Quote:
The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.
At the same time, the IHR require countries to designate a National IHR Focal Point for communications with WHO, to establish and maintain core capacities for surveillance and response, including at designated points of entry. Additional provisions address the areas of international travel and transport such as the health documents required for international traffic.
Finally, the IHR introduce important safeguards to protect the rights of travellers and other persons in relation to the treatment of personal data, informed consent and non-discrimination in the application of health measures under the Regulations.
Quote:
As the chief legal officers of our States, we oppose two instruments under negotiation that could give the World Health Organization (WHO) unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and her people. Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked that the COVID-19 pandemic may have been “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”1 Meanwhile, the WHO failed to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for its lies and deceptions during the pandemic.2 Rather than learning from these failures, some inexplicably want to relinquish more power to unelected and unaccountable institutions.
The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable
Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms
such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our
Constitution’s core principles.
If adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global
authority in public health. Under the proposed amendments and treaty, the WHO’s Director-
General would supposedly gain unilateral power to declare a "public health emergency of
international concern" (PHEIC) in member nations, extending beyond pandemics to include a
range of perceived emergencies.
The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable
Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms
such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our
Constitution’s core principles.
If adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global
authority in public health. The objective of these instruments is to empower the WHO, particularly its uncontrollable
Director-General, with the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms
such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our
Constitution’s core principles.
If adopted, these agreements would seek to elevate the WHO from an advisory body to a global
authority in public health. Under the proposed amendments and treaty, the WHO’s Director-
General would supposedly gain unilateral power to declare a "public health emergency of
international concern" (PHEIC) in member nations, extending beyond pandemics to include a
range of perceived emergencies.
Quote:
The United States is supporting efforts to strengthen global policies and legal preparedness, including negotiating a Pandemic Agreement and targeted amendments to the IHR, as these two instruments have the potential to provide the international community with the opportunity to establish a shared path forward for preventing, preparing for, and responding to international health emergencies.”
