The Role of the Who and Institutions of Global Governance in Limiting State Sovereignty to Achieve a Collective Action against the COVID-19 Pandemic
Photo by Adam Nieścioruk on Unsplash
Photo par Adam Nieścioruk sur Unsplash
Omar Abdellatif
(FR) La pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 implique la nécessité d’institutions de gouvernance mondiale capables de réguler la souveraineté nationale. Cet article souligne, en ce qui concerne l’épidémie mondiale de virus, la probabilité que les organisations internationales actuelles, telles que l’Organisation mondiale de la santé, soient en mesure de remplir ce rôle. L’article met en évidence l’action collective mondiale nécessaire pour lutter contre la pandémie. De plus, celui-ci présente également une analyse des facteurs qui conduisent certains gouvernements, comme ceux du Royaume-Uni, des États-Unis et de l’Iran, à suivre ou à ignorer les recommandations présentées par l’OMS pour contrôler l’épidémie.
The system of international law and relations revolves around the principle of independent state sovereignty. This is the ban of intervention by other states or organizations in a country’s national affairs[1]. The foundations of national sovereignty were first laid in the treaty of Westphalia (1648) and emphasized later by article two of the United Nations Charter (1945)[2]. However, the principle of state sovereignty faces fundamental challenges during times of shared global crises such as the current crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is currently affecting more than 180 countries worldwide[3]. Under such circumstances, the free-rider approach is not a valid option for states, especially when it comes to implementing preventive measures such as lockdowns and curfews. A state cannot enjoy a low number of infected cases based on the precautionary measures taken by the authorities in other countries, without it implementing similar measures in its territory. Under such a global crisis, the prisoner’s dilemma model comes into place, as all states would be better off and experience minimal impacts of the pandemic if they choose to cooperate in combating the outbreak. This is because if positive cases of the virus continue to be recorded in any country of the world, then it means that the global threat of the pandemic on all states continues to exist, especially under the absence of an effective medical treatment or vaccine for the virus. Therefore, in order to ensure international cooperation is achieved, global institutions associated with the crisis such as the World Health Organization are required to impose a set of unified and binding measures on all countries to cooperatively combat the pandemic, even if such measures limit the national sovereignty of states. However, the constitutive nature of the International Law that bans the infringement of state sovereignty and allocates this right only to the UN Security Council, hinders the ability of current international organizations such as the WHO to take necessary actions to combat the pandemic in any sense that violates states sovereignty[4].
During the current COVID-19 pandemic, which started in the city of Wuhan, China, the WHO, under the International Health Regulations 2005 (signed by 196 states), has positioned itself as the primary international organization offering guidance and assistance to states concerning the necessary measures which must be taken to control the virus outbreak (Country lockdowns, border closures, curfews).[5] Some may argue that the fact that many countries are currently implementing the health instructions of the WHO, is an indication of the ability of the international organization to impose restrictions on state sovereignty, during periods of global crises. This argument is corroborated in Steven Kranser’s interpretation of the international system as “an environment in which the logic of the consequences dominates the logic of appropriateness”[6]. However, governments that have implemented the WHO’s instructions have propably done so in fear of the consequences of the virus outbreak or of an Italian scenario in their countries, not in fear of the consequences of violating the WHO directives or that the IHR was binding. Since, under the anarchic nature of the international system, which lacks the existence of any coercive power to enforce laws, international organizations such as the WHO have no mechanism or authority to limit states sovereignty or impose measures themselves. The WHO authority is limited to providing governments with advice and recommendations. Therefore, at the end of the day, the final decision to implement precautionary measures is in the hands of each state’s sovereign government. This was illustrated through the British Prime Minister Borris Johnson disregard of all procedures recommended by the WHO at the start of the epidemic in the United Kingdom, and announcement that his government would adopt the globally unpopular Herd Immunity approach.[7] Johnson later backtracked on his Herd Immunity approach due to the great domestic pressure he was subjected to by the British public, parliament, transitional advocacy networks and not because international organizations such as the UN or the WHO imposed sanctions on the UK or imposed limits to the sovereignty of the British government.[8] Thus, the British case confirms a well-touted argument of the Liberal wing which suggests that democracies tend to have policies that reflect their societies’ values and therefore, ignoring international institutions becomes costly domestically[9]. As such, Johnson’s disregard of the WHO recommendations made him face extensive domestic criticisms that directly threatened his cabinet’s popularity, and thus he was pressured to drop the herd immunity approach and join with the WHO global containment measures[10].
It could be deemed that the WHO has the ability to limit the sovereignty of certain states and can compel them to implement the measures it perceives appropriate to control the pandemic. However, this may only be true in the case of developing countries who receive aid from the WHO, since the organization can determine the measures and procedure for which the aid is used. Yet international organizations, specifically the WHO, do not have the binding power to impose limitations on the sovereignty of developed nations. This is illustrated by the fact that the WHO was not able to impose limitations on the United States’ sovereignty and oblige Washington to relax its economic sanctions on Iran, which are hindering the capacity of Rouhani’s government to support the Iranian health sector with the necessary funds and medical, laboratory and pharmaceutical equipment to combat the virus outbreak.[11] The rapid outbreak of the pandemic in Iran was the primary source of the pandemic transfer to other countries in the region such as all six GCC states, Lebanon, and Azerbaijan.[12] This supports the realists’ critiques of international law, which argue that powerful nations will refuse any measures that would diminish their sovereignty or their pursuit of national interests[13]. Thus, the WHO’s lack of legal authority to impose limits on Washington’s sovereignty has hindered its global efforts in combating the pandemic, by contributing to transferring Iran into a hotbed for exporting the virus in the Middle East.
All in all, under the current anarchic nature of the international system and the lack of a binding authority to enforce law, international organizations have limited capacity to limit state sovereignty during periods of global crisis. This is demonstrated in how the WHO lacks the ability to impose constraints on the sovereignty of states or force governments to implement the measures it perceives necessary to combat the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, it is necessary in order to achieve global cooperation and success during times of global threats to have institutions of global governance able to limit national sovereignty and enforce international laws and unified procedures plans of actions in order to control global threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic.