Humanising the Pandemic Agreement: A Rights-Based Approach to Implementation in a Networked Global Governance System

The ratification of the WHO Pandemic Agreement (PA) by the 2025 World Health Assembly marks a significant moment in the evolving architecture of global health governance. More than a technical treaty on prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery (PPRR), the PA represents a potential normative anchor for operationalising the right to health within a densely networked field of international organizations (IOs), regional bodies, and specialised agencies. Yet, without a deliberate human-rights-based approach (HRBA), implementation risks reinforcing existing inequities and deepening structural vulnerabilities, particularly for low-income countries, refugees, migrants, and other marginalised populations. This paper argues that a HRBA is essential not only for equitable implementation of the PA, but also for understanding the PA as an emergent node in a wider network of IOs whose interactions shape global health outcomes. The negotiation history of the PA (2022–2025) illustrates how political contestation across this institutional network—ranging from WHO, WTO, and WIPO to regional health agencies and human rights bodies—diluted ethical commitments and narrowed obligations. The pledge-based nature of the Agreement, with its limited enforcement mechanisms, places substantial weight on the Conference of the Parties (COP) to steer implementation. However, the COP itself will operate within a complex web of institutional relationships: it must reconcile WHO’s technical mandate with the normative expectations of human rights mechanisms, the economic imperatives of trade institutions, and the security framings promoted by other global actors. This multi-level connectivity renders PA implementation an intrinsically networked administrative process shaped by overlaps, gaps, and tensions across institutions. By analysing the constitutional quality of the PA, this article conceptualises it as an ethical matrix within a multi-institutional system. Substantive provisions (Articles 4–18) embed critical rights-related principles—equity, solidarity, participation, and non-discrimination—while governance provisions (Articles 1–3, 19) structure the PA’s interface with other bodies. Yet the whole-of-society approach in Article 15 raises risks of policy capture by powerful non-state actors, whose transnational influence spans multiple institutional arenas. Mapping PA articles to established human rights standards—including the right to health, development, and participation—demonstrates where the Agreement aligns with, and where it diverges from, existing normative and institutional frameworks. The paper proposes embedding HRBA through coordinated engagement with international mechanisms (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Special Rapporteurs), regional human rights systems (e.g., the African Charter’s protections for public health and development), and national implementation bodies. Such integration can create participatory oversight structures that mirror and strengthen the PA’s own networked context. A network-informed HRBA enhances institutional complementarity, reduces fragmentation, and promotes accountability through shared norms rather than isolated treaty monitoring. Ultimately, the analysis shows that HRBA does more than humanise the PA: it repositions the Agreement as a rights-driven hub within the wider ecosystem of global governance. This approach transforms implementation into a coordinated inter-institutional practice capable of mitigating rights violations, enhancing legitimacy, and advancing global health equity.