Lawfare and the new International Instrument on Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IIPPR).
On April 12-13, 2022 the WHO's newly formed Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) called for a first round of written and oral input on what substantive elements should be included in the IIPPR. A second round is scheduled for June 16-17, 2022.
Given that there will be another global pandemic, the context for the requested input was framed by the question- what could WHO do better next time? The legal subtext is that the WHO should be the overseeing entity in the future to mitigate pandemics. Once it is accepted that failings in the past arose out from the lack of coordination amongst the nations then the requisite of a global coordinating body becomes axiomatic. This sound good approach might make sense were it not for the fact that WHO has been greatly compromised by its private funders whose agendas are more in sync with capital formation than with global health.
Predictably, WHO's handpicked speakers were on-task by advocating that the world needs more vaccines and more equitable distribution of those vaccines. This top down technological approach to health is consistent with the interest of WHO's major donors and completely ignores any holistic solutions.
Under its own conflict of interest rules, WHO has forfeited its authority to act as the lead agency in the implementation of any IIPPR. Additionally, WHO, its officers, directors and funders stands in violation of international law (ICCPR Art 7) to the extent they advocated for covid vaccine mandates. Prior to the signing of any new treaty, a tribunal needs to be constituted to address these violations, then and only then can WHO regain any legitimacy as the lead agency to steward the world through the next pandemic.