Remarks made at the “SECOND SOVEREIGNTY SUMMIT” July 29, 2024.
https://sovereigntysummit.org/the-sovereignty-summit-2/
PHILIPP KRUSE, LL.M., Partner, Kruse Law Headquartered In Zurich, Switzerland; Leading Critic Of The Who
TRANSCRIPT:
Philipp Kruse: What violations of the WHO’s own constitution and the member states own constitution are we talking about? Let’s start with the WHO’s own procedural rules. They were always there, created to have and clear basis for democratic principles of informed consent. We have all been well aware of the breach and violation of the four-month rule of article 55, paragraph two, of the International Health Regulations, which meant that four months in advance of the World Health Assembly that took place on 1st of June, there should have been the final wording of the amendments. That was not the case. In fact, what we saw was that there was negotiation going on literally until the very last final moment of the voting at the World Health Assembly. And here we must say that there took place even an explicit vote ahead of the World Health Assembly by the Committee. Eight on the committee provided a clear no. That was on Thursday, 3rd of May. And this is worth taking note of with a total possible vote of 177. There were a number of votes in favor of the IHR amendments of just 26, whereas the number against was 67. So two-thirds.
That’s a clear no. Usually, such a business should have been turned down and never brought back in, particularly not to the final plenary session of the World Health Assembly. But exactly that is what took place. And so on the 1st of June, as we all know, at 9:00 pm local time, Geneva, the representatives, the delegates of the member states in the World Health Assembly in the plenary session were made believe that the previous negotiations for the amendments of the International Health Regulations were quite successful, and so that the vote on it would be just a mere formal decision. And so, they were asked, the representatives of the member states, “is the Assembly now ready to adopt of the resolution as read out?” “I see no objection,” said the chair. So, there is the resolution, including the amendments. They are now adopted. This is absolutely not the way how important amendments to such an important international legal basis, like the international obligations, can and should be adopted. So, this is a lot of food for the lawyers here. But also, regarding the content, we need to be aware that the content of the IHR amendments that were adopted on the 1st of June are really far-reaching, and they result in a significant threat to sovereignty, of course, resulting from an undue waiver of the member states on of their rights. What are we talking about here? Just a couple of brief notes here.
Article 12 of the IHR amendments allows for a much wider discretion for the Director General to call out a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Then, in addition, we see that this one single person, the Director General, is allowed to declare such legal status with worldwide effect against all rules of common sense, even overruling the emergency committee and even overruling the relevant member state that is concerned. Then, in addition, of course, we see that the recommendations, the tool of recommendations, is extended in particular regarding health products. It was already mentioned, so health products in the future will as well include, experimental products resulting from emergency use listing authorizations. We see that explicitly also mentioned in the treaty, which is not yet adopted. Article 14 regulatory strengthening. Then very much varying is the influence, the factual influence that comes from the WHO’s position as the leading number one organization in all health and pandemic matters. We have seen that, as Reggie Littlejohn has mentioned already in the past, whatever word was spread, whatever recommendation was done by WHO was considered ultimately the number one best practice without any alternative, and thus, as such, was followed. And we all know that this term “best practice” is important. Whenever there is any kind of emergency, then decision makers, doctors, and politicians recur, recur, and turn to what they perceive as best practice in order to avoid any liability or reputational problem. This is also acknowledged by courts in most jurisdictions, so that even in the past already, all information, including the declaration of PHEIC, a public health emergency of international concern, itself is considered legally binding or as the best practice, which is almost a rule of law.
What else do we have? We shall not forget that there is in the original, pre-existing wording of the IHR article 42. There is already the obligation that all health measures taken pursuant to this IHR, International Health Regulations, shall be initiated and completed without delay. This sounds like an order to me, and as such it was already executed. The most notable and important and concerning new aspect is the concept of “infodemics.” Again, this is something that we have seen already in the past. It will be strengthened on the formal level in the IHR Amendments. Amendment or annex one, and in article 18 of the Pandemic treaty, which ultimately results in WHO’s power to become the global Ministry of Truth in information regarding all pandemic matters. As I said, it is just formalized because we have seen this in the past already. All of this is taken together, and I have just taken out a couple of aspects. We must understand that the basis for good decision making, in particular in crisis, is the full range of information that shall be freely considered. So that also second opinions and other opinions have their fair share and can be considered without that, and with an obligation of the Member States to exclusively, exclusively provide WHO the exclusive power to define what is good, what is bad, what is dangerous, and what is healthy. Governments will lose their own authority and competence to protect their people. And this is actually what it is all about. And what it is all, what it all should be about. We are here in the public health sector. While the health of the people is the most important and most relevant aspect, it will be impossible to protect people with such a new regime. So, we need to resist it from the bottom up with the help of local politicians and to influence our governance. Thank you so much.