Frontiers in public health · 2026
Operationalizing the CBDR-RC principle in the WHO Pandemic Agreement: from environmental law to pandemic governance.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lian Junya
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, adopted in May 2025, represents a major step toward strengthening global pandemic governance after COVID-19. However, the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) was not incorporated into the legally binding provisions of the Agreement, leaving unresolved questions regarding how equity-based obligations should be implemented in future pandemic preparedness and response.
METHODS: This study adopts a qualitative legal methodology combining doctrinal legal analysis, comparative doctrinal analysis, and historical-documentary analysis. It examines international legal instruments and jurisprudence, including the 2025 International Court of Justice advisory opinion, WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body draft texts from 2021 to 2026, and official submissions and negotiating positions of selected States and negotiating groups.
RESULTS: The analysis identifies three principal findings. First, negotiations over the Pandemic Agreement demonstrate a progressive narrowing of CBDR-RC language, reflecting persistent disagreements between developed and developing countries regarding differentiated obligations. Second, comparative analysis of existing access and benefit-sharing mechanisms shows that equity principles require institutional arrangements rather than voluntary commitments alone. Third, the study proposes a capacity-sensitive framework for the PABS Annex based on three interconnected mechanisms: (1) tiered compliance pathways reflecting national capacities; (2) conditional technology transfer linked to pathogen sharing; and (3) trigger-based emergency financing mechanisms.
DISCUSSION: Operationalizing CBDR-RC within the PABS Annex could transform equity from a general aspiration into a structured governance mechanism for pandemic preparedness. By aligning obligations with capacity, vulnerability, and contribution, the proposed framework could provide regulatory options for improving equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics while strengthening global health security.
METHODS: This study adopts a qualitative legal methodology combining doctrinal legal analysis, comparative doctrinal analysis, and historical-documentary analysis. It examines international legal instruments and jurisprudence, including the 2025 International Court of Justice advisory opinion, WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body draft texts from 2021 to 2026, and official submissions and negotiating positions of selected States and negotiating groups.
RESULTS: The analysis identifies three principal findings. First, negotiations over the Pandemic Agreement demonstrate a progressive narrowing of CBDR-RC language, reflecting persistent disagreements between developed and developing countries regarding differentiated obligations. Second, comparative analysis of existing access and benefit-sharing mechanisms shows that equity principles require institutional arrangements rather than voluntary commitments alone. Third, the study proposes a capacity-sensitive framework for the PABS Annex based on three interconnected mechanisms: (1) tiered compliance pathways reflecting national capacities; (2) conditional technology transfer linked to pathogen sharing; and (3) trigger-based emergency financing mechanisms.
DISCUSSION: Operationalizing CBDR-RC within the PABS Annex could transform equity from a general aspiration into a structured governance mechanism for pandemic preparedness. By aligning obligations with capacity, vulnerability, and contribution, the proposed framework could provide regulatory options for improving equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics while strengthening global health security.