In line with the threatening declaration of Donald Trump in May, the Trump administration notified the US Congress on July 6 that it officially withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO). Prior to that, at the end of May, the US president Trump has announced to cancel the US relationship with World Health Organization by cutting off its financial contribution permanently and also said that he will think to reconsider the US membership of WHO. Behind the decision, the president has reasoned that WHO has failed to respond properly regarding the ongoing coronavirus pandemic globally and alleged that WHO is working to execute the mandate of China.
On April 14, Trump has declared he will temporarily withhold US funding to WHO, accusing the organization of being too friendly to China. On 18th of May, he sent a letter to WHO where he warned to cut US funds to WHO permanently and to “reconsider” membership if “significant concrete changes” are not accepted by WHO in 30 days. He followed up without waiting for the expiry date on his comment. Expert termed the behavior of US president as a hostile attitude against WHO and also warned that these types of expression from US president led to bitter experience in WHO and global health scenario.
After that, Trump has been criticized by the world political leader and particularly by a legal scholar. Trump made the difficult decision to cut the United State’s finance to WHO whenever WHO seems to be in the credit collapse to combat the deadly Corona Virus as well as urged donations during the next $700 million to deal with the COVID-19 catastrophe and is willing to boost the appeal soon on to. Experts addressed Trump that his decision may bring another tragedy for global health scenario.
In accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution of WHO, if a member fails to fulfil its financial obligations to WHO but rather in exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may refuse voting privileges and services under such conditions as it considers necessary which member is required to do so shall have the power of the Health Assembly to restore such voting rights and services. That kind of measure is set out in the procedural rules of the United Nations General Assembly, which applies throughout all UN specialized agencies. Moreover, if the US does not go back on its decision, it will clearly renege on its international duty. And such a stand is inconsistent with the pacta sunt servanda principle.
The substance of the principle is that commitments under the Convention must be met in good faith in such aspect of the universal rule enabling all subjects of international law to undertake their rights and duties under the same law in good faith. This basic concept can be viewed as manifesting the need felt by States for an international legal framework capable of maintaining public stability and avoiding authoritarian actions and disorder, in this legal domain, the requirement is to affirm the nature of international law as rule. From such a global, while not overstating, leadership perspective, the global community has gazed to the US centuries to just provide leadership on multiple international issues, along with health.
For what has become a sadly common situation, on May 29, 2020, Donald Trump declared his intention to remove America from a long-established international arrangement: this time the involvement of the US in WHO. As of now, there are two urgent legal issues: the first issue here is, did Trump really withdraw WHO from the US?
Secondly, if Congress or national safety advocates regard it differently, are they unable to prevent the removal of WHO from occurring? There are many that they might and therefore should do.
Permanent freezing of US grants to WHO as well as reconsidering its membership of the organization is not so easy. There is no clear clause for removal to WHO constitution. So, to deal with that gap, the US Congress adopted a joint resolution allowing the President to recognize US membership in WHO and stating that the United States should not withdraw from WHO even if two requirements were met: the United States has the right of withdrawal from the organization on even a one-year notice. Furthermore, so that if the financial obligations of the United States towards the organization are entirely fulfilled for the existing fiscal year of the organization.
Since Justice Jackson recently noted in the case of Steel Seize, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer “presidential powers”—in this instance, to withdraw from existing United States foreign agreements—”are not set, but vary considerably, based on their negation or combination with that of Congress. In attempting to operate against any of the requirements specified by Congress, the acts of President Trump fell within the popular tripartite Steel Seizure context of Category Three of Justice Jackson, where the legislative control of the President falls at “its lowest ebb, however, it is reasonable to claim that Trump has no legitimate right to remove the United States from WHO without meeting the two criteria.
An official at the State Department acknowledged to CNN that the administration had already sent a notification to the United Nations Secretary-General expressing its intent to withdraw. The letter sets a timetable for the transfer for one year.
But still, under those same two congressional terms, the US is obligated to meet its financial obligations to WHO for the fiscal year in full. Secondly, the United States can legally exit from WHO Constitution no later than one year before at least the date on which Trump sends a specific withdrawal notice.
Under such two congressional conditions, firstly the US is entitled to pay its debts to WHO in full for the current fiscal year. Secondly, the United States might not even lawfully withhold from WHO Constitution either at earliest one year till at least from the deadline which president gives an official withdrawal letter.
In the meantime, as the US election is knocking, if Trump gets unelected and the new president will come, he has to only denounce Trump’s claimed withdrawal until it is set to take legal effect, that would be 4 months at most just after new President would enter the office. If Trump is re-elected, the US would have had to pay the remainder of its 2020 pledge. It is due not only to the Joint Resolution but also to the availability of Congress-approved WHO funds.
If Trump had to wait until the one-year notice had expired, nothing else would prevent Congress from adopting a subsequent joint resolution reinforcing the terms of US withdrawal from WHO, for instance by enhancing the withdrawal period to two years, or explicitly by joint resolution subjecting Congressional approval. To carry out his withdrawal proposal as a constitutional matter, Trump will have to not only veto the joint resolution of disapproval but also win a new joint resolution authorizing such withdrawal in 2021 from a future democratic Congress.
Such as the Gramm-Rudman bill, Bowsher v. Synar, Congress may have a legislative clause within a joint resolution imposed on any particular member to appeal a withdrawal from the presidency without members having the ability to vote on a joint resolution authorizing the withdrawal of WHO. Furthermore, private litigants do not need to wait until Congress acts. If reelected Trump will try to complete a withdrawal from WHO sometime in mid-2021, litigation would almost certainly follow. Standing plaintiff may include members of Congress with statutory recognition, private companies and States and areas adversely impacted by US disengagement, and likely to afflict individuals who had been denied from the benefits of WHO-endorsed research by withdrawal.