Treaty will serve as a blueprint for future pandemics 

While the updated draft of the Pandemic Agreement retains nebulous and undefined language on mis- and disinformation, it has removed the mandate for states to “manage” so-called “infodemics”. The term was loosely defined as including, inter alia, “too much information” during a disease outbreak causing “confusion” as well as “mistrust” in health authorities, irrespective of the information’s accuracy.  

Human rights advocates have welcomed this revision, but emphasize that more must be done to align the provisions of the WHO Pandemic Agreement with global legal standards protecting freedom of expression. 

“Freedom of expression, including the right to seek and receive information, is essential to ensure scrutiny and accountability over critical public health decisions. Lacking free access to information, people are unable to assess the lawfulness and effectiveness of the actions undertaken by authorities,” continued Mazzoli. 

“If adopted in its present form, the WHO Pandemic Agreement would set a dangerously low standard of regard for freedom of expression. Any government could refer to its obligations under the treaty to unduly restrict free speech in the name of preventing alleged misinformation or disinformation among the population”, he added. 

Next steps: final negotiations and adoption 

The current updated text will serve as the basis for negotiations scheduled for 18-28 March 2024. Negotiations on this revised draft are expected to result in a consensus text, whose final adoption is anticipated to take place at the World Health Assembly at its 77th Session in May 2024. 

Considering its importance and binding nature, the process for negotiating the text – which began in March 2023 – has been exceptionally fast compared to typical timelines. However, the slower-than-expected pace of negotiations has prompted some Member States to question the feasibility of adopting the agreement in May. Once adopted, the Pandemic Agreement will enter into force after it has been ratified by forty countries. 

“Everyone agrees that life is precious and that states have an interest in protecting public health. But some of the most grave and systematic human rights abuses of the last century unfolded during public emergencies and we must be vigilant to protect hard-won rights – especially in times of crisis. When it comes to vague and undefined concepts such as “misinformation” or “disinformation”, the currently proposed cure is far worse than the disease,” Mazzoli concluded.