Amendments to the International Health Regulations:

Article 59 IHRAs (Document 2) & 300+ IHRAs (Document 3)

A. The Article 59 IHRAs

Article 59 IHRAs amended the 2005 IHRs (2005 3rd ED) and were adopted by the WHA on 27 May 2022. They proposed reducing the timing for rejection or implementation of any future proposed IHRAs (from 18 to 10 months, and 24 to 12 months respectively):

25,304 Australians lobbied the government to reject the Article 59 IHRAs in time and signed the People’s Letter that was subsequently sent to the Director General of the WHO before the 1 December 2023 deadline.

It is our collective hard work that brought this to the attention of the Public Servants and the WHO!

Despite that, unfortunately, Australia still did not actively reject the Article 59 IHRAs in time.  The Joint Standing Committee on Committees (JSCT) assessed the Article 59 IHRAs as minor and no action was needed.  JSCT’s Report 210 outlines this.  See that report HERE.

Nonetheless, thanks to all who signed The People’s Letter which set out that the Article 59 IHRAs could only be rejected, not reserved!

Let’s be even louder next time as we must reject the 300+ amendments! Join our next campaign, which is coming soon.

B. The 300+ IHRAs:

Remember, we have still only been provided the December 2022 version of the 300+ IHRAs. Since they were first delivered there have been at least 6 formal meetings of the working group.

So, what do the 300+ IHRAs say?

1. The WHO’s Standing Recommendations will be binding and the WHO can declare a health emergency if it has potential – it doesn’t have to be an actual health emergency

Under the 300+ IHRAs, the WHO is able to determine an international health concern (of the WHO’s choosing) and that decision and consequential decision about that emergency will have BINDING effect – that is, each Member State must comply with the WHO’s decisions.

Standing recommendations under the current 2005 IHRs are expressly stated to be “non-binding”, i.e. the WHO’s advice is recommendations or suggestions only – member states can choose to follow the recommendations or not.

The 300+ IHRAs propose deleting the words non-binding in Article 1 inferring that standing recommendations will now be binding. There are other subsequent amendments in Articles 12, 42, 43 that suggest this interpretation is correct, that a member state will be bound to the WHO’s decisions. This is where the concerns arise that Australia will cede its sovereignty (or give its decicion-making power to the WHO) meaning the WHO gets to make decisions on our country’s behalf.

In Article 1, the deletion of the word non-binding’ has been deleted, inferring that standing recommendations will be binding:

Similar changes proposed in Article 12 provide that if the WHO’s Director-General can determine a potential not actual public health emergency of international concern, and the State Party, in whose territory the event arises no longer has a say whether the Director-General’s determination is appropriate or correct.

Article 12 proposes removing the State Party’s right to agree to the classification of the public health emergency by the WHO Director-General.

Article 42 proposes that the State Party will have to implement the WHO’s recommendations without delay:

Article 43 grants the Emergency Committee final say on recommendations required to be implemented by a concerned Member State:

The proposed drafting expands the WHO’s scope and purpose for potential, not actual health risks (in Article 2 and see also Article 12 above). The WHO defines any potential health risk of international health concern (of the WHO’s choosing). ​​This wording is so loose and could arguably be used for more than a pandemic (e.g. such health risks could include climate related issues).

2. Removal of individual human rights and choice for common good concepts of ‘equity, inclusivity and coherence’

The WHO’s proposed principles will no longer be around individual human rights but rather equity and coherence. This is likely around the medical response to be adopted to an event, including which pharmaceuticals are to be administered and who is to receive them. See Article 3:

3. Health passports

Digital Passenger Locator Forms will require health passports detail pathogen testing and/or vaccination status. See proposed amendments to Articles 23 and 36:

Work on the digital health passports is already well advanced with the infrastructure being built and installed as you read this. More information regarding the Global Digital Health Certification Network is available:

  1. WHO’s website, which was supplied by the New Zealand’s Ministry of Health in response to a request: https://www.who.int/initiatives/global-digital-health-certification-network

  2. WHO’s Global Initiative on Digital Health; and

  3. The European Commission and WHO launch landmark digital health initiative to strengthen global health security in June 2023.

  4. The European Parliament and Members States in early November 2024, reached agreement to introduce the Digital Identity.

4. The supply of personal health information to the WHO

Member States will be required to share personal health information to the WHO, and the WHO has the power to share or withhold any information as it sees fit, see Articles 7 and 11:

5. There are a number of other amendments in the current draft of the 300+ IHRAs where:

  1. The WHO may direct Member States give money to developing nations – Article 44A

    1. A new Compliance Committee is to be established – another new committee but one that ensures Member States are complying with the IHRs – Article 53

    2. Expands the powers of each member state’s appointed National IHR Focal Point. New Zealand already has an unelected appointed National IFR Focal Point, namely the Office of the Director of Public Health in the Ministry of Health who at present is Dr Nicholas Jones.

Status

The version of the 300+ IHRAs that are publicly available are the ones circulated 17 December 2022.

Much work has been done at numerous meetings since the 300+ IHRs were first supplied.

Decision WHA 75/9 specified that the final version of the 300+ IHRAs was to be circulated to all Member States 4 months in advance of them being voted upon for adoption, which is scheduled for the 77th WHA (end of May 2024).

This makes sense, it gives all Member States a chance to consider the amendments before they are due to vote on them. And given there are in excess of 300 proposed amendments that will significantly change the nature of the IHRs, having plenty of time to consider the changes is vitally necessary. Failure of the WHO to provide the amendments to Member States with sufficient time to consider is a failure of due process and undermines the time honoured rules of fairness and cooperation.

The 300+ IHRAs have not been circulated in accordance with the Decision, in fact the Working Group has further meetings scheduled in February and March 2024 to allow them to continue to work on them. Leaving all Member States in the dark on what they say.

In October 2023, the Working Group indicated that they would not be able to meet the delivery date of mid January 2024. So, they obtained advice from WHO lawyer, Stephen Solomon who explained how the Working Group did not need to comply with its own rules. Mr Solomon’s advice is at 27:00 of the October 2024 Working Group meeting.

We view this legal advice as double dutch.

This whole issue with failing to provide the 300+ amendments in accordance with the Decision and rules raises the very real question: if the WHO can’t be trusted to follow its own rules on process, how can it be trusted to follow its own rules re power it is proposing to grant itself under the 300+ IHRAs and Pandemic Treaty?