evidence: Some form of an independent monitoring mechanism is essential, and there are models from treaties in other areas, from atomic energy to chemical weapons, that can help inform how a new pandemic accord will keep its signatories in line. It seems unlikely that the pandemic treaty can include on-site inspection authority, but an authoritative monitor able to call out states for noncompliance is key to the treaty’s effective implementation. [...] How a public health monitoring authority could work. While emergency on-site investigative authority would be meaningful, these are currently a non-starter for the pandemic accord. WHO member states have shown little appetite for ceding sovereignty to improve enforcement. The "big powers," including the United States and other high-income countries, have made clear that they would be unwilling to participate in an agreement that opened them up to mandatory investigation. [...] Thaks for a very insightful and rightfully critical article on the Pandemic Accord – or Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response treaty, as it used to be called. But a great shame you skipped the more important failings – the absence of anything related to prevention, mitigation, airborne transmission etc. of crucial importance to Covid19, or any new pandemic pathogen. THIS is the more serious and substantial failing of the negotiations. Without which, we are condemed to ongoing unbridled transmission, deaths and disability from what is emerging as a very serious and debilitating pathogen. See collated evidence here: http://www.c19.life WHO, member… Read more »