ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
China and the WHO pandemic treaty: a dive into stance, underpinnings, and implications.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- China's global health diplomacy through the World Health Organization: a qualitative study.Globalization and health · 2026Article
- Article
- Global Health Governance and the WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Scoping Review of Challenges and Analysis of Reforms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- States, global power and access to medicines: a comparative case study of China, India and the United States, 2000-2019.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- Compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals during public health crisis: a TRIPS framework analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Harnessing genomic technologies for one health solutions in the tropics.Globalization and health · 2024Review
- Navigating Hurdles: A Review of the Obstacles Facing the Development of the Pandemic Treaty.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2024Review
- Integrating animal welfare into the WHO pandemic treaty: a thematic analysis of civil society perspectives and comparison with treaty drafting.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed gaps in global health governance, catalyzing proposals for a new WHO pandemic treaty. This paper investigates China's stance on the treaty, recognizing it as reflective of many developing countries' concerns, through a qualitative analysis of its interventions during the treaty's drafting and negotiations and an examination of historical and geopolitical factors. Findings reveal China's emphasis on respecting state sovereignty, differentiated obligations for developing nations, preventing stigma, and concrete capacity building-concerns shared across the Global South. Its posture balances pragmatism and principle, reflecting differentiated responsibilities as a major power and developing country along with philosophical divergences from Western legal thinking. While endorsing global cooperation, China insists on voluntary terms without impinging on policy space. Implications suggest that accommodating China's concerns about invasive compliance mechanisms and inequitable burdens through flexible provisions can shape the treaty's acceptance and architecture. Creative solutions reconciling sovereignty and collective action combined with concrete equity measures and depoliticized cooperation will determine the treaty's success. China's major role indicates its endorsement, representative of the Global South's voice, is essential for an impactful pandemic treaty and reformed global health governance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.