GLOBAL DEMAND: NOTICE AND DEMAND REGARDING THE WHO PANDEMIC AGREEMENT

NOTICE AND DEMAND TO THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND MEMBER STATES

RE: Formal Objection to the Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement and Call for Withdrawal

Date: April, 2025

TO:

• National Parliaments and Legislators
• Heads of State and Government
• The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), Member States
• World Health Organization Headquarters
• Geneva, Switzerland

STATEMENT OF STANDING

We, the undersigned citizens of sovereign nations worldwide, assert our standing to object to the proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement on the grounds that it directly threatens our fundamental rights, national sovereignty, and democratic governance. This Agreement would subject entire nations to an unprecedented experimental governance model, transforming sovereign public health systems into testing grounds for unaccountable international control. As citizens who will bear the consequences of this radical restructuring of public health authority, we firmly reject this unauthorized experiment on our nations and governance systems.

LEGAL BASIS FOR OBJECTION

This objection is based on established principles of international law, including:

• The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
• The Siracusa Principles on limitations of rights during emergencies
• The Nuremberg Code's absolute prohibition on non-consensual experimentation
• Constitutional limitations on treaty powers across Member States

SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

1. Experimental Governance and Permanent Emergency Powers

The Agreement establishes permanent governance mechanisms operative "at all times" rather than solely during declared emergencies, using sovereign nations as test subjects for an unprecedented experiment in supranational control. This permanent application fundamentally contradicts the principle of proportionality in international law, which requires limitations on state sovereignty to be proportionate to the threat being addressed and temporally limited to the duration of the emergency situation.

This experimental governance model converts sovereign public health systems into implementation nodes for centralized directives, tests unproven "whole-of-government" restructuring without constitutional authorization, and imposes perpetual "emergency" frameworks as standard governance structures.

2. Definitional Ambiguities Enabling Unlimited Authority

The Agreement fails to provide precise definitions for critical operative terms including "pandemic," "emergency," "pandemic-related products," and "One Health approach," creating obligations of indeterminate scope. This legal indeterminacy violates the principle that treaty obligations must be sufficiently precise to enable good faith implementation and provide fair notice of sovereign commitments.

These definitional gaps allow for unlimited expansion of experimental authority into domains never intended for international governance, turning nations into laboratories for novel global governance theories.

3. The mRNA Classification Experiment and Regulatory Capture

The Agreement's "regulatory harmonization" provisions enable the improper classification of novel genetic technologies, particularly mRNA products, as conventional vaccines rather than gene therapies, bypassing more stringent national regulatory frameworks designed to protect public health and individual rights. This permits:

• Experimental reclassification of genetic interventions contrary to established scientific consensus
• Testing of abridged safety regimes without adequate long-term monitoring
• Trial of limited liability frameworks for manufacturers of experimental products
• Experimental bypassing of informed consent requirements for genetic interventions
• Testing of novel approaches to erode the precautionary principle for irreversible technologies
• Experimental compression of clinical trial phases for novel technologies
• Trials of reduced protections for vulnerable populations regarding experimental genetic technologies

This experimental approach to regulation subjects global populations to an unauthorized trial of reduced safety standards for novel genetic technologies.

4. Unsafe Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System

The Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing system established under Article 12 lacks essential biosafety precautions, liability provisions, and oversight mechanisms to prevent reckless laboratory research. This experimental system for pathogen trafficking and commercialization encourages dangerous manipulation of biological materials without adequate risk mitigation measures, posing an unacceptable danger of laboratory-generated pandemics.

5. Violation of Fundamental Human Rights and Informed Consent

The Agreement prioritizes rapid deployment of novel medical countermeasures without adequate safeguards for individual informed consent, contrary to established principles of biomedical ethics. It fails to explicitly incorporate the Siracusa Principles' limitations on rights derogations during emergencies and lacks specific protections for the right to refuse experimental interventions.

This experimental approach to bioethics treats global populations as test subjects for novel consent frameworks and emergency authorization regimes never validated through normal democratic processes.

6. Democratic Deficit and Exclusion of Dissenting Voices

The Agreement was negotiated without adequate transparency, public consultation, or inclusion of diverse viewpoints. There is documented exclusion of civil society organizations with dissenting perspectives. The institutional mechanisms established by the Agreement lack democratic accountability, transparency requirements, and independent oversight.

This experimental governance model tests novel approaches to bypassing democratic processes and silencing dissent under the guise of emergency response.

7. Research Bias Toward Pharmaceutical Products Over Public Health

The Agreement institutionalizes preferences for pharmaceutical interventions, particularly mRNA platforms, over diverse public health approaches. This experimental allocation of research resources threatens scientific independence and pluralism while enabling diversion of scarce public health funding toward experimental technologies with limited safety data at the expense of proven interventions.

8. Experimental Restructuring of National Governments

The "whole-of-government" and "whole-of-society" provisions mandate governance structures that reorganize domestic arrangements in ways that conflict with constitutional separation of powers principles. This experimental governance model tests theories of centralized emergency control that fundamentally alter democratic systems without consent or validation.

9. Intellectual Property Regime Conflicts

The Agreement creates unresolved conflicts with existing intellectual property protection frameworks and national sovereignty over biological resources without adequate reconciliation mechanisms, testing novel frameworks for overriding established property rights and resource control without democratic validation.

SPECIFIC DEMANDS

We, the undersigned, hereby demand:

Procedural Demands

1. Immediate suspension of this global governance experiment pending comprehensive legal review
2. Implementation of genuinely inclusive public consultation processes
3. Establishment of independent legal review by experts without conflicts of interest
4. Full disclosure of financial relationships between negotiators and pharmaceutical interests
5. Parliamentary oversight and approval in all Member States
6. Binding judicial review pathways for all aspects of implementation

Substantive Demands

1. Explicit incorporation of the Nuremberg Code's informed consent requirements
2. Mandatory incorporation of the Siracusa Principles for any rights limitations
3. Clear supremacy of national constitutions over experimental Agreement provisions
4. Explicit protection for scientific debate and dissenting viewpoints
5. Prohibition of mandatory health data centralization
6. Due process safeguards against "misinformation" determinations
7. Preservation of distinct regulatory frameworks for genetic technologies
8. Comprehensive liability for manufacturers of medical countermeasures
9. Prohibition of discrimination based on medical intervention status
10. Enhanced protections for vulnerable populations regarding experimental interventions

CALL FOR NATIONAL WITHDRAWAL

Should this experimental governance regime remain unmodified, we call upon all Member States to withdraw from the World Health Organization under Article 56 of its Constitution. The preservation of national self-determination, constitutional governance, and fundamental human rights must take precedence over continued participation in an organization willing to subject entire nations to unauthorized governance experiments.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

We reserve all rights to challenge the adoption, implementation, or enforcement of this experimental Agreement through all legal means available, including constitutional litigation, human rights claims, and legislative advocacy.

NOTICE OF GLOBAL RESISTANCE

Should the WHO and Member States proceed with this fundamentally flawed governance experiment, they are hereby on notice that implementation will face coordinated global resistance through all lawful means. The adoption of this Agreement in its current form will be met with sustained legal, political, and civil opposition by citizens refusing to be subjects in this unauthorized experiment.

CONCLUSION

The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement represents an unprecedented experiment in global governance that threatens national sovereignty, democratic governance, and individual rights. It attempts to arrogate power to an unaccountable global technocracy, treating sovereign nations as laboratories for testing novel governance systems never validated through democratic processes.

Our global health challenges demand genuine cooperation, not top-down dictates that sacrifice bodily autonomy and free inquiry at the altar of pharmaceutical profits and centralized control. A world that emerges nimbler, wiser, and more resilient from past challenges must harness the innovation born of intellectual diversity, not double down on discredited monopolies and failed groupthink.

In this defining moment, the WHO must decide if it exists to advance the health and freedom of the world's people, or to serve as a glorified drug cartel cloaked in public legitimacy. The eyes of history are watching.