A response to Europeia's IFV about the Epidemic Investigation Act

I have personally voted against the Epidemic Investigation Act (EIA), which is at vote right now, because of its requirement that WA member states impose sanctions upon non-members for refusing to comply with international law - in this case the EIA itself - that they are not even ordinarily bound by. Notwithstanding that, however, I have concerns with the arguments made in Europeia's dispatch in support of the EIA and will attempt to respond to them here.

---

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

This proposal intends to ensure any novel pathogen with ?suggestive evidence of person-to-person transmission? can be reported to and investigated by the World Health Authority without the government of the land hampering its efforts for political reasons, except when it concerns highly sensitive information.

This is accurate. It also does not go out of its way to present EIA as the single best idea that anybody in the history of ever had ever had, ever.

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

Not all governments are as transparent as they should be, and should any possible outbreak occur in the lands under their jurisdiction, they are most likely going to prioritise their political image over their humanitarian duties to inform and alert the rest of the world about a possible outbreak taking place in their lands. This might cause them to censor certain information relating to the outbreak as in that case, they will want to recuse themselves from taking responsibility for any shortcomings on their part that led to this outbreak in the first place. This is a catastrophic possibility that will catch the rest of the world off guard as they can not prepare adequately without the necessary information about the novel pathogen that is about to hit them.

GA#53 "Epidemic Response Act" already requires members to "report any outbreak to... EPARC if the incidence rate of a disease in any localized area reaches a level of more than twice that of the same calendar month in the previous year." By definition, a novel disease that appears in an area right now must be infinitely more prevalent in that area than it was this time last year. Since ERA already requires members to report the existence of new diseases, all I see EIA doing is requiring the WHA to investigate its origin, etc. Anybody who can point me to any real-world example (other than COVID-19) where "governments" refuse to "inform and alert the rest of the world about a possible outbreak taking place in their lands" will receive a free virtual chocolate bar from my office.

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

Similarly, the government of the land might make it harder for the WHA (World Health Authority) to investigate the necessary details and aspects of the pathogen through obstructions such as denial of access to information that may hold the key to the findings, and by not giving them accurate accounts or information. A delay or inaccuracy in the WHA?s findings can have a massive impact on the rest of the world as most of them turn to WHA for reliable information and guidelines Andy will be deprived of that due to non-cooperation from a country?s governing authorities.

There is no requirement anywhere in WA law, other than in the EIA, that the "WHA... investigate the necessary details and aspects of the pathogen" beyond GA#53. Yet even Article 5 of GA#53 requires all members to "allow health inspectors from the World Health Authority and international aid agencies to travel to the affected area" (and Article 4 requires the sharing of pathogen samples with a WHA subcommittee). The assertation that many nations necessarily "turn to WHA for reliable information" is similarly questionable; it may, for instance, be reasonably assumed that many of them have influenza pandemic response plans.

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

This proposal, in question, addresses most of these possible concerns through sensible wordings and policies, which are to be detailed in the following section.

And so will my challenges to their sensibility.

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

First and foremost, it makes it mandatory for its members to allow the entry and exit of inspectors, dispatched on the WHA?s behalf, ?to investigate and report publicly on the origins of, response to, and make recommendations on the outbreak,? and also did not stop at that, and makes it mandatory for the member nations to completely co-operate with the WHA inspectors on the access of certain information.

Once again, see Article 5 of Epidemic Response Act, by which WHA inspectors may "conduct research... or report the latest developments to the international community" as needs be.

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

But recognising the fact that sometimes the sharing of certain information might cause greater harm than its possible benefits, this proposal does give the governing authorities the right to refuse access to information on that basis, but at the same time, as a result of the author?s brilliant foresight, this at the same time is to be reviewed by the Independent Adjudicative Body to ensure that certain member nations do not use this clause to refuse access to information whose sharing will not cause harm and is in fact vital to the findings, thus closing a possible loophole which could have been exploited.

IA using a committee he has created, and which has only ever been used in proposals he has authored or co-authored (with one exception), to require member states to declassify genuinely sensitive information simply because that committee thinks it necessary to secure "international public health interests" - regardless of whether it is "vital to the findings," as ICH asserts - is not "brilliant foresight," it is intrusive.
Requiring Promulgation of National Laws was sunk because it allowed another WA committee to overrule states of emergency declared by member states; it is thus baffling to see that EIA is (as of time of writing) receiving just over 80% support, mostly from the North and South Pacifics, 10000 Islands, and obviously Europe.

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

This proposal also makes sure the WHA inspectors can hear the authentic statements of the front-liners, the medical professionals, who might be the bearer of certain information that can solve the jigsaw the WHA inspectors are solving and also makes sure the government does not interfere with this process of seeking information directly from the medical professionals or workers.

WHA inspectors are not required to conduct interviews (as such) with medical staff. It is merely the case that they are allowed to do so, and the medical staff so interviewed must not be retaliated against by their government for giving those interviews.

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

Also, as we look more closely into this proposal, it can be noticed that the requirements are not quite high. It only requires ?suggestive? evidence, meaning as long as there is even a silent indication of human-to-human transmission, the WHA authorities will be able to investigate this and this proposal will be applied in that case. If one of the requirements was ?definite proof?, it would have cost the WHA some very valuable time, especially when it concerns life or death, to compile together a set of definite proofs, which could have been made harder by the fact that such proofs might be hard to find from countries where information is strictly controlled by governments. So, the Ministry considers this a very wise move not to set such a high bar of requirement in this clause.

Recall my earlier comments about Epidemic Response Act's protocol for reporting disease outbreaks to EPARC. There is your proof that new diseases are spreading among people. (Note that the standard of ERA applies for all diseases, whether they can spread between people or not.)

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

It also ensures that the inspectors take necessary precautions to ensure they themselves do not aggravate the situation in the investigated country by being the bearer of such pathogens and the World Assembly also takes the financial responsibility off the shoulders of the member states, who might already be strained financially and might consider this an extra and unnecessary burden, by bearing the cost themselves from the General Fund.

The only "financial responsibility" being covered by the General Fund here is the inspectors' healthcare. It is interesting to note that Europeia's MoWAA gushes over this - and almost every other aspect of the EIA - while completely skipping over Article 3 and its requirement that some non-members be sanctioned by all members.

Europeian WA Headquarters wrote:

The Ministry [of World Assembly Affairs in Europeia] recognizes that this proposal is of a really high quality, an important characteristic of World Assembly resolutions that is necessary for avoiding loopholes, and thus recommends a vote FOR this proposal.

That a proposal does not contain any "loopholes" is irrelevant if it deliberately includes material which is controversial or otherwise undesirable. Nope, still not convinced.