COVID-19 demonstrated the interconnectedness of the world and that our collective protection and well-being is contingent on our individual response. The importance of solidarity and acting in the public interest became key messages in public health, as too were these principles justified as the basis for data-sharing across borders. Accessing this data was critical and its timely access to this data was essential in research for the much-needed new vaccines.
In this brief essay, we wish to highlight some insights from behavioural economics that can contribute to a successful process of international pandemic lawmaking. Our interest here is not to engage with individual or collective psychological reactions to pandemics or other large-scale risks, or with substantive policy made in their wake. Several such behavioural issues and dimensions have been dealt with elsewhere, not without (ongoing) spirited debate. Here, however, while building on related frameworks of analysis from the field of behavioral economics, as applied to international law (including nudge theory), our focus is on the process and design of pandemic international law-making.
Our international norms are arguably ill adapted to emergencies such as pandemics. In this contribution I discuss a potential remedy for one related challenge, namely a cooperation amongst competitors for the accelerated development of vaccines. A way to foster cooperation could be the use of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms to the licensing of pandemic-essential intellectual property rights (IPR).
A pandemic instrument should recognize the changed landscape of the international community and enhance roles for and communication between regional and global governmental bodies and especially non-governmental actors. I recommend a new international instrument on pandemic response be explicit about reporting requirements when governments suspend rights during such emergencies.
The pandemic status is also a political exercise and a way to phrase a crisis according to political interests. As long as some diseases do not reach a pandemic level, they would not elicit the immediate financial help and international cooperation, which has at least been promised (if not delivered) during COVID.
Setting out new norms and arrangements for the provision of global public goods for pandemic preparedness and response should be a centrepiece of a new legal instrument that is capable of challenging market power, and builds on human rights principles in synch with the age of hyper-globalization.
Amid contention that global governance was unprepared and incapacitated in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this November, a special session of the World Health Assembly will convene to discuss a potential international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response. Marking the launch of the 'International Pandemic Lawmaking: Conceptual and Practical Issues' Symposium, this webinar will bring together leading scholars to critically discuss cross-cutting themes of the Symposium, and key points of contention and recommendation for the future of global pandemic governance.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by mistrust in science, the manipulation of science for political purposes, the “infodemic” of mis- and disinformation, and a repeated failure to base policy decisions on scientific findings. The crisis of confidence in scientific analysis is paradoxical and disquieting, particularly in light of increasing international regulation to manage acute or systemic risks and its reliance on science.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought global health structures into sharp relief: it exposed the gross inequalities and inequities of health care access, as well as the symbiosis between human rights, health care, politics, economics, and the law. This symposium, “International Pandemic Lawmaking: Conceptual and Practical Issues,” was convened with two primary aims: to shed light on the inequities and imbalances exposed by global pandemic response, and to advocate recommendations on which principles should guide the framing and drafting of a potential international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters