“World Health Assembly adopts historic Pandemic Agreement.” — WHO press release, 20 May 2025
What the announcement does not include: Article 33 of the Pandemic Agreement stipulates that the treaty will only be opened for signatures once the World Health Assembly has adopted a separate annex. That annex — the PABS system under Article 12 — does not exist yet. No state can sign.
What PABS means and why the EU is blocking binding benefit-sharing obligations, we analysed when the WHA79 position became clear. This piece takes the procedural consequence: even with a PABS agreement concluded, the treaty would still be years away from entering into force.
The Ratification Mechanics#
The Pandemic Agreement was adopted by WHA78 on 20 May 2025 with 124 yes votes, zero no votes and eleven abstentions. The second legally binding instrument the WHO has adopted under Article 19 of its Constitution, after the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC, 2003). “Adopted” is a precise legal term here: the WHA formally accepted the treaty text. It does not mean states can sign, ratify, or that the treaty is in force.
Five steps stand between the vote and entry into force:
Step 1: PABS Annex (Article 12) — missing. Article 33(1) of the treaty ties the opening for signature to the prior adoption of this annex. WHO press release, 19 May 2025: “Once the Assembly adopts the PABS annex, the Pandemic Agreement will then be open for signature and consideration of ratification, including by national legislative bodies.”
Step 2: Opening for signature — has not happened. No PABS annex, no opening for signature.
Step 3: National ratification — not yet possible. No state can ratify what is not open for signature.
Step 4: 60 ratifications. Entry into force requires at least 60 of the 194 WHO member states — roughly 31 percent.
Step 5: Entry into force — earliest 2029. WHA79 (May 2026) failed to adopt the PABS annex and extended the negotiating deadline to WHA80 (May 2027). Even with an agreement at WHA80, what follows is: opening for signature, then national parliamentary ratification processes in each signatory state (historically 1–3 years), then the 60th ratification.
For comparison: the FCTC entered into force in February 2005 — under two years after adoption in May 2003, with 40 ratifications. The Pandemic Agreement requires 60 — and the starting gun has not been fired.
PABS: Why the Annex Is Not Coming#
The structure of interests blocking the annex is laid out in our WHA79 piece. Here is the short-form breakdown, because it explains why ratification is delayed:
| Actor | Position on PABS Annex |
|---|---|
| Global South (Pakistan, Nigeria et al.) | Binding allocation obligations — otherwise Article 12 is gutted |
| EU / industrialised states | Voluntary arrangements preferred; no binding IP obligations |
| USA | No longer at the table — WHO withdrawal completed under Trump |
MSF (WHA79, May 2026): “Governments must continue negotiations and finalise a multilateral PABS framework enabling the Pandemic Agreement to enter into force.”
The US withdrawal adds a structural complication: the United States controls the major pharmaceutical companies with pandemic production capacity. A PABS system without binding obligations on US firms has limited reach before it ever takes effect.
Finding#
The Pandemic Agreement has been formally adopted. It is not open for signature, not eligible for ratification, not in force.
The WHO press release of May 2025 used the word “historic” — correctly applied, as the WHA adoption is the first new legal instrument of the organisation since the FCTC in 2003. What the headline did not say: the treaty text contains, in its own wording, a prerequisite that was not met at the time of adoption. WHA79 failed to close it a year later. The ratification clock has never started. What was celebrated as historic is, in legal terms, a promise without a start date.
