On international and US legal instruments governing "adjustment of domestic legislative and administrative arrangements" and exercise of political authority during declared public health emergencies.

Katherine Watt

Jan 10

READ IN APP

Orientation for new readers.

A reader asked me to provide my understanding of the legal instruments governing exercise of political authority during declared public health emergencies, and how the United Nations World Health Organization International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005); the current proposed amendments; and American statutes, regulations, executive orders and other domestic legal instruments, fit together within that legal framework.

Nutshell:

My understanding is that all officers of US federal and state governments are subordinated to the US Secretary of Health and Human Services for the duration of any 'public health emergency,' as unilaterally declared by the HHS Secretary, using authority placed in his hands through domestic kill box laws enacted through the mechanisms of Congressional votes and presidential signatures.

And the HHS Secretary himself, and the US federal and state government officials he controls for the duration of any declared 'public health emergency,' are subordinated to the UN and WHO, under the terms of international agreements adopted and sustained by the mechanism of silence/inaction/non-rejection/non-withdrawal by Congress, presidents, federal and state courts, and state legislatures.

The HHS Secretary serves two functions: he's an administrator, tasked by his United Nations supervisors with implementing and directing UN-WHO military-public health policies and programs in the US, and he's a dictator in his relationship to other branches and officers of the US government, the governments of the 50 states, and the people.

I disagree with Meryl Nass, James Roguski, Bret Weinstein and others who focus public time and attention on current proposed IHR amendments and a proposed new pandemic treaty. I've briefly indicated my disagreement with Nass, Roguski and others in personal correspondence and also in public presentations.

I haven't belabored it for two reasons.

First, I support the work they do to the extent it helps lawmakers and populations around the world better recognize that:

The WHO is a military branch of the United Nations;
The UN is engaged in a military attack on the world's people under 'public health emergency' pretexts, using totalitarian policies and programs (informational, surveillance, testing, masking, social distancing); military, law enforcement and public health proxies (DoD-directed biological weapons manufacturers, FDA officials, pharmacists, and nurses) and toxic products (poisons/weapons) that are falsely presented as medicinal treatments; and
National governments legally can and prudently should withdraw from the United Nations and the World Health Organization, under their own domestic laws and Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties, due to the "fundamental change of circumstances:" public understanding of the two preceding facts gained through the Covid-19 events that have occurred since January 2020.

Sept. 24, 2023 - 51 Congress members co-sponsoring Rep. Andy Biggs HR-79, WHO Withdrawal Act. See also H.R. 6645 and S. 3428 (Disengaging Entirely From the United Nations Debacle Act of 2023).

Second, I don't want to fuel personal conflicts that distract readers from what I regard as the most effective forms of resistance to the ongoing mass murder programs and strengthening of the walls of the global kill box:

Repeal and nullification of the domestic implementing laws, at the federal and state level, by Congress, state legislatures, and federal and state courts whose members understand that 'public health emergencies' are camouflaged power grabs.

Dec. 20, 2023 - Ending National Suicide Act. Draft bill for 118th Congress. “…An Act to repeal Congressional authorizations for communicable disease control, quarantine and inspection programs; chemical and biological warfare programs; biological products and vaccine manufacturing programs; public health emergency programs; national vaccine and immunization programs; expanded access and emergency use authorization programs; public health and emergency preparedness and response programs; enhanced control of dangerous biological agents and toxins programs; and related statutes.”

I think US domestic law has already transferred sovereign government functions to the United Nations World Health Organization, such that current IHR amendments, (if the United States remains a UN and WHO member), and when they enter into force, will increase the speed, expand the scope and strengthen the force of the geopolitical coup that that has already taken place.

But they won't comprise a new theft of sovereignty.

The already-completed sovereignty transfer, or de facto UN coup, was enacted through a sequence of Congressional and presidential acts that began in 1944 with enactment of the Public Health Service Act and US Senate ratification (in 1945) of the United Nations Charter, followed by Congressional authorization given in 1948 to President Truman to accept membership in the WHO on behalf of the US government, followed by hundreds of other implementing statutes, executive orders, presidential directives, and agency regulations.

Further, I don't think there are any substantive political mechanisms to directly intervene or stop the adoption or amendment of international legal instruments, because there is no political nexus between ordinary people and global governing institutions. Treaties are contracts between nation-states, not between governments and those who are governed. The men and women coercing public submission to their edicts — through supranational institutions — have no political subjects or constituents. There is no hereditary line of succession, and there are no electoral, recall or impeachment procedures.

As Roguski has reported, the World Health Assembly adopts IHR amendments by “silence procedure,” consensus mechanisms; there is no recorded vote. IHR amendments then enter into force in member-states through non-rejection mechanisms, which are also silent. Unless the legislature and executive formally file notice of rejection or reservation with the WHO Director-General, before the end of the interval specified in Article 59 of the IHR (2005), the amendments enter into force at the end of another, short interval.

They are self-executing.

As also laid out in Article 59, member-states are obligated to "adjust domestic legislative and administrative arrangements fully" to align them with IHR provisions within that entry-into-force time interval, by adopting implementing statutes and regulations (kill box laws) that are triggered when trigger conditions are met.

For example, by the WHO Director-General declaring a PHEIC (public health emergency of international concern) and/or by the in-country health administrator (HHS Secretary in the US) declaring a public health emergency.

Article 56, Sections 1-3 of the IHR lay out procedures for state parties to resolve disputes about the "interpretation or application" of the regulations, including mechanisms for negotiation, mediation, conciliation, and compulsory arbitration.

As a June 2022 Congressional Research Service report noted, "To date, no WHO Member State has ever invoked the Article 56 process against another Member State."

None have needed to, because Article 56, Section 4 recognizes that WHO member-states, including the United States, are also controlled by the coercive power of other "international agreements and "intergovernmental organizations," such as the Bank for International Settlements and World Trade Organization, which are empowered to use financial mechanisms to enforce the terms of the WHO Constitution and the IHR on the US Government and the people of the United States.

To avoid or reduce the financially destructive wrath of the BIS, WTO and other supranational organizations, governments of sovereign countries have subordinated themselves to the United Nations: they have "adjusted domestic legislative and regulatory arrangements" to comply with the WHO-IHR.

Nutshell again:

The US federal and state government officials — for so long as they silently defer to illegitimate, unconstitutional international legal instruments and domestic, implementing kill box laws — are subordinate to the HHS Secretary during a public health emergency.

And the HHS Secretary and all other US federal and state government officials are subordinate to the UN-WHO — for so long as they silently defer to illegitimate, unconstitutional international legal instruments — under the terms of international treaties and other "binding instruments of international law."

Key legal events

Excerpts from American Domestic Bioterrorism Program timeline.

July 1, 1944 - Congress and President Roosevelt passed Public Health Service Act of 1944 (PHSA). PL 78-410, 58 Stat. 682. Centralized and militarized the American public health system that had developed within several agencies since the Revolution. Codified at 42 USC 201.
July 28, 1945 - US Senate ratified United Nations Charter (Executive F.)
Oct. 24, 1945 - United Nations Charter entered into force.
July 22, 1946 - International Health Conference established the World Health Organization and adopted the WHO Constitution, signed by 61 nations to enter into force April 7, 1948.
June 14, 1948 - Congress authorized President Truman to accept membership in World Health Organization on behalf of US government. PL 80-643, 62 Stat. 441. Codified at 22 USC 290.
May 25, 1951 - WHO World Health Assembly adopted International Sanitary Regulations, to enter into force Oct. 1, 1952. International Sanitary Regulations were revised and renamed International Health Regulations in 1969.
Sept. 27, 1952 - President Truman signed Executive Order 10399 designating the US Surgeon General as the “health administrator” for the World Health Organization on American soil, under 1948 WHO Constitution and 1951 WHO International Sanitary Regulations. 17 Federal Register 8648.
Oct. 1, 1952 - WHO International Sanitary Regulations of 1951 entered into force in WHO member states, through Article 21 and Article 22 of WHO Constitution.
April 25, 1966 - President Johnson transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966 to US Congress, transferring US Surgeon General’s authorities to Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare department, effective June 25, 1966. 31 Federal Register 8855.
Oct. 17, 1979 - Congress and President Carter passed Department of Education Organization Act. PL 96-88, 93 Stat. 668. Section 509 redesignated the US Health, Education and Welfare Department as the Health and Human Services Department. From that point to the present, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has exercised authorities under the WHO Constitution and WHO International Health Regulations, as transferred from Surgeon General to HEW Secretary in 1966.
Sept. 15, 2005 - World Health Assembly adopted World Health Organization International Health Regulations 2005 revisions. From a Congressional Research Service report: "The 2005 edition, known as IHR (2005), expanded methods for controlling infectious disease outbreaks beyond quarantine and broadened the type of public health events that would require international coordination. The Regulations provide an overarching legal framework that defines the rights and obligations of parties to the agreement (which includes the United States and all other WHO Member States) in handling public health events and emergencies that have the potential to cross borders."
June 15, 2007 - WHO IHR (2005) entered into force in WHO member states, through Article 21 and Article 22 of WHO Constitution.

Key provisions of WHO Constitution, WHO IHR, 2005 and Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:

World Health Organization Constitution, 1946

Article 3 - Principles
...4. States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies. In doing so they should uphold the purpose of these Regulations.
Article 21
The [World] Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.
Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

WHO International Health Regulations, 2005

Article 55
1. Amendments to these regulations may be proposed by any State Party or by the Director-General. Such proposals for amendments shall be submitted to the Health Assembly for its consideration.
2. The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.
3. Amendments to these Regulations adopted by the Health Assembly pursuant to this Article shall come into force for all States Parties on the same terms, and subject to the same rights and obligations, as provided for in Article 22 of the Constitution of WHO and Articles 59 to 64 of these Regulations.
Article 56, Settlement of disputes
[Sets forth procedures for any State Party to challenge the actions or inactions of any other State Party through the Director-General, including "compulsory arbitration."]
Article 56, Section 4
"Nothing in these Regulations shall impair the rights of States Parties under any international agreement to which they may be parties to resort to the dispute settlement mechanisms of other intergovernmental organizations or established under any international agreement."
Article 59
1. The period provided in execution of Article 22 of the Constitution of WHO for rejection of or reservation to these regulations or an amendment thereto shall be 18 months from the date of the notification by the Director General of the adoption of these regulations or of an amendment to these regulations by the Health Assembly. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director General after the expiry of that period shall have no effect.
2. These Regulations shall enter into force 24 months after the date of notification...
3. If a State is not able to adjust its domestic legislative and administrative arrangements fully with these Regulations within the period set out in paragraph 2 of this Article, that State shall submit within the period specified in paragraph 1 of this Article a declaration to the Director-General regarding the outstanding adjustments and achieve them no later than 12 months after the entry into force of these Regulations for that State Party.
Articles 61 through 63 set forth procedures for "rejection" and "reservation" submission to the WHO, by Members, and for "withdrawal" of rejections and reservations.
Annex 1.A. sets forth "core capacity requirements for surveillance and response "
Annex 1B sets forth "core capacity requirements for designated airports, ports andground crossings.”
Annex 2 sets forth "decision instrument for the assessment and notification of events that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern.”
Annex 5 sets forth "specific measures for vector-borne diseases."
Annex 6 sets forth "Vaccination, prophylaxis and related certificates.”
Annex 7 sets forth “Requirements concerning vaccination or prophylaxis for specific diseases.”

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Article 62 - Fundamental change of circumstances
1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and
(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty...
3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

Related Bailiwick reporting and analysis: