Don’t fall for WHO's sovereignty trap

The debate about IHR amendments and ceding sovereignty is a massive red herring

I recently drafted a letter for a fabulous community group near Sydney Australia to send to Australian parliamentarians. It explains - I hope - why arguing about sovereignty is a fatal trap. As usual with the WHO, the devil is in the detail, and it’s all about language. My plea: when you’re advocating for the IHR amendments to be rejected, mind your language. “Ceding sovereignty” is not synonymous with “effective control over public health decisions”.

Consider using the following phrases rather than “ceding sovereignty”:

• relinquishing autonomy

• giving up our autonomy

• yielding effective power to the WHO

• outsourcing public health decision-making to the WHO

• outsourcing public health decision-making to unelected unaccountable international bureaucrats who are funded by vested interests

• offshoring our public health decision-making

or more positively - “keeping our public heath decision-making at home”.

The letter below goes some way to explaining why the best thing you can do with the sovereignty argument is avoid it, and change the language.

Letter to Australian MPs

Dear [Name]

I am writing to express profound concern about the proposed amendments to the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations (IHR).

There has been much debate about whether the IHR amendments involve Australia ceding sovereignty to the WHO.

Did you know that whilst Australia will technically still be making our own decisions, the IHR amendments would oblige us to make sure that we decide whatever the WHO tells us we should decide? 

Whilst not technically a loss of sovereignty, this is most certainly agreeing to take directions from an offshore body, whose officials are not elected by or accountable to Australians. 

I am most perplexed and extremely concerned as to why the Australian government would want to do this. We can certainly commit to considering advice from the WHO - that’s what it’s there for - but agreeing to abide by its binding recommendations in the event of a public health emergency is very disconcerting.

I am trying to understand how committing to complying with future binding “recommendations” from the WHO could be in Australia’s national interest.

So I am writing to ask you to carefully consider the following question:

In an emergency, should we:

A) Do what the Director General of the WHO determines is best for everyone globally,

or

B) Do what we determine to be in our national interest, which may or may not be following the WHO’s recommendations?

If we opt for B it doesn’t mean Australia is selfish or irresponsible. We can make our decisions carefully, weighing advice from the WHO and wherever else we feel appropriate. We can discern our moral and legal obligations as responsible global citizens before deciding on the best course of action for Australia.

On the other hand, if we choose option A, we are committing to following the WHO’s recommendations every time. This is what we would be signing up for, if we go along with the proposed IHR amendments.

Did you know that our parliament does not need to pass any law to enable the federal Chief Medical Officer to follow the WHO's recommendations?  This power already exists in sections 477 and 478 of the Biosecurity Act 2015. So if our federal government and Chief Medical Officer intend to comply with the amended IHR, the framework is already in place for them to lead Australia’s public health response in direct line with the WHO dictates, without the need for parliamentary debate or scrutiny and certainly without any need to pass legislation.

In conclusion, I would be most grateful to receive your considered response to the following question:

If an election was called on this issue today, would you be in support of option A or option B?

The current federal government appears to be fully in support of option A.

Which option do you support?

Your voice carries significant weight, and your decision on this matter will shape the democratic principles we hold dear. Silence, in this instance, may be construed as consent.

I sincerely hope you will stand against the amendments to the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations, aligning yourself with the people you represent and resisting the influence of unelected, unaccountable, international bureaucrats that these amendments appear designed to support.

To assist, a legal opinion is attached.*

Yours sincerely

[Name]

PS Did you know that Australia can reserve its position on the IHR amendments to allow enough time for proper public debate?   If we don't reserve our position, I understand that the amendments will automatically come into force for Australia in May 2025.

*The legal opinion will be published here soon. In the meantime, here is a summary of the legal position in Australia on 4 key questions relating to the IHR amendments:

What recommendations would the WHO be able to make?

The WHO can make any recommendation that it deems appropriate, including but not limited to isolation, detention, treatment and vaccination.

Would WHO recommendations be binding on Australia?

Yes, WHO recommendations would be binding on Australia if we choose to make them so.

If legislation is not passed in Australia mandating compliance with the WHO recommendations, they would be binding under international law, but not enforceable (and therefore not really binding in a practical sense) in Australia.

Will parliament vote on the IHR amendments? 

No, parliament will not vote on whether the IHR amendments come into force in Australia. The Australian Constitution gives this power to the federal government.

Will parliament need to pass legislation for WHO’s recommendations to become binding in Australia?

We already have legislation enabling us to follow the WHO’s recommendations. Under our current legislation, if the IHR amendments come into force, we would be expected by the international community to comply with them, but could choose not to.  We would be in breach of our obligations under international law, but not in breach of any domestic laws, if we chose not to comply.  In this scenario, the governments in Australia could claim that we are legally bound to follow the WHO’s recommendations without having to debate any legislation to mandate this in domestic law.

The government in one or more jurisdictions in Australia may decide to introduce legislation requiring compliance with WHO recommendations. This would make WHO recommendations binding under domestic law and would be consistent with our obligations under the IHR amendments. However, this scenario would require parliaments to legislate to commit us to following WHO recommendations. Given Australian governments appear to be of one mind - that we should follow WHO recommendations - it is conceivable that to avoid controversy, governments may decide not to legislate to mandate compliance with WHO recommendations.

Does signing up to the treaty mean that Australia would be ceding sovereignty to the WHO?

No.  The IHR amendments would see Australia effectively handing decision-making in relation to public health measures to the WHO.  But technically, legally, Australia would retain its sovereignty because we would still be making the decisions - it’s just that we would be committing to always deciding in line with WHO recommendations.