The Global Pandemic Treaty: A New Era of International Health Cooperation

In light of recent global health developments, the World Health Organization (WHO) and 191 member countries have finalized a legally binding global pandemic treaty. This agreement comes after over three years of negotiation and is seen as a bold step toward preventing a repeat of the chaos witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The treaty promises stronger global health systems and fairer access to vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics, even though it lacks the participation of the United States.

Why the World Needed a Pandemic Treaty

• The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep flaws in global health systems, including unequal vaccine access, fragmented responses, and poor coordination among nations.
• Countries with vaccine manufacturing capabilities hoarded doses, while low-income nations were left behind. According to a study in Nature, over a million lives could have been saved with better vaccine distribution.
• In 2021, the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response highlighted that global failure to coordinate allowed the pandemic to spiral into a human disaster.
• These failures prompted WHO members to initiate treaty negotiations in December 2021, aiming to prevent a repeat of such inequities and chaos in future pandemics.
• The treaty aims to minimize human and economic loss by promoting collaboration, equity, and preparedness.
• India’s experience during the COVID-19 waves, where vaccine shortages, oxygen crises, and overwhelmed hospitals dominated headlines, reinforced the country’s need for a robust international agreement. This treaty also aligns with India’s global health diplomacy goals.

Key Features of the Global Pandemic Treaty

• The treaty introduces a Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system, which allows pharmaceutical companies access to pathogen samples and genome data in exchange for fair sharing of treatments and vaccines.
• Under the agreement, 10% of all pandemic-related products like vaccines and diagnostics must be donated to the WHO. An additional 10% must be sold at affordable prices, ensuring timely access for low-income countries.
• Nations are required to support the transfer of health technology and know-how to developing countries. This will empower regions like Africa and South Asia to produce their own medicines during crises.
• The treaty urges countries to set national policies that mandate equitable access to drugs and vaccines developed using public funds, ensuring public good takes precedence over profits.
• There is a strong emphasis on capacity building: enhancing local production of medical tools and developing healthcare infrastructure, especially in underserved regions.
• For India, which faced significant challenges during its COVID-19 waves due to import dependencies, these provisions are particularly relevant. With initiatives like ‘Make in India’ in the pharma sector, the treaty can help India expand its vaccine diplomacy and manufacturing leadership.

Challenges and Limitations of the Treaty

• While the treaty is legally binding, it lacks enforcement powers. The WHO cannot compel countries to follow its rules. This includes measures like travel bans, lockdowns, or vaccine mandates.
• Clause 24, Paragraph 3 clearly states that the treaty does not grant the WHO authority to alter or direct national laws or policies. Each country retains its public health sovereignty.
• Without enforcement mechanisms, the treaty depends on trust and goodwill. During crises, countries may still act in their self-interest, as seen during the COVID-19 vaccine hoarding.
• There is no clear roadmap on how the PABS system will function. Questions remain about how benefits like medicines and diagnostics will be distributed and monitored.
• Pharmaceutical companies have expressed concerns about their investments and intellectual property rights. They want legal certainty to continue research and development (R&D) without fear of forced technology sharing.
• The treaty was finalized without the United States, which has historically been a leader in global health innovation. The absence of the US weakens the treaty’s global influence, especially in terms of drug and vaccine production.
• For India, these gaps are a double-edged sword. While national sovereignty is preserved, the lack of enforceability means countries may not uphold equitable sharing promises, potentially affecting India’s access to critical resources in future pandemics.

Equity and Fairness in Vaccine and Drug Distribution

• One of the treaty’s central aims is to ensure fair access to pandemic-related products for all countries, regardless of income level.
• The agreement introduces the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) system, which mandates that manufacturers donate 10% of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics to the WHO, and sell another 10% at affordable prices.
• This commitment targets the disparity seen during COVID-19, when wealthy nations pre-ordered and hoarded vaccines, leaving lower-income countries, especially in Africa and South Asia, without timely access.
• For example, during India’s second COVID wave, delays in vaccine imports worsened the crisis. The new system aims to ensure that countries like India receive products proportionately and timely during future pandemics.
• Countries that share pathogen samples and genome sequences are now guaranteed access to the diagnostics and vaccines developed from that data.
• The treaty also pushes for technology transfer to low- and middle-income countries under “mutually agreed terms.” This helps create local manufacturing hubs, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers.
• Despite progress, negotiations on the specifics of how the PABS system will operate are still ongoing. Issues like cost, logistics, and allocation mechanisms remain unresolved.
• Experts view this equity framework as a historic step, although its real-world success will depend on implementation, funding, and political will.

Technology Transfer and Capacity Building

• The treaty strongly encourages the sharing of technology and expertise, especially with developing countries, to boost self-reliance in making vaccines, medicines, and diagnostics.
• Unlike earlier “voluntary” models, this agreement introduces the principle of “mutually agreed terms”, ensuring that technology transfer isn’t left solely to the discretion of pharmaceutical companies.
• The treaty recognizes that public funding plays a key role in research and development (R&D). Hence, countries are urged to place public interest conditions on such funding. This could include:
  • Open access to clinical trial data
  • Allowing local manufacturers to produce drugs under flexible patent terms
  • Pricing restrictions to ensure affordability
• This is especially important for countries like India, which already has a strong pharmaceutical industry and growing biotech sector. With appropriate technology transfer, India can become a global hub for pandemic response, not just for itself but for neighboring regions.
• Technology transfer will also involve capacity-building measures, such as:
  • Training local healthcare workers
  • Strengthening national regulatory frameworks
  • Creating supply chain infrastructure for distribution
• The goal is to build regional resilience so that developing countries are not left behind when a crisis hits. More local production reduces global dependence on a few high-income countries.
• However, implementation will depend on cooperation from countries with strong pharmaceutical industries. There are concerns that intellectual property protections might limit how much knowledge companies are willing to share.

National Sovereignty and Global Cooperation

• A significant feature of the pandemic treaty is that it respects the sovereignty of each member state. Countries are not obligated to follow any specific health mandates from the WHO.
• The treaty explicitly states that the WHO cannot impose lockdowns, border closures, or vaccine mandates. This was included to reassure countries that international collaboration would not compromise their domestic autonomy.
• Each nation is encouraged to create its own pandemic preparedness plans, tailored to its healthcare infrastructure, population needs, and political frameworks.
• At the same time, the treaty promotes global cooperation in areas like data sharing, surveillance systems, and coordinated emergency responses.
• This balance between national control and international unity is critical. It ensures that no country feels forced into action, while still maintaining a shared framework for rapid and fair global responses.
• For countries like India, this balance is especially important. India has a large, diverse population and complex governance structure. Preserving decision-making power while benefiting from global cooperation allows India to act swiftly during crises without compromising its federal system.
• This provision also helps dispel misinformation and fears that the treaty is a “WHO power grab.” By keeping authority with national governments, the treaty reinforces trust and wider adoption.
• However, this approach also limits the WHO’s ability to enforce treaty terms. It will rely on diplomacy, peer pressure, and mutual accountability to ensure compliance.

The Role of the United States and Its Absence

• One of the most striking aspects of the treaty is that it was finalized without the United States, a country historically central to global health efforts.
• The US withdrew from WHO treaty negotiations in January 2025 following President Donald Trump’s return to office and his decision to pull the country out of the WHO.
• This absence has raised concerns, as the US has one of the largest pharmaceutical industries, significant funding capabilities, and advanced pandemic response infrastructure.
• Experts argue that not having the US on board creates a “gaping hole” in the treaty, especially in terms of drug and vaccine development and distribution.
• However, others see the treaty’s finalization without US involvement as a testament to global solidarity. It proves that the rest of the world can unite to protect global health, even without a dominant superpower.
• The European Union, Brazil, India, and many African nations played leading roles in bridging negotiations, especially on equity and technology transfer issues.
• The absence of the US might allow for more equity-driven frameworks, free from the influence of nations with strong pharmaceutical lobbies. For instance, it helped shift language from “voluntary” to “mutually agreed” for tech transfer.
• For India, the US absence is both a challenge and an opportunity. India may gain more influence in shaping global health governance and can help fill the leadership gap in promoting inclusive and equitable pandemic response frameworks.
• Moving forward, there is still hope that the US could rejoin, depending on future political developments.

Implications for India and the Global South

• For countries like India, the pandemic treaty presents both a strategic opportunity and a platform to address long-standing health equity concerns.
• India, with its vast pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity and experience from the COVID-19 crisis, is well-positioned to lead regional efforts in pandemic preparedness and response.
• The treaty’s focus on technology transfer, local production, and pathogen sharing directly benefits India. These provisions can boost India’s vaccine diplomacy and enhance its role in supplying essential health products to neighboring and low-income countries.
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, India was a key supplier of vaccines under initiatives like COVAX and Vaccine Maitri. However, domestic supply constraints during its second wave exposed the need for better resource planning and equitable access mechanisms.
• The treaty’s call for mutually agreed terms in tech sharing allows India to both contribute and benefit from global R&D while protecting its national interests.
• It also encourages the strengthening of domestic healthcare infrastructure, including the training of health workers, improving logistics, and building robust disease surveillance networks.
• Importantly, the treaty emphasizes One Health, which is highly relevant for India, where zoonotic diseases are prevalent due to close human-animal interactions. Addressing these risks at the source will prevent future outbreaks.
• As a voice for the Global South, India can use its diplomatic influence in platforms like G20, BRICS, and the WHO Executive Board to push for fairer terms, funding support, and regional manufacturing hubs.

The One Health Approach and Prevention at Source

• A major highlight of the treaty is its adoption of the One Health approach, which recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.
• Many dangerous pathogens—including COVID-19, SARS, and Ebola—originate from animal-human spillovers. The treaty now requires countries to monitor and reduce such risks through integrated surveillance and prevention systems.
• Member states are encouraged to identify and manage high-risk environments where zoonotic spillovers are likely, such as:
  • Wet markets
  • Wildlife trafficking networks
  • Intensive livestock farming
  • Deforestation zones
• Countries are also urged to invest in wildlife surveillance, sustainable agriculture, and land-use planning that minimizes ecological disruption.
• For India, this approach is crucial. With its dense population, high biodiversity, and widespread livestock-rearing, India is vulnerable to zoonotic outbreaks. Adopting the One Health model will help preempt health crises before they emerge.
• The treaty promotes cross-sectoral collaboration—involving veterinary experts, ecologists, medical professionals, and policymakers—to create early warning systems and response strategies.
• India has already taken steps in this direction with its National One Health Mission, and this treaty provides global support and funding opportunities to scale such initiatives.
• Global adoption of this model represents a paradigm shift from reacting to pandemics to actively preventing them at the source.

Future Scope and Implementation Challenges

• Although the global pandemic treaty marks a historic milestone, its long-term success will depend on effective implementation, monitoring, and sustained political commitment.
• One major challenge is the absence of a dedicated funding mechanism. Many low- and middle-income countries may struggle to meet treaty obligations without international financial support.
• The treaty recommends creating a coordinated financing platform, but details on how it will be funded, governed, or accessed are still vague. This raises concerns about the feasibility of equitable access and technology transfer goals.
• Another key issue is the non-binding nature of certain clauses. Many provisions rely on the voluntary cooperation of member states, especially in sharing pathogen data, health technologies, and production resources.
• Enforcement of commitments remains a grey area. The WHO lacks the authority to penalize non-compliance, which means global solidarity will depend heavily on diplomatic pressure and peer accountability.
• Monitoring progress will require the development of new indicators and transparent reporting mechanisms to assess whether countries are truly preparing and sharing in good faith.
• Continued multilateral negotiations will be necessary to finalize unresolved annexes like the operational details of the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) system.
• The treaty also urges the formation of a global health emergency workforce, which needs strategic planning, training, and cross-border mobility protocols—especially crucial for rapid deployment in future outbreaks.
• For India and other developing nations, this presents both logistical and administrative hurdles. However, it also provides a framework to build health resilience, secure international support, and emerge as regional leaders in pandemic response.

Conclusion

The global pandemic treaty stands as a powerful symbol of international unity and resolve. While it may not be perfect, it lays the foundation for a world better prepared to handle future health crises. From fair access to vaccines and medical tools to stronger surveillance and local manufacturing, the treaty introduces critical reforms. For countries like India, it offers a meaningful opportunity to shape global health leadership, improve domestic readiness, and promote regional solidarity. Success will depend not just on the words signed but on the actions taken.

---

1. How does the global pandemic treaty attempt to balance national sovereignty with the need for international collaboration during health crises? (250 words)
2. Evaluate the role of technology transfer and public-funded research in promoting equitable access to vaccines under the global pandemic treaty. (250 words)