Subject: FW: Dear Friends, Attention To All Member States Re: The Amendments Of The International Health Regulations, MFA's and Ministries of Health International Affairs Division
From: "VMinfo" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 16:46:49 +0300

Tere.

Vastavalt kirjas toodud edastamispalvele, saadame pöördumise.

Sekretariaat

Tel: 6377000

Välisministeerium

Islandi väljak 1 | 15049 Tallinn

 <http://www.vm.ee/> www.vm.ee |  <https://twitter.com/MFAestonia> 
@MFAestonia

From: Interest of Justice <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 7:25 AM
To: VMinfo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Dear Friends, Attention To All Member States Re: The Amendments Of 
The International Health Regulations, MFA's and Ministries of Health 
International Affairs Division

International Notice Of Claim Re: The IHR / Violation Of IHR 55(2) Legal 
Correspondence‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌  
  ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   
 ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌    
‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌ 
   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌  
  ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   
 ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌    
‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌ 
   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌  
  ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   
 ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌    
‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌ 
   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌  
  ‌   ‌   ‌   ‌   

NOTICE OF CLAIM AND DISPUTE

Re: Procedural Nullity of International Health Regulations Amendments 2022 
and 2024 Filed pursuant to Articles 55 and 56 of the International Health 
Regulations (2005) and Article 75 of the WHO Constitution

www.interestofjustice.org 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsDg0noeYLynQ8hgHKjSw0/I841TjotX8hx> 
| [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  | 
Universally Domiciled | +(506)7264-5376 | +1 323-244-2960

Date: April 5, 2025

To: All Permanent Missions, Ministries Of Foreign Affairs and Political 
Affairs and Relevant Health Ministries of Member States

Re: Legal Notice of Claim Concerning the IHR Amendments under Article 55(2). 
Vienna Convention Article 46 Notification Implementation – Notifies nations 
of their right to dispute unlawful treaty obligations.

Subject: Urgent Request for Investigation and Withdrawal from the 
Procedurally Defective IHR Amendments

We are invoking the Urgency Exception / Immediate Invocation:
The Vienna Convention does not explicitly include an “urgency” exception, 
but jurisprudence and legal commentary support the doctrine of fundamental 
change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus, Art. 62) and procedural 
urgency in the case of peremptory norms (jus cogens, Art. 53 and 64).

Dear Esteemed Representatives,

Please forward this notice to the appropriate Department of International 
Affairs in Public Health within your government if you are receiving this 
message and it is not directly addressed to your portfolio.

This correspondence serves as a formal global notice of claim addressed to 
all 194 Member States, concerning the proposed amendments to the 
International Health Regulations (IHR) and the administrative procedural 
defects associated with their adoption under Article 55(2) of the IHR.

We are Interest of Justice, an International Civil Society Organization 
officially recognized as stakeholders by the Intergovernmental Negotiating 
Body (INB) in matters related to Pandemic Preparedness and Response, as well 
as the IHR amendments process.

The attached legal notice of claim provides detailed documentation of the 
procedural violations that undermine the legitimacy of the adoption process. 
Specifically, it highlights failures to comply with the mandatory 
requirements outlined in IHR Article 55(2), rendering the proposed 
amendments legally void ab initio unless corrected.

We urge your government to investigate this legal and procedural defect with 
the utmost urgency, and to act in accordance with both your constitutional 
obligations and your international commitments to uphold fundamental human 
rights and non-derogable jus cogens norms owed erga omnes.

As many like-minded nations have done or are in the process of doing, we 
respectfully call upon your government to withdraw from any consideration or 
adoption of the IHR amendments, no later than the next World Health Assembly 
(WHA) in May 2025.

This is not a political statement—it is a legal and procedural appeal to 
preserve the rule of law, safeguard national sovereignty in public health 
decisions, and uphold the dignity and rights of all people. We speak on 
behalf of numerous global citizens and communities whose perspectives have 
been inadequately represented in this process.

We thank you for your time, attention, and principled leadership in ensuring 
that international law is properly observed in all matters of global health 
governance.

Respectfully submitted,

Dustin Bryce and Lady Xylie Desiree,
 On behalf of the Board of Directors Interest of Justice –
International Civil Society Organization

www.interestofjustice.org 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsE8LW14wi4iaOlVf9iCe4/Bey0VCekKbnO> 
| [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  |

+(506)7264-5376  | +1 323 244 2960

Enclosure: Legal Notice of Claim – Procedural Defects Under IHR Article 
55(2)

Urgency Exception / Immediate Invocation
The Vienna Convention does not explicitly include an “urgency” exception, 
but jurisprudence and legal commentary support the doctrine of fundamental 
change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus, Art. 62) and procedural 
urgency in the case of peremptory norms (jus cogens, Art. 53 and 64).

“Pursuant to Articles 46 and 65 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of 
Treaties, [State] notifies all Parties that it considers the purported 
adoption of the [2022/2024] amendments to the International Health 
Regulations as invalid and without legal effect. This position is based on 
manifest procedural violations concerning internal authority and 
multilateral process. Due to the urgent and irreversible consequences of 
continued application, [State] reserves the right to suspend any 
implementation pending resolution of this dispute.”

NOTICE OF CLAIM AND DISPUTE

Re: Procedural Nullity of International Health Regulations Amendments 2022 
and 2024 Filed pursuant to Articles 55 and 56 of the International Health 
Regulations (2005) and Article 75 of the WHO Constitution

TO: Ministries of Health of All WHO Member States, Ministries of political 
and foreign affairs and committees, IHRRC et al.
FROM: Interest of Justice (IOJ), Civil Society International Organization
DATE: April 5, 2025
REF: IOJ/IHR/2025-04-5

I. NATURE OF DISPUTE

Interest of Justice (IOJ), hereby submits this formal protest and dispute 
claim regarding the procedural validity of amendments to the International 
Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter "IHR") adopted at both the 75th World 
Health Assembly in 2022 (hereinafter "2022 Amendments") and the 77th World 
Health Assembly in 2024 (hereinafter "2024 Amendments").

We assert, with legal foundation in Articles 46 and 48 of the Vienna 
Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) and Articles 55 and 56 of the IHR, 
that both sets of amendments are procedurally null and void ab initio due to 
manifest violations of procedural requirements established in the IHR, the 
WHO Constitution, and customary international law. This nullity claim is 
submitted for the urgent consideration of all WHO Member States.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. 2022 Amendments

1.	On May 27, 2022, Committee A of the 75th World Health Assembly 
"purportedly adopted" amendments to the International Health Regulations.
2.	Video evidence of the Committee A proceedings reveals that:

*	The meeting was sparsely attended
*	No record of attendance was taken prior to the "adoption" of the 
amendments
*	No verification occurred to confirm the presence of a majority of 
Committee members as required by Rule 85 of the WHO Rules of Procedure (49th 
Edition, 2020, page 194)
*	No formal voting process took place

3.	During the Eighth Plenary meeting on May 28, 2022, the World Health 
Assembly did not conduct any formal vote on the amendments to the 
International Health Regulations as required under Article 73 of the WHO 
Rules of Procedure (49th Edition, 2020, page 189).
4.	Document A75/R12, containing the amendments, was never formally voted 
upon during the Eighth Plenary Session of the 75th World Health Assembly in 
accordance with procedural requirements.

B. 2024 Amendments

1.	On January 20, 2024, the Director-General of WHO published a report on 
proposed Amendments to the IHR, recommending their adoption by the 77th 
World Health Assembly in May 2024.
2.	The report was transmitted to States Parties on February 20, 2024, 
exactly three months before the opening of the Health Assembly on May 20, 
2024, in violation of the mandatory four-month notice period required by 
Article 55(2) of the IHR.
3.	At the 77th World Health Assembly, held from May 20-28, 2024, the 
proposed Amendments were taken up under provisional agenda item 16.2 and 
adopted on May 25, 2024, through resolution WHA77.5, rev. 2, despite this 
procedural violation.

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1.	Treaty Law Foundation: The IHR were duly adopted under Article 21 of the 
WHO Constitution and carry binding force under the principle of pacta sunt 
servanda codified in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of 
Treaties (VCLT). As such, their provisions must be performed in good faith 
and interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their terms in 
light of the treaty's object and purpose, as required by VCLT Article 31.
2.	Procedural Requirements: Article 55 of the IHR sets forth mandatory 
procedural requirements for amendments, which must be scrupulously followed 
to ensure the amendments' legal validity and operative effect. These 
procedures are designed to guarantee that all States Parties have adequate 
notice and opportunity to review proposed amendments prior to their 
consideration by the World Health Assembly.
3.	Rule 85 Requirements: For the 2022 Amendments, Rule 85 of the WHO Rules 
of Procedure (49th Edition, 2020, page 194) explicitly This provision 
establishes a conditio sine qua non for the legal validity of any Committee 
action.
4.	Article 55(2) Requirements:
5.	Article 55(2) Violation: Article 55(2) of the IHR explicitly mandates 
that "[t]he text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated by the 
Director-General to all States Parties at least four months before the 
Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration." The use of the 
term "shall" in this provision creates a non-derogable obligation as 
confirmed by the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Law of 
Treaties with Commentaries, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/191 (1966), at paragraph 8. 
Documentary evidence confirms that the Director-General transmitted the 2024 
Amendments only three months before the Assembly (on February 20, 2024), 
breaching this mandatory temporal requirement.
6.	Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Article 46(1) of the Vienna 
Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that "[a] State may not invoke 
the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in 
violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to 
conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was 
manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental 
importance." The International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning the 
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. 
Nigeria), 2002 I.C.J. 303, ¶ 265, confirmed that procedural requirements for 
treaty adoption constitute "rules of fundamental importance." The violation 
of Article 55(2) constitutes such a manifest violation.
7.	Jus Cogens Status: The procedural requirements of Article 55(2) have 
attained the status of a peremptory norm of general international law (jus 
cogens) from which no derogation is permitted, pursuant to Article 53 of the 
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For over half a century, the 
four-month notice period has been scrupulously observed by the WHO 
Secretariat in amendment processes for the International Sanitary 
Regulations and the IHR. The same procedural requirement has been included 
in the constituent instruments of numerous other international 
organizations, establishing it as "a norm accepted and recognized by the 
international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no 
derogation is permitted." These procedural requirements constitute jus 
cogens norms under VCLT Articles 53 and 64, as they are integrally linked to 
the fundamental purposes of the IHR and are supported by the overwhelming 
consensus of the international community, as evidenced by UN General 
Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions recognizing the foundational 
importance of global health law. The travaux préparatoires confirm that 
Article 55 was intended to serve as a safeguard against precipitous or 
unilateral amendment of the IHR without full deliberation by the 
international community.
8.	Burden of Proof: As established by the International Court of Justice in 
the Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 
2010 I.C.J. 14, ¶ 162, the party alleging a fact bears the burden of proving 
it. The WHO Secretariat has thus far presented no evidence that the 
mandatory four-month period was observed for the 2024 Amendments, while 
substantial evidence exists demonstrating the contrary.

IV. NULLITY ARGUMENTS

A. Procedural Nullity of 2022 Amendments

1.	The failure to adhere to the clear requirements of Rule 85 is a fatal 
defect that renders the 2022 IHR amendments null and void ab initio: a. The 
absence of verified quorum in Committee A on May 27, 2022, constitutes a 
foundational procedural defect that vitiates any action taken in that 
session. b. The lack of a formal vote as required by Article 73 further 
invalidates the purported adoption process. c. Member States have failed to 
provide any evidence that proper procedural requirements were followed, 
creating a presumption of nullity under international law principles.
2.	The purported adoption of the 2022 Amendments violates multiple 
provisions of the WHO Rules of Procedure, rendering them void under Article 
46 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as a "manifest violation 
of a rule of internal law of fundamental importance."

B. Procedural Nullity of 2024 Amendments

1.	The failure to adhere to the clear requirements of Article 55(2) is a 
fatal defect that renders the IHR amendments null and void ab initio:

*	The Director-General's non-transmission of the full amendment text within 
the prescribed time frame violates an essential procedural requirement.
*	Member State consent cannot override this mandatory obligation or cure the 
resulting nullity.
*	The amendments were not properly "proposed" under Article 55 and thus 
cannot be considered validly adopted by the World Health Assembly.
*	The preparatory work of the IHR confirms that the four-month notice period 
was conceived as a non-negotiable procedural safeguard, with drafters 
expressly rejecting proposals to shorten this period.
*	This breach strikes at the heart of the IHR's amendment procedures and 
vitiates the legal basis for the adoption of the Amendments.

2.	Without properly established review processes or public participation, 
the amendments cannot be given domestic legal effect in any Member State.

C. Legal Consequences

1.	The procedural violations render both the 2022 and 2024 Amendments null 
and void ab initio (void from inception). Under Article 69(1) of the Vienna 
Convention on the Law of Treaties, "The provisions of a void treaty have no 
legal force." The International Court of Justice in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros 
Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7, ¶ 47, confirmed that 
procedurally defective instruments must be treated as "without legal force 
or effect" within the domestic legal systems of all states.
2.	Member States' participation in the amendment process and failure to 
object do not validate either set of Amendments:

*	A State's consent to an agreement that violates a peremptory norm of 
international law is void ab initio and cannot be cured by subsequent 
acquiescence.
*	The International Court of Justice has consistently held that departures 
from clear procedural rules cannot be cured by retroactive validation.
*	Members' acceptance was premised on the presumption of procedural 
regularity and does not constitute a waiver of procedural requirements.

3.	As Special Rapporteur Waldock explained in his 1963 report on the law of 
treaties, "the very nature of jus cogens precludes the possibility of 
contracting out of the rules for the modification of treaties... Any 
purported 'amendment' adopted in violation of a peremptory norm of 
international law would be null and void ab initio."
4.	The International Law Commission has clarified that the duty of 
non-recognition in the face of a jus cogens violation is not affected by 
"whether the State in question has previously recognized the situation which 
is now considered as illegal."
5.	Even if Member States' conduct could be construed as acquiescence, such 
acquiescence would itself be null and void under international law.
6.	Under Article 44(5) of the VCLT, when an invalidation ground relates to a 
peremptory norm, no separation of treaty provisions is permitted—the nullity 
infects the entire amendment process.

D. Human Rights and Rule of Law Implications

1.	The nullification of both the 2022 and 2024 Amendments is necessary to 
safeguard fundamental rights:

*	The Amendments expand authority without adequate safeguards for individual 
liberties and due process.
*	Provisions on data sharing lack essential protections for privacy and 
informed consent.
*	Vague PHEIC declaration criteria create an unacceptable risk of 
over-declaration.

2.	Procedural defects reflect a deeper crisis of legitimacy in WHO 
governance:

*	Global health governance must be rooted in human rights law and the 
international rule of law.
*	The Amendments privilege expediency over proper process and human rights 
protections.
*	Implementation would set a dangerous precedent for future international 
instruments.

V. FORMAL REQUEST

Pursuant to Articles 65-68 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 
and Article 56 of the International Health Regulations (2005), the Interest 
of Justice hereby formally petitions all WHO Member States to:

1.	Issue formal declarations acknowledging the absolute nullity of both the 
2022 and 2024 IHR Amendments due to the procedural violations detailed 
herein;
2.	Produce, within thirty (30) days, any documentary evidence demonstrating 
compliance with Rule 85 of the WHO Rules of Procedure for the 2022 
Amendments,
3.	Produce, within the same thirty (30) day period, any documentary evidence 
demonstrating compliance with Article 55(2) of the IHR for the 2024 
Amendments,
4.	In the absence of such evidence, issue formal diplomatic notification to 
the WHO Director-General declaring that both sets of Amendments are 
procedurally invalid and legally non-binding;
5.	Refrain from implementing the procedurally invalid Amendments through 
domestic legislation or regulations;
6.	Establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure public participation in the 
review of future amendments to international health instruments; and
7.	Request the inclusion of this dispute in the agenda of the next World 
Health Assembly to initiate multilateral consultation on the procedural 
validity of the amendments pursuant to Article 56(1) of the IHR.

VI. CONCLUSION

The procedural violations meticulously documented herein are not mere 
technicalities but fundamental substantive defects that vitiate the very 
foundation of international treaty-making. The purported adoption of both 
the 2022 and 2024 IHR Amendments occurred in manifest violation of essential 
procedural requirements, rendering them absolutely null and void under 
international treaty law.

The International Law Commission has emphasized that the duty of 
non-recognition and non-application of a treaty that violates jus cogens is 
"self-executory" and does not require any affirmative action by 
international bodies. Rather, it is "incumbent upon the States parties to 
the treaty themselves" to declare its invalidity and to refrain from any 
actions that would imply recognition of the treaty's legality or 
effectivity.

Under Article 71(1)(b) of the VCLT, Member States must "eliminate as far as 
possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance upon" a treaty 
provision that conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international 
law. This obligation of restitutio in integrum requires all Member States to 
extirpate the Amendments from their legal systems and ensure no domestic 
legal consequences flow from their purported adoption.

The nullification of the Amendments is without prejudice to the pursuit of 
appropriate remedies against the officials responsible for the procedural 
breaches. All States Parties should cooperate to ensure accountability for 
this ultra vires conduct through appropriate diplomatic, political, and 
legal channels. The invocation of immunities or other procedural barriers to 
obstruct such accountability would itself constitute an independent breach 
of international law.

In addition to urging all Member States to take the requested actions, IOJ 
reserves the right to pursue all available legal, political, and public 
advocacy avenues to compel the investigation and resolution of this dispute 
in accordance with international law. This may include, but is not limited 
to, initiating proceedings under human rights treaty mechanisms, supporting 
domestic legal action, and leveraging media and civil society pressure to 
spur State action.

The severity of the procedural violations at issue demands the utmost 
vigilance and proactivity from all members of the international community, 
and IOJ stands ready to take all necessary steps to ensure the integrity of 
the global health law system.

All WHO Member States, as nations with a collective commitment to 
international law and proper multilateral processes, bear a special 
responsibility to acknowledge these procedural nullities and take 
appropriate action to uphold the integrity of global health governance. 
Failure to address these violations would constitute a breach of obligations 
under international law and would fundamentally compromise the commitment to 
procedural regularity and the international rule of law.

We respectfully request a substantive response to this formal dispute within 
thirty (30) days, including any documentary evidence addressing the 
procedural violations identified herein.

Cordially,

Dustin Bryce and Lady Xylie Desiree,
Interest of Justice

Internationally Domiciled
[email-masked]
+1 323 244 2960

+(506) 7264 5376

INDEX OF ANNEXES:

1.	Annex A: Video evidence and transcript of Committee A proceedings (May 
27, 2022) 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsEagEDVL4AdkepL2ygwM8/0d7z70SMG4a9> 
https://youtu.be/M393lvg1650?si=c4m1_meY8KivADTR
2.	Annex B: Documentation of Rule 85 and Article 73 Procedural Requirements 
and Violations:
3.	Annex C: Expert legal analysis of procedural requirements under IHR 
Article 55(2) and Rule 85 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsF30wPvjQGYuutAQnfg4C/8JyxTnhXeJHj> 
https://opiniojuris.org/2024/09/20/the-2024-amendments-to-the-international-health-regulations-a-commentary-part-ii-selected-substantive-amendments/
4.	Annex D: Documentary timeline of the 2024 amendments transmission 
demonstrating Article 55(2) violation
5.	Annex E: Certified copies of relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention 
on the Law of Treaties (1969)
6.	Annex F: WHO Basic Documents (49th Edition, 2020) - Rules of Procedure of 
the World Health Assembly
7.	Annex G: Jurisprudence of International Courts on procedural nullities in 
international instruments
8.	IHR Comment Submission To Australia Parliament 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsFVLecM7mMU5AwzocePmG/QjB_GyTX8VoE> 
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/HealthRegulations/Submissions - 
From Organisation/Individual - Interest Of Justice #304 Page 14

1.	Annex A: Video evidence and transcript of Committee A proceedings (May 
27, 2022)https://youtu.be/M393lvg1650?si=c4m1_meY8KivADTR 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsFxgMomW8SPFR0pCRd9UK/zrTDtcMEJlwq>
2.	Annex B: Documentation of Rule 85 and Article 73 Procedural Requirements 
and Violations:

CONDUCT OF BUSINESS AND VOTING IN COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES Rule 85 
Subject to any decision of the Health Assembly, the procedure governing the 
conduct of business and voting by committees shall conform as far as 
practicable to the Rules relative to the conduct of business and voting in 
plenary meetings. One third of the members of a committee shall constitute a 
quorum. The presence of a majority of a committee shall, however, be 
required for a question to be put to a vote.

3. Annex C: Expert legal analysis of procedural requirements under IHR 
Article 55(2) and Rule 85 and 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsGQ151CuUYKPh4eaGbtCO/gXdErnD0qA5J> 
https://opiniojuris.org/2024/09/20/the-2024-amendments-to-the-international-health-regulations-a-commentary-part-ii-selected-substantive-amendments/

LEGAL MEMORANDUM By Interest Of Justice Legal Advisory Committee

Subject: Procedural Violations under Article 55(2) of the International 
Health Regulations (2005) and Rule 85 of the Rules of Procedure of the World 
Health Assembly

To: Concerned Member States, Legal Counsel, and Civil Society 
Representatives

From: Interest Of Justice Legal Advisory Committee

Date: April 5, 2025

I. Introduction

This memorandum analyzes the mandatory procedural requirements applicable to 
the amendment process of the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005), 
specifically under Article 55(2) of the IHR and Rule 85 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the World Health Assembly (WHA). The failure to comply with 
these provisions renders any proposed amendments void ab initio and opens 
the door to formal legal challenges.

II. Legal Framework

A. Article 55(2) of the IHR (2005)

"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."

Source: International Health Regulations (2005), Article 55(2), WHO Doc. IHR 
(2005), available at: 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsGsLnDdIqeFZx8Ty5acuS/OtS3Rz65MUfk> 
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241580496

B. Rule 85 of the Rules of Procedure of the WHA

"Proposals involving amendments to the International Health Regulations 
shall be submitted to the Director-General at least four months before the 
Health Assembly at which they are to be considered."

Source: Rules of Procedure of the World Health Assembly, 49th Edition 
(2020), Rule 85, p. 194, WHO Basic Documents, available at: 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsHKgVQ3hCkAkDCJLuZMcW/vjFoGwy-Darf> 
https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/Bd_49th-en.pdf

III. Interpretation and Legal Effect

These two provisions jointly establish a procedural chain of obligations:

1.	Submission Obligation – Rule 85 obligates any Member State or proposing 
entity to submit a proposed amendment at least four months before the WHA.
2.	Notification Obligation – Article 55(2) obligates the Director-General to 
transmit the full text of the proposed amendment to all States Parties at 
least four months before consideration.
3.	Legal Certainty – These rules codify a core principle of international 
administrative law: States must be given adequate time for review, 
translation, and instruction before any legally binding vote can occur.

IV. Consequences of Non-Compliance

A. Violation of Procedural Due Process

The failure to observe either Rule 85 or Article 55(2) constitutes a 
procedural breach that undermines the validity of the amendment process. 
This may be invoked under customary international law principles and treaty 
law safeguards such as:

*	Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969):

*	Article 26 – Pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be performed in good 
faith)
*	Article 27 – A party may not invoke its internal law as justification for 
failure to perform a treaty
*	Article 46 – Invalidity of consent if given in violation of internal law 
regarding competence to conclude treaties
*	Articles 51–52 – Invalidity due to coercion or improper procedure

Source: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, United Nations, 
Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331

B. Nullity ab initio

Where a procedural prerequisite is essential and is not met, the legal act 
(e.g., adoption of amendments) is considered void ab initio, meaning it has 
no legal effect from the beginning.

C. Right to Dispute

Affected States may invoke Article 73 of the IHR, which provides the 
procedural pathway to resolve disputes arising from the interpretation or 
application of the Regulations, including procedural violations:

"In the event of a dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the 
interpretation or application of these Regulations... [they] shall first 
seek to resolve the dispute through negotiation or any other peaceful 
means..."

Source: IHR (2005), Article 73

V. Conclusion

The four-month notice rule under Article 55(2) of the IHR and Rule 85 of the 
WHA Rules of Procedure is a mandatory procedural requirement. Any failure to 
comply with these standards invalidates the amendment process and 
constitutes a serious breach of international law. All affected States and 
legal entities are urged to act swiftly to preserve the integrity of global 
health governance and international treaty procedure.

4. Annex D: Documentary timeline of the 2024 amendments transmission 
demonstrating Article 55(2) violation

The 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) faced 
significant controversy regarding compliance with Article 55(2), which 
requires the WHO Director-General to communicate final amendment texts to 
all States Parties at least four months before the World Health Assembly 
(WHA). Here’s a breakdown of the timeline and procedural disputes:

Key Timeline of Amendments

1.	Initial Proposals (2022–2023):

*	Member States submitted 308 proposed amendments by September 20221 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/1t6Af4OiGsHn1DcU5Yq5uTG8jjY6Ka/0v3tO5Xn1atV> 
.
*	The WHO Secretariat circulated these proposals to all 196 States Parties 
on 16 November 20221 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfsZpYvFORbeP6HiRMsVKtg/VyHNtqPByUnb> 
3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfuSp5QYN0q6RSbWbjNI4qC/DrHbJOCYOFXP> 
.
*	A Review Committee provided technical recommendations in January 20231 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfwLobvrLa4YTovKm5s4omi/38iuiUOuGpZd> 
.

2.	Negotiations and Drafting (2023–2024):

*	The Working Group on Amendments (WGIHR) negotiated amendments until 24 May 
2024, with revisions communicated after each meeting1 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfyEo8RAK9J0WBF8wSMrYjE/qWASHfCylSx6> 
3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng07newTIiXSYXYx6oreIfk/dLGUXMs-11Fv> 
.
*	The final text was not settled until 1 June 2024—the day of 
adoption—leaving insufficient time for review3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng20nBRmHHluatslHBMR2cG/AKHlig87gOMJ> 
6 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng3tmhx5Fr0MdGCZRXrDmYm/NU3pcpdb3tC7> 
.

3.	Adoption at the 77th WHA (May–June 2024):

*	The WHA adopted the amendments on 1 June 2024, with the final text 
published in resolution WHA77.174 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng5mmESOEQEofcWNbuM0WVI/k05dligy6nj4> 
5 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng7flkxhCzTGhyqBmGqnGRo/Jz_j1ENIzVqZ> 
.
*	The WHO asserted compliance, citing the 2022 communication of proposals1 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng9YlHT0BYhikL9zwdLa0OK/FKuWOTuXZ4rk> 
, while opponents claimed the final package violated Article 55(2)3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfsaHtdRopxkKGXmGkhU4bk/zBMCSOLXsbb_> 
6 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfuTHQ8knPCCMcraR7CGoYG/eDegiXLYP-1A> 
.

Disputed Compliance with Article 55(2)

WHO’s Position:

*	The Secretariat argued that sharing initial proposals in November 2022 (17 
months before the WHA) exceeded Article 55(2)’s requirements1 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfwMGwe3lyQeOzBObTh3YUm/xn-nncfgYNP7> 
7 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfyFGT9MkXf6RLVClqBqIRI/qQJz1dmTXmSk> 
.
*	Subsequent drafts were circulated after each WGIHR meeting, though not the 
consolidated final text1 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng08Fzefj6tYThp0wCgd2No/wx3ppMuMYOrv> 
.

Arguments:

*	Article 55(2) mandates communication of the final text four months 
pre-WHA, not preliminary proposals3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng21FW9yhg80W48p6ZBPmKK/GwX5pCk9nqjx> 
6 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng3uF2fHgFMSYQSdGvgCWGq/HdEwV-9XoxzS> 
.
*	The final amendments were negotiated until May 2024, with the text only 
finalized on 1 June 2024, depriving States of meaningful review3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng5nEZAaeoauammRRIAzGDM/JiYgTubvbMS0> 
6 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng7gE5ftdNpMd96Fbefm09s/-KtGf3VAecxo> 
8 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng9ZDcBCbx3ofVQ3m1AYk6O/-94g4gQTl8GS> 
.
*	The Australian Parliament’s submission highlighted that delegates received 
the final text hours before adoption, calling the process “unlawful”6 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfsakELeFEJqFQnq68WSoJo/THsLB-4PoWuv> 
.

Implications of Procedural Violations

*	Legal s legitimacy3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfuTjkqxDnYIHn7eGV1FYGK/pBjNS47yLK7N> 
8 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfwMjHMGCMmkK9RSQrW2ICq/GMRvxn0yZfwV> 
.
*	Opt-Out Deadlines: Amendments take effect automatically unless rejected 
within 10 months, raising concerns about rushed commitments3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfyFinrZAw1CMVlGbE0p29M/X54U2pjoDErz> 
8 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng08iKMs9VFeOs54laVbm5s/7IarN7XAQLDZ> 
.
*	Broader Governance sovereignty in pandemic response3 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng21hqsB84U6REOsvx0OW2O/YiGZl1vTQ_Ea> 
7 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng3uhNNU6diYTaih6JVBFyu/1sIGJae8f4SK> 
.

Conclusion

Evidence suggests the final amendments were not shared four months before 
adoption, contravening Article 55(2)’s intent. This controversy underscores 
challenges in balancing expedited global health governance with legal 
safeguards for state sovereignty. The amendments took effect on 19 September 
20251 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng5ngtsn5Cx0Vx2VGfzxzvQ/O8S12Cq_kwmh> 
5 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng7ggQO63mBSYJMJR2Ukjrw/RxgSTCrDjzTE> 
, but procedural disputes may influence future compliance and trust in 
WHO-led reforms

5. Annex E: Certified copies of relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention 
on the Law of Treaties (1969) ANNEX: RELEVANT ARTICLES OF THE VIENNA 
CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES (1969)

Article 26 – Pacta sunt servanda

Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be 
performed by them in good faith.

Article 27 – Internal law and observance of treaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification 
for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to 
Article 46.

Article 31 – General rule of interpretation

1.	A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the 
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and 
in the light of its object and purpose.

Article 44(5) – Separability of treaty provisions

Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to a case falling under Article 53 or 64.

Article 46 – Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude 
treaties

1.	A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty 
has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding 
competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that 
violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of 
fundamental importance.
2.	A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State 
conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in 
good faith.

Article 53 – Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general 
international law (jus cogens)

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a 
peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the 
present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm 
accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole 
as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified 
only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same 
character.

Article 64 – Emergence of a new peremptory norm of general international law 
(jus cogens)

If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing 
treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void and terminates.

Article 69(1) – Consequences of the invalidity of a treaty

A treaty that is void shall be considered as having no legal force. The acts 
performed in reliance upon such a treaty shall be void of legal effect, and 
parties must eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any such acts.

Article 71(1)(b) – Consequences of a conflict with a peremptory norm of 
general international law

In the case of a treaty which becomes void and terminates under Article 53, 
the consequences of the invalidity of the treaty shall include: (b) the 
elimination as far as possible of the consequences of any act performed in 
reliance on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm of 
general international law.

Source: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded 23 May 1969, 
entered into force 27 January 1980, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 
1155, p. 331. Available at: 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng9ZfwtP2LPuafg7bOzXToS/SkTxMi6UWniD> 
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

6. Annex F: WHO Basic Documents (49th Edition, 2020) - Rules of Procedure of 
the World Health Assembly 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfsbCZ3qfcfwAb3tvWLRY1s/jhwE3PZmk6gi> 
https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/Bd_49th-en.pdf

7. Annex G: Jurisprudence of International Courts on procedural nullities in 
international instruments

​International courts have addressed procedural nullities in international 
instruments, emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to established 
procedures for the validity of treaties and related legal instruments. 
Notable cases include:1. LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States, 2001): The International Court of 
Justice (ICJ) ruled that the United States violated the Vienna Convention on 
Consular Relations by not informing the LaGrand brothers, German nationals, 
of their right to consular assistance. The ICJ emphasized that domestic 
procedural rules, such as the doctrine of procedural default, cannot justify 
non-compliance with international obligations. ​Wikipedia 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfuUC5Z9eBuOCxNi5sqEHyO/5RAYytZkDC09>

2. Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007): In this case, the 
ICJ examined Serbia's compliance with the Genocide Convention. The Court 
highlighted that procedural obligations, including the duty to prevent 
genocide, are integral to the treaty's purpose. Failure to adhere to these 
procedural duties constituted a breach of international obligations. 
International Court of Justice 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfwNBc4Scl8qFJhWGFL11uu/P4l2h8RHDItq> 
+2Opinio Juris+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2nfyGB8ZlbKNIHg1KQbpnlrQ/X2ydRY0JMPnv>

3. Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971): The ICJ addressed the legal consequences 
of South Africa's continued presence in Namibia despite a UN Security 
Council resolution. The Court concluded that South Africa's mandate was 
terminated and that its continued administration was illegal, underscoring 
that failure to follow procedural requirements in international mandates can 
lead to a loss of legal authority. ​Wikipedia 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng09Af54ZtbkK2L8ayKaVnw/nizjS-lYy5DH>

These cases collectively demonstrate that international courts consider 
adherence to procedural norms essential for the legitimacy and legality of 
international instruments. Non-compliance with procedural requirements can 
lead to findings of invalidity or illegality, reinforcing the principle that 
procedural integrity is foundational in international law.

8. Annex H, IHR Comment Submission To Australia Parliament 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng22ABaNYSqCMOewlKpNFkS/XvWdQvdPtFTL> 
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/HealthRegulations/Submissions - 
From Organisation/Individual - Interest Of Justice #304 Page 14

Urgency Exception / Immediate Invocation

The Vienna Convention does not explicitly include an “urgency” exception, 
but jurisprudence and legal commentary support the doctrine of fundamental 
change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus, Art. 62) and procedural 
urgency in the case of peremptory norms (jus cogens, Art. 53 and 64).

Immediately suspend application of the disputed instrument pending 
resolution, if the treaty’s application would cause irreparable harm or 
violate jus cogens.

File a provisional measure with the ICJ or invoke a right of non-recognition 
under customary international law and the ILC’s Draft Articles on State 
Responsibility. Customary Law Reinforcement:

States are not required to allow binding legal obligations to remain in 
force while a manifest violation is unresolved, especially where the treaty:

Violates fundamental rights,

Was adopted without proper internal authority,

Or conflicts with non-derogable norms (e.g., informed consent, human 
dignity, rule of law).

“Pursuant to Articles 46 and 65 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of 
Treaties, [State] notifies all Parties that it considers the purported 
adoption of the [2022/2024] amendments to the International Health 
Regulations as invalid and without legal effect. This position is based on 
manifest procedural violations concerning internal authority and 
multilateral process. Due to the urgent and irreversible consequences of 
continued application, [State] reserves the right to suspend any 
implementation pending resolution of this dispute.”

 <https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng3v9i5gX24eOkykvhK9zgy/vATHXhER7DDE>

 <https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/sh/7nVU1aA2ng5o9EazVbJ6R7IZ63owjdU/VWvLhqq6QZsc>

Interest of Justice

Universally Domiciled

This email was sent to [email-masked]

You've received this email because you're an International or National 
Public Servant.

Please Inform Us If We Should Stop Petitioning Governments 
<https://8b842.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/un/sh/1t6AVsdYhqSR1uev1caqbe7FysSmg8/C3QLVIlu0B9H>