovereignty
Yet, as a result of these developments, concerns have been voiced over the influence that the WHO will have on the sovereignty of its member nations. The phrase “respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons” was removed from Article 3 of the IHR and replaced with the words “equity” and “inclusivity.” As a result of this change, member nations may be compelled to prioritize global health concerns over individual rights.
The IHR’s advisory character is being converted into that of law, which would provide the WHO even greater power equal to that of a governing body with legally binding jurisdiction and the ability to enforce its decisions. As a result, this might lead to ambiguous interpretations of the modifications, which, given that the amendments do not define financial criteria, could potentially lead to an increase in corruption in less developed nations.
The Effects That the Changes Will Have
The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended several reforms that might have substantial effects on both the state of global health and the independence of WHO member states. Recent modifications might lead to an unprecedented concentration of authority inside the World Health Organization, despite the fact that the WHO has historically played an important part in coordinating responses to global health crises.
It will be necessary for the member states to carefully assess the ramifications of these reforms and make certain that their national sovereignty is not infringed upon in the name of improving global health. Any measures taken by the WHO that violate the rights of its member countries and the people living in those countries should result in the WHO being held responsible.