Presented below is a summary of information produced by a qualified legal expert with a follow-up interview with John Campbell. The issue of concern is the World Health Organisation’s New Pandemic Treaty and draft amendments to the current International Health Regulations (IHR).
Prior to posting this article I actually tried to search for all of the relevant documents and proposed amendments in order to evaluate the claims that are made. However, I found this to be a somewhat difficult task (particularly given my lack of legal knowledge and training) and rather than unearth the primary texts, I instead ran across a variety of mainstream articles and summaries and fact-checking exercises that overpopulate the current Google search.
Without exception the view presented by such mainstream sources supports the WHO and encourages its proposed tightening of procedures while rejecting all claims that the new treaty and IHR amendments will be mandatory, affect sovereign rights of nations, or in any way threaten to limit or undermine our civil liberties. Indeed, contrary opinions are framed and dismissed as wholly the paranoia of “right wing conspiracy theorists”.
Just to set the record straight then, I am neither right wing nor “a conspiracy theorist”. I am very concerned, however, by how our individual rights are coming increasingly under threat from technocratic intrusions (at both national and supranational levels) that repeatedly clampdown on freedom of expression, restrict freedom of assembly and movement, and have otherwise impinged on ordinary civil liberties – vaccine passports and mandates being two of the most recent and egregious examples.
In the light of what we have all just lived through, therefore, any prospect of a new global legal framework that encourages or enables the tightening of restrictions and limiting of personal freedom in the event of future pandemics is surely a major cause for concern for all democratically minded people.
*
On October 13th, Philipp Kruse, an international lawyer based in Zurich, gave a presentation to the Health and Democracy Conference at the European Parliament expressing concerns about new International Health Regulations will grant the power to the World Health Organisation permitting, at any time, an unelected and unaccountable technocratic body to override our constitutions, suspend our human rights, and bypass international law with permanent effect.
*
Philipp Kruse began by giving a brief introduction of what the plan is, and what can be seen in from the documents that are already on the table today and are about to be negotiated under the title of New Pandemic Treaty and with proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations. He said:
“We are here today because we are all concerned by the World Health Organisation’s strong pressure to extend its powers, its structural and its financial capacities, with a permanent effect over the sovereignty of the countries, and over the self-determination of the people.
“It was in the wake of the covid-19 crisis that the WHO has initiated a reform process which will bring significant changes to all of us; that will concern every human being; and every one of the 194 member states on this planet.
“This reform process was started in 2021 with two working streams preparing two separate legal instruments. Number one: a complete new treaty, the so-called New Pandemic Treaty and; number two: significant amendments to the old, already existing International Health Regulations.
“These two legal instruments: the treaty and IHR are about to be negotiated and finalised and they bring material changes. The contents of these drafts are on the table. They are available for everybody [to see] and already in eight months time from now, in May 2024, the 194 member states of the WHO will have their final vote on both of these international agreements.”

Slide above shows the legislative timelines for the two WHO projects (screenshot from his interview with John Campbell embedded below)
“This process takes place behind closed doors and at a tremendous speed. It is not reported nor discussed in our newspapers, in our national parliaments, in universities, nor in society. This is unacceptable, because these two legal instruments will affect every one of us by reducing our right of self-determination, our right in general to human dignity, and it will eliminate the basic principle of democratic participation.
“Also the effects of these treaties will be felt by member states. They will lose their sovereignty and their autonomy. Therefore every human being on this planet should understand the essence of the two legal instruments which come under the title of ‘Pandemic Prevention’ and ‘Pandemic Preparedness and Response’.
“In a nutshell, the WHO claims in these two legal instruments an absolute and non-questionable leadership in all health measures as soon as WHO refers itself to ‘pandemic prevention, preparedness and response’. WHO claims to have the ultimate expertise and the ultimate power in all aspects of this wide field: I recommend you read carefully the current existing draft of the amendments of the International Health Regulations, article 13A and article 42.
“It shall be granted the power of massive self-authorisation whenever it claims to act under this purpose: I recommend you read the article 12 that establishes the preconditions for ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ [PHEIC] together with Annex 2 of the proposed amendments.
“On the basis of an extremely weak concept, i.e., ‘health’, which basically means anything and nothing: animal’s health, ecosystem concerns about the level of CO2, and, of course, human health, can give rise to permanent measures, and even to a public health emergency – to a pandemic called out and declared by the WHO.
“And thereby, WHO will have the right to not only declare recommendations made by several experts, but also to impose on the people of this planet (or only to a certain region) all kinds of restrictions: access restrictions, lockdowns, surveillance and experimental treatments.
“So far the list of these potential measures can be found in the International Health Regulations, article 18; and there you will also find one example of the precondition of the proof of vaccination that was so far meant to be non-binding. In the future, as the word ‘binding’ is eliminated, and as we have explicitly written down in article 13A of the proposal and article 42 of the proposal, the commitment that the member states will give when they accept these amendments – the commitment that they will have to apply the proposed measures. This is not enough.
“Further, WHO will most notably reserve and assume the right to define as the sole instance of – on this planet – to control all information that it claims to be related to health. And this assumes, as well, the right for censorship and the right to interfere in social communication.
“It seems to be so important to the WHO that these provisions can be found in both of the international new agreements: in International Health Regulations and in the new pandemic treaty.
“And last but not least, of a brief summary that should be given any time we speak about these new changes, is the fact that there is no mechanism foreseen that will allow the people or the member states to challenge the assessment of WHO, whether it is the WHO’s assessment about a ‘public health emergency’, or their assessment with respect to certain measures, or when it comes to the imposing of a regime for what they call ‘vaccination’ as experimental as it might be.
“There simply will be no stop-button for the member states and of course not for us the citizens.”
*
On October 16th, John Campbell invited Philipp Kruse to discuss the serious dangers posed by ratification of WHO’s proposed new treaty and International Health Regulations:
*
Additional:
A complete transcription of the concluding part of Philipp Kruse’s statement at the European Parliament is continued below:
“So now, if we just look at it as a whole. Number one: this right of WHO to self-declare, to auto-authorise itself to claim a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’, and to maintain it for as long as it wants. Number two: to issue so-called ‘recommendations’ that will be legally binding, and that will be subject to a system of surveillance: surveillance of the people and surveillance of the member states. Then the total control and monopoly on information, including the right of censorship, and then the fact that there is no mechanism of control: control of the WHO and of correction.
“What do we have as a result? Well, it is very simple to say: without the open debate; without the possibility of having different opinions, different hypothesis, different methods to be discussed at the table, there will be no science, and there will be ultimately no democracy. And there will be no legal court proceedings and no justice. If the result is already predefined by one sole authority on this planet, there cannot be by definition any proper scientific process – a proper decision-making process – there cannot be any democracy.
“Number two: it is a basic principle, not only of international law, not only of national constitutional law, that we have, as human beings, the right to know what we consent to. So, if we ask ourselves have we been asked, have we been informed about this process that is about to become reality, the answer is no.
“And there is one important distinction to be made between these two legal instruments. The new pandemic treaty will be considered by WHO itself as a treaty, and thereby shall be subject to a national process of debate and ratification. But not so for the International Health Regulations. The International Health Regulations by definition of WHO’s own writing (when you read the International Health Regulations), they are qualified, as health regulations according to the WHO constitution article 21. And what does that mean as a consequence? There will be an automatic coming into force right after the vote in 2024.
“So far it is still 24 months [away] but these 24 months have been reduced to 12 month only. That means that at the end after May 2025, the International Health Regulations will become law automatically.
“So, we will not be asked. We have not been informed. And there will be a process of automatic enactment of the international health regulation. This is about as severe as it can be when it comes to the violation of the principle of an informed consent.
“This principle does not exist only on the individual level, but it exists also for democracies as a whole, and it exists under the title of self-determination of the people which is one of the founding principles of the United Nations in the United Nations Charter article 1 of 1946.
“Now, this is a reason why we should all get to know not only what is in these documents, but we shall claim and clearly say that some of these International Health Regulations and the changes that are modified and declared there, will totally be opposed to what we consider our constitutional order. As there is no public information right, as there will be censorship, as there will be human rights not protected, as there will be no checks and balances, as actually it will be the WHO to determine under which legal status we will have to live. That means the power will not anymore be in the hands of the people.
“Therefore these negotiations have to be stopped immediately. And it is an matter and a duty for all citizens now to impose the pressure towards their political representatives to make sure that the politicians – the political representatives – understand that they go on their entrusted vote they can use. Now, as this is just an overview, and as we are here in Europe, and as within Europe these roles have been already pushed forward to an alarming extent we found it important to provide you a more detailed overview on the situation here in Europe.”



