Model UN Background Guide

Committee: World Health Organization (WHO)
Topic: Pandemic Treaty Negotiation
Conference Year: 2026

Topic Background

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant gaps in global preparedness, response coordination, and equitable access to health technologies. In the aftermath, member states and international organizations recognized the need for a legally binding international framework to better prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics. The idea of a “pandemic treaty” emerged as a mechanism to strengthen global health security by setting clear obligations for states, improving transparency, and facilitating rapid, equitable distribution of medical countermeasures.

The WHO initiated formal negotiations in 2021 through its Member States to develop an international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. This process reflects lessons learned from COVID-19 and earlier outbreaks (e.g., H1N1, Ebola), which highlighted challenges such as delayed information sharing, vaccine nationalism, and fragmented supply chains. The treaty aims to complement the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) by filling gaps around compliance, financing, and multisectoral cooperation.

As of 2026, negotiations have intensified amid ongoing concerns about emerging variants and other infectious threats. The treaty is on the WHO agenda to establish global norms and mechanisms that ensure timely notification of outbreaks, strengthen health systems, support research and development, and guarantee equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. The urgency is underscored by geopolitical tensions and differing national priorities, which complicate consensus-building.

Key Actors

• States:

  • United States — A major funder of global health initiatives, advocating for strong intellectual property protections balanced with equitable access.
  • European Union — Promotes multilateralism and equitable access, pushing for transparency and accountability mechanisms.
  • China — Emphasizes sovereignty and non-interference, cautious about binding commitments that could limit national decision-making.
  • India — Focuses on affordable access to medicines and vaccines, supports flexibilities around intellectual property rights.
  • Brazil — Advocates for equity and strengthening health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
  • South Africa — A vocal proponent of technology transfer and capacity building in LMICs.

• International Organizations:

  • World Health Organization (WHO) — The lead entity facilitating treaty negotiations and providing technical expertise.
  • World Trade Organization (WTO) — Involved due to intellectual property rights issues impacting access to health technologies.
  • Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) — Key player in vaccine development and financing.
  • Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance — Focuses on vaccine equity and distribution in LMICs.

• Non-State Actors:

  • Pharmaceutical Industry — Concerned with intellectual property protections and regulatory harmonization.
  • Civil Society Organizations — Advocate for transparency, equity, and human rights in pandemic response.
  • Academia and Research Institutions — Provide scientific data and policy recommendations.

Bloc Positions

• High-Income Countries (HICs), including the United States, European Union, Japan, Canada:
  Typically support a treaty that strengthens global health security but emphasize protecting intellectual property rights to incentivize innovation. They advocate for mechanisms ensuring rapid information sharing and support for health system strengthening but are cautious about binding financial commitments. Transparency and accountability are priorities, but sovereignty concerns remain.

• Middle-Income Countries (MICs), including Brazil, South Africa, India, Mexico:
  Push for equitable access to vaccines and therapeutics through provisions enabling technology transfer and waivers on intellectual property during health emergencies. They call for stronger commitments on financing pandemic preparedness and support for health infrastructure. MICs seek a balance between global solidarity and national autonomy.

• Low-Income Countries (LICs), particularly in Africa and parts of Asia:
  Demand robust mechanisms for financing, technology transfer, and capacity building to address systemic inequities revealed by COVID-19. They emphasize the need for enforceable commitments to equitable access and support for health system resilience. LICs often align with MICs but may press more strongly for binding financial and technical assistance.

• Authoritarian or Sovereignty-Focused States, including China and Russia:
  Express caution about treaty provisions that could be perceived as infringing on national sovereignty or allowing external interference. They prioritize voluntary cooperation and national control over health data and response measures. These states often resist strong enforcement mechanisms and seek flexibility in implementation.

Past UN Action

• World Health Assembly Resolutions:

  • WHA74.7 (2021): Mandated the establishment of an intergovernmental negotiating body to draft a pandemic treaty.
  • WHA75.4 (2022): Extended the negotiation timeline and outlined key thematic areas for the treaty.

• UN General Assembly:

  • A/RES/75/282 (2021): Called for enhanced global cooperation on pandemic preparedness and response, supporting WHO-led treaty efforts.

• Reports:

  • WHO’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board annual reports have repeatedly highlighted gaps in pandemic readiness and called for binding international instruments.
  • Independent panels post-COVID-19 (e.g., the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response) have recommended a treaty to address systemic weaknesses.

Questions a Resolution Should Answer

1. What legal status will the pandemic treaty have, and how will it interact with existing frameworks such as the IHR (2005)?
2. How will the treaty ensure timely and transparent sharing of outbreak-related information among member states?
3. What mechanisms will be established to guarantee equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics, especially for LICs and MICs?
4. How will intellectual property rights be balanced with public health needs during pandemics?
5. What commitments will states make regarding financing and capacity building for pandemic preparedness and response?
6. How will compliance and enforcement be monitored and addressed to ensure accountability?
7. What role will non-state actors (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, civil society) play in the treaty’s implementation?

Further Reading

• UN Documents:
  Official WHO reports, World Health Assembly resolutions, and UN General Assembly resolutions related to pandemic preparedness and the treaty negotiations provide authoritative insights into the legal and political framework guiding discussions.

• Think-Tank Reports:
  Analysis from global health policy institutes such as the Center for Global Development, Chatham House, and the Council on Foreign Relations offer critical assessments of treaty options, equity considerations, and geopolitical dynamics.

• News Outlets:
  Reputable international media such as The Economist, BBC, and Reuters provide up-to-date coverage on negotiation progress, state positions, and emerging challenges in the pandemic treaty process.

This background guide aims to equip delegates with a comprehensive understanding of the pandemic treaty negotiations as they stand in 2026, highlighting the complexities and stakes involved in forging a global consensus on pandemic preparedness and response.