The concept of “tiering” in the context of the IHR refers to the gradation or classification of health emergencies, which carries significant implications for how the WHO mobilizes resources, issues guidance, and coordinates international responses. The study “To tier or not to tier: the institutionalization of the World Health Organization’s power to determine pandemic emergency in the amended International Health Regulations (2005),” by Zhang and Guo, dissects this tiering mechanism to reveal the complex interplay between legal authority, political dynamics, and health diplomacy.

Integral to understanding the institutionalization process is the history and evolution of the IHR. Originally adopted in 1969 as a narrow framework focusing on a few diseases, the revised IHR (2005) vastly expanded the scope to encompass any event that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern. This reform was in large part a response to the emergent health threats of the 21st century, including SARS, H1N1 influenza, and later, the COVID-19 crisis. Zhang and Guo meticulously chart this historical trajectory to explain how the WHO’s role transitioned from passive information gathering to an active, authoritative agent with the power to declare a PHEIC.

Zhang and Guo argue that the tiering system embedded within the amended IHR serves as a critical instrument for legitimizing and operationalizing the WHO’s emergency powers. This tiered classification allows the organization to modulate its response based on severity, geographical spread, and the potential international impact of health threats. The authors make clear that tiering is not merely an administrative convenience but a manifestation of the WHO’s increasing institutional capacity and political clout in global health governance.

Significantly, the paper underscores the political and diplomatic tensions involved in the declaration of health emergencies. The decision to designate an event as a PHEIC can have profound implications for affected states, including travel restrictions, trade sanctions, and economic disruption. Zhang and Guo illustrate how these considerations influence both WHO deliberations and member states’ reactions, framing the tiering process as a balancing act between scientific evidence and geopolitical realities.

The analysis dives deep into the procedural steps involved in the WHO’s determination process. The authors elucidate the roles of the Emergency Committee, expert panels, and the Director-General, highlighting how the revised IHR codifies the delegation of responsibilities and enhances transparency. A particularly insightful aspect of the study is the examination of how institutional norms and routines have become embedded within the WHO’s architecture, facilitating more consistent and timely emergency declarations.

Moreover, Zhang and Guo critique the challenges that the WHO faces in maintaining scientific objectivity while navigating competing political pressures. They draw on case studies, including the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic and the Ebola outbreaks, to illustrate how the tiering framework sometimes confronted criticism for either delayed or overly cautious declarations. The analysis suggests that while the tiering mechanism offers a structured approach, its implementation remains contingent upon the organizational culture and political environment within which the WHO operates.

Advancing their argument, the authors explore the implications of tiering for global health security. The tiered IHR approach fosters a graduated response that optimizes coordination among international actors and facilitates resource mobilization. This institutional design enhances global preparedness and resilience by ensuring that response levels are commensurate with threat magnitude, encouraging member states to comply with recommended measures, and minimizing unnecessary alarmism.

Delving into technical details, Zhang and Guo analyze the operational metrics used to assess whether an event qualifies for different tiers. These include epidemiological indices such as transmissibility, case fatality rate, and cross-border spread potential. They also consider the role of real-time data analytics and risk communication strategies that inform tier classification. The paper highlights how advances in technology and surveillance systems have augmented the WHO’s capacity to rapidly assess and categorize emerging health threats.

The study further explores how the tiering system has influenced the WHO’s interaction with other international bodies such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations Security Council. This multidimensional institutional embedding allows the WHO to leverage broader diplomatic and economic mechanisms, thereby amplifying its authority while navigating inter-agency jurisdictional overlaps.

Zhang and Guo’s work is especially relevant in light of ongoing debates about the WHO’s reform and the calls for enhancing its mandate ahead of future pandemics. They argue convincingly that institutionalizing the tiered approach is a pivotal step in strengthening global health governance but caution that further reforms must address remaining gaps, including political interference, funding constraints, and the need for robust enforcement mechanisms.

The authors also speculate on the future trajectory of the IHR and WHO’s emergency powers. They suggest that increasing digital integration, including AI-driven surveillance, and improved global data-sharing networks could refine the tiering system further, allowing more nuanced and dynamic emergency assessments. However, these technical advances must be matched by political will to ensure that the WHO remains autonomous and authoritative.

On a broader scale, the paper situates the tiering institutionalization within the evolving paradigm of transnational health governance. Zhang and Guo posit that the tiering mechanism reflects a shift towards a more layered and flexible international legal order that can adapt quickly to health crises while maintaining legitimacy among diverse stakeholders.

In conclusion, Zhang and Guo’s research offers a compelling examination of how the WHO’s power to declare pandemics has been formalized through the tiered amendments to the International Health Regulations. Their detailed and critical study sheds light on the operational, legal, and political dynamics that shape global health emergency declarations. This vital contribution not only advances academic understanding but also informs policymakers and health practitioners grappling with the complex realities of pandemic governance in an interconnected world.

Their findings underscore the necessity for ongoing vigilance, transparency, and capacity building within the WHO framework to ensure that the international community is prepared for the next global health emergency. As pandemics continue to pose existential threats, the institutional mechanisms to detect, classify, and respond to such threats remain pivotal for safeguarding public health worldwide.

Subject of Research: The institutionalization of the World Health Organization’s authority to declare pandemic emergencies via the amended International Health Regulations (2005), with a focus on the tiered emergency classification system.

Article Title: To tier or not to tier: the institutionalization of the World Health Organization’s power to determine pandemic emergency in the amended International Health Regulations (2005).

Article References:
Zhang, Y., Guo, Y. To tier or not to tier: the institutionalization of the World Health Organization’s power to determine pandemic emergency in the amended International Health Regulations (2005). Global Health Research and Policy 10, 40 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-025-00438-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-025-00438-6

The core ambition of the EU’s global health strategy is to create a transparent, coordinated, and sustainable response framework that can tackle emergent pandemics, endemic diseases, and the broader determinants of health that transcend borders. Unlike previous efforts that often remained siloed within national or sectoral boundaries, this strategy emphasizes integration across policy domains including security, development, climate, and trade. By bringing these seemingly disparate fields under one cohesive umbrella, the EU aims to amplify its leverage and generate multiplier effects in global health diplomacy.

Central to the strategy’s innovation is its emphasis on implementation science, a domain often neglected in global health policy. The document argues that without a rigorous framework to translate evidence-based policies into actionable interventions, the best intentions risk becoming mere rhetoric. This paradigm shift demands investments not only in health infrastructure but also in robust monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive learning mechanisms. By incorporating iterative feedback loops and real-time data analytics, the strategy fosters a dynamic environment for course correction and continuous improvement.

Moreover, the strategy poses a critical challenge to traditional donor-recipient dynamics, advocating for a partnership model that respects sovereignty and promotes co-ownership among recipient countries. This is operationalized through capacity strengthening initiatives that aim to empower local health systems and professionals. Strengthening local governance, laboratory networks, surveillance infrastructure, and frontline workforce are underscored as pivotal for ensuring resilience against a spectrum of health threats, ranging from antimicrobial resistance to vaccine hesitancy.

Environmental determinants of health receive unprecedented attention in this strategy. Climate change, ecosystem degradation, and urbanization are acknowledged not only as separate issues but as integral drivers shaping disease patterns and health system vulnerabilities. By aligning environmental policies with health objectives, the EU anticipates synergistic benefits that extend beyond health outcomes, including enhanced food security, reduced pollution, and climate resilience. This intersectional thinking marks a departure from conventional siloed approaches, reflecting the evolving complexity of health challenges.

The strategy also outlines a forward-thinking approach to innovation and technology. Digital health platforms, artificial intelligence, and genomic surveillance are identified as key enablers to leverage data-rich environments and boost pathogen detection capabilities. Importantly, ethical frameworks and data governance standards are proposed to accompany these technologies, ensuring privacy protection and equitable access. The balance between technological enthusiasm and responsible oversight manifests a conscientious effort to mitigate unintended consequences.

In tackling health inequities, the strategy underscores the importance of addressing social determinants such as education, gender equality, and economic opportunity. The EU envisions a health equity lens applied consistently throughout initiatives, ensuring marginalized and vulnerable populations are not sidelined. This commitment further extends to crisis preparedness and response, where equitable resource allocation and culturally sensitive communication strategies are prioritized to enhance community trust and uptake of health interventions.

Amid global geopolitical shifts and fluctuating multilateral cooperation, the EU asserts its role as a steadfast leader in global health governance. By leveraging its collective diplomatic weight and financial clout, the EU intends to foster partnerships with multilateral agencies, private sectors, civil society, and academia. This networked approach strengthens global solidarity and facilitates knowledge exchange, capacity building, and coordinated emergency response mechanisms. The strategy expresses a clear intent to re-energize multilateralism in a time often marked by fragmentation.

A critical component of the implementation phase involves financing. The strategy advocates for innovative financing mechanisms that go beyond traditional aid. Blended finance models, impact investing, and public-private partnerships are presented as viable instruments to mobilize sustainable resources at scale. Transparent financial stewardship, accountability mechanisms, and cost-effectiveness analysis are also incorporated to assure donors and beneficiaries of the prudent use of funds and maximization of health outcomes.

The document recognizes the importance of workforce development in its expansive vision. It calls for harmonized policies across member states to address healthcare worker shortages, burnout, and skills mismatches. Additionally, cross-border mobility of health professionals is encouraged, facilitating knowledge transfer and mitigating disparities in healthcare service delivery. Training curricula are poised to integrate global health competencies, multidisciplinary capacities, and cultural competence to better prepare the workforce for future challenges.

With the COVID-19 pandemic serving as a powerful reminder of vulnerabilities within global health ecosystems, the strategy integrates lessons learned into its action plan. It emphasizes the need for increased global surveillance networks, rapid data sharing platforms, and joint research endeavors. Coordinated vaccine development and distribution models form a critical part of the framework, alongside mechanisms to counter misinformation and foster vaccine confidence through community engagement.

Ethical principles permeate the strategy’s fabric, emphasizing human rights, equity, and inclusivity. The EU’s approach respects cultural diversity and promotes participatory processes where affected communities have agency. This normative dimension bridges technical expertise with social justice, proposing a model where humanity and science coalesce to produce sustainable health advancements.

The strategy also confronts the rising tide of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in low- and middle-income countries, a neglected domain in earlier global health agendas dominated by infectious diseases. Integrated care models, primary health care strengthening, and multisectoral collaborations are promoted to address the complex etiologies of NCDs, including lifestyle, environment, and genetic factors. Preventative health measures are elevated as cost-effective and long-term solutions to reduce the growing burden of chronic illnesses.

Finally, the EU global health strategy as articulated in this seminal document is an audacious blueprint marking a new chapter in international health cooperation. Its deliberate, multi-layered, and interdisciplinary design acknowledges the intricacies of global health challenges and offers pragmatic yet visionary solutions. The successful operationalization of this strategy has the potential not only to save millions of lives but also to redefine how states and societies collectively safeguard health in an interdependent world.

—

Subject of Research: EU Global Health Strategy and its implementation from policy formulation to practical execution.

Article Title: The EU global health strategy: from policy to implementation.

Article References:

Skordis, J., Froeschl, G., Baldi, S.L. et al. The EU global health strategy: from policy to implementation.
glob health res policy 10, 8 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-025-00410-4

Image Credits: AI Generated