In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and amid a resurgence of mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) cases across parts of the world, the international community is once again being tested on its ability to coordinate an effective and legally coherent public health response.

As global pandemics become more frequent and complex, there is growing consensus within legal and policy circles that the world needs a binding global health framework—one with real teeth—to contain viruses that threaten humanity’s future.

This raises pressing questions: Is the existing global legal architecture fit for purpose? Should global health laws be standardized? And does the World Health Organization (WHO) still have the credibility and authority to lead such a charge?

Mpox: A Persistent Global Concern

Mpox, a viral disease related to smallpox, first gained global attention in 2022 when cases began to appear outside of traditionally endemic regions in Central and West Africa. Unlike previous outbreaks, the virus spread through sexual networks and densely populated urban centers in North America and Europe, prompting the WHO to declare mpox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in July 2022.

Although the emergency designation was lifted in 2023, cases continue to be reported globally, with recurring clusters linked to travel, under-vaccinated populations, and insufficient global surveillance. According to the WHO, endemic mpox remains a significant health security risk in several countries, with mutation and transmission dynamics that could one day enable a broader resurgence.

Legal Fragmentation in Global Health Response

The mpox experience has highlighted the legal fragmentation of the global public health system. Currently, the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005)—a legally binding framework adopted by 196 countries—serve as the primary international legal tool for pandemic preparedness and response.

However, mpox and COVID-19 have exposed the IHR’s limitations:

• No enforcement power: The WHO cannot compel states to comply with IHR obligations, such as timely reporting of outbreaks or the implementation of travel and health measures.
• Inconsistent national responses: Each country determines its own public health response, often prioritizing national interest over global coordination.
• Lack of legal accountability: There are no legal repercussions for states that conceal outbreaks or delay reporting, hampering early containment efforts.

The Case for a Global Health Law Framework

Legal scholars and public health experts are increasingly calling for a new global health treaty—a “Pandemic Accord”—that would:

• Establish minimum standards for national health systems and emergency response.
• Require transparent data sharing and real-time pathogen sequencing.
• Provide legal mechanisms for holding states accountable for non-compliance.
• Coordinate equitable access to vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments.
• Define global ethical principles for pandemic response, including human rights protections, anti-discrimination safeguards, and privacy standards.

Such a treaty could serve not only as a legal bulwark against mpox, but also as a foundation for confronting future zoonotic and bioengineered threats.

Is the WHO Still a Credible Leader?

The legitimacy of the World Health Organization as the lead international health body has been a subject of intense debate, especially following criticism of its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Key concerns include:

• Delays in pandemic declaration and alleged political deference to member states.
• Limited transparency in the early investigation of the virus’s origin.
• Perceived lack of independence and reliance on voluntary funding from states and private actors.

Nonetheless, despite these criticisms, the WHO remains the only global organization with a universal health mandate, operational reach, and technical expertise. Since COVID-19, the WHO has undergone internal reforms and is actively facilitating negotiations for a new international pandemic treaty, targeted for adoption by 2025.

Critics argue that strengthening the WHO—rather than replacing it—is essential for a coordinated response to health threats. However, this requires political will from member states to cede some degree of sovereignty in exchange for greater collective resilience.

Legal Industry Implications

From a legal industry perspective, the move toward global health law harmonization opens several fronts:

• Public International Law: The debate underscores the challenge of balancing national sovereignty with global solidarity.
• Health Security Compliance: Multinational corporations, especially those in travel, biotech, and logistics, will need legal guidance on international biosecurity obligations.
• Human Rights Law: Pandemic response laws must uphold civil liberties, ensuring legal redress for disproportionate restrictions.
• Technology and Privacy: Future laws must reconcile surveillance technologies with data protection standards under frameworks like GDPR or HIPAA.

Conclusion: A Legal Turning Point for Global Health

Mpox is not the next COVID-19, but it is a test of global readiness. And right now, the test results show a legal system that is disjointed, slow, and reactive. The legal community has a unique role to play in shaping the architecture of future pandemic governance—whether through treaty drafting, national legal reforms, or advising clients on compliance in an age of rising biological threats.

As we move toward 2025, the question is no longer whether we need global health law, but whether we can design one that is equitable, enforceable, and future-proof.