| | |

Exiting the World Health Organization

Share this article

A question often asked is how nations can leave the WHO, since there is no procedure for exiting the WHO specified in the WHO’s Constitution. International law professor Francis Boyle provides the solution below.

“A Withdrawal from the WHO Constitution can be accomplished by invoking the Doctrine of Fundamental Change of Circumstances under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 62 codified the rule of customary international law then known and still known today as rebus sic stantibus. Therefore, all States should be able to invoke the Doctrine of Fundamental Change of Circumstances/rebus sic stantibus even if they are not parties to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It was never known or contemplated or even suspected that at the time States became contracting parties to the WHO Constitution that the WHO would someday attempt to transform itself into a totalitarian worldwide medical police state by means of the proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations and/or the proposed Pandemic Treaty. This WHO transformation:

(1) violates the essential basis of the consent of the state parties to be bound by the WHO Constitution; and

(2)  radically transforms the extent of the obligations still to be performed under the WHO Constitution.”

Francis A. Boyle

Professor of Law

Attorney.

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;

(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
Phone: 217-333-7954
Fax: 217-244-1478
(personal comments only)

Similar Posts

  • read this Excellent Analysis by Libby Klein

    Share this article

    Share this article What decision-making role will the Australian parliament have in relation to the proposed IHR amendments?…

  • WHO Official Admits the Truth About Passports

    Share this article

    The World Health Organization’s Dr. Hanna Nohynek testified in court that she advised her government that vaccine passports were not needed but was ignored, despite explaining that the Covid vaccines did not stop virus transmission and the passports gave a false sense of security.

  • Pandemics as a Catalyst for a New World Order

    Share this article

    Each nation in the world has its own culture, governance structures, traditions, property, borders and peoples. We must preserve the diversity and sovereignty of nations and cultures.
    By globally synchronizing the public health response across the United Nations member states, new powers were granted to the UN…

  • 37 statements from the Pact for the Future with my deconstruction, in 13 slides

    Share this article

    t is highly repetitive

    It is replete with aspirational language about how, by following the Agenda for the SDGs or using other unspecified methods, the world’s problems will be solved. No details, of course. No examples.

    However, the Pact acknowledges that essentially no progress has been made on the SDGs since they were established in 2015.

  • The Killing of Common Sense 

    Share this article

    Covid was a killer. The evidence is clear. SARS-CoV-2 was a scientifically devised virus designed to kill. Its victims were many. The science in question here, though, is social science. And the intended victim was common sense. Covid expanded our daily vocabulary. “Distancing,” “tracking,” and “masking” – above the nose – all became common parlance…