From Words to Action: Making the Pandemic Agreement Work

The recent adoption of a Pandemic Agreement by the World Health Organization (WHO) member states has been widely hailed as a historic achievement for global health governance and security. Yet critics have remarked that it is nothing more than lofty goals wrapped in “soft law” language like “encourage,” “promote,” and “facilitate,” offering few binding legal obligations and little enforceability.

Despite its non-binding obligations, history shows that even such aspirational agreements hold significant potential to catalyze bold and transformative public health policymaking. Now more than ever, it is essential to focus on the steps needed to unlock this Agreement’s full potential.

An Agreement Anchoring Progressive Norms

Because the Pandemic Agreement was adopted under the WHO Constitution, its constitutional basis grants the Agreement a unique and authoritative standing within international health law, underscoring its foundational importance for future global health security governance.

The Agreement is divided into three chapters. The first chapter lists the core objectives and principles driving the Agreement, clarifying its applicability both during and between pandemics. The second contains the heart of the Agreement, aiming to achieve equity in, for, and through pandemic prevention, preparedness via provisions on regulatory systems strengthening, research and development, local production, technology transfers, pathogen access and benefit sharing, and supply chain and logistics. Finally, the third chapter provides the institutional arrangements of the Agreement.

For the first time, the Pandemic Agreement anchors principles like the One Health approach — the interface of human, animal, and environmental health — into a binding global framework. It codifies in international law a Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) mechanism, hoping to promote the rapid and timely sharing of “materials and sequence informant on pathogens with pandemic potential” alongside the sharing of benefits derived from their utilization for public health purposes. It also cements the use of equitable access tools such as Technology Transfer, hoping to expand manufacturing capacities to low and middle-income countries (LMICs). In doing so, the Agreement establishes a new normative scaffold for national laws and global governance. The Agreement is less about international enforcement and more about creating consensus, often the first and most durable step toward real-world change.

Learning from 20 Years of FCTC Success

To see the potential of such consensus frameworks, consider the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), adopted in 2003. Similar to the Pandemic Agreement, the FCTC was also criticized for being too broad and non-binding, with some experts considering it “unrealistic, impractical, and overly ambitious.” Fast forward two decades — which saw significant financial and political commitment across stakeholders — the FCTC has:

1. Catalyzed domestic legislation across more than 180 countries. Countries from Canada to India enacted plain-packaging, smoking-ban, and health-warning laws, referencing FCTC standards.
2. Withstood formidable legal challenges in national and international courts. In Australia, the World Trade Organization and investor-state tribunals upheld plain-packaging laws citing FCTC obligations. Similarly, the FCTC was key in Uruguay’s defense before ICSID tribunal. The tribunal ruled decisively in Uruguay’s favor in 2016.
3. Structured governance. The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the governing body of the WHO FCTC. It has issued progressive guidelines, coordinated litigation support (e.g., Uruguay’s Punta del Este Declaration), and mobilized international consensus. An active COP has enabled the treaty to continuously evolve, deepen its obligations, and adapt to emerging challenges over time.

These positive outcomes from the FCTC were possible not due to enforceable clauses, but because international consensus became legally and politically meaningful, fundamentally reshaping national behavior.

Governments, courts (both domestic and international), and advocates now have an international hard-law reference point that legitimizes health security policymaking, including One Health surveillance laws, scientific and benefit-sharing protocols, and regulatory measures for equitable access to medical countermeasures.

The Next Frontier

The Pandemic Agreement’s future depends on its Conference of the Parties (COP). The COP will serve as the governing body of the Agreement, responsible for overseeing its implementation, making key decisions on operational matters, and reviewing the Agreement’s effectiveness.  

The Agreement will be open for ratification only after the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopts the PABS Annex to the Agreement. The Annex will determine the intricacies of operationalizing the Agreement’s PABS mechanism. Ratification by 60 member states or/and regional economic integration organizations is required to bring the Agreement into force. This process could itself take years, creating uncertainty as to the Agreement’s actual implementation. 

The open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) established by WHA resolution 78.1 has huge responsibilities, including to negotiate and draft the PABS Annex and submit the outcome in less than a year to the 79^th WHA — an ambitious task. Scholars have raised concerns over the complexities. The IGWI must also lay down the groundwork for operationalizing the COP such as rules of procedure, financial rules, and the budget. It must also work on the structure and modalities of the Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network, and start developing implementation frameworks such as the reporting mechanism. In addition, the IGWI should initiate work on a proposal for the financial mechanism outlined in the Agreement, with a focus on promoting sustainable financing for its implementation.

The above groundwork is a mammoth task, particularly in a current resource-limited WHO, but a necessary precursor to the effective implementation of the Agreement. Experts, and most importantly, funders across the world, need to focus on supporting the WHO Secretariat and member states in the implementation of the Agreement. Significant capacity building and technical support would be required by LMICs over the near future.  

The real miracle of the Pandemic Agreement isn’t in its binding (or not-so binding) clauses; it is in the collective codified consensus on what must be done and what it will take to get it done. Implementation is key.

In today’s era of fragmented multilateralism and anti-science rhetoric, law can and must reclaim its moral and structural power. The Pandemic Agreement isn’t just a treaty — it is a blueprint.