Abstract:

Numerous studies have been conducted regarding the outcomes of COVID-19 on the world healthcare system, the global economy, and on mental health, as well as what epidemiological factors contributed to the spread of the virus. However, little research has been completed to analyze other factors that helped the disease thrive, beyond the characteristics of the virus itself, and where society stands today as it prepares for a possible future epidemic.  

The objective of this paper is to critically analyze the primary body that was tasked with controlling a pandemic – the World Health Organization (WHO) – and the measures they put in place – The International Health Regulations (IHR) – to manage the risk of an event like COVID-19. More specifically, through case studies and examples drawn from the pandemic response efforts, along with directional input from a former staff member of the WHO, the research will dig into what non-biological aspects contributed to the spread of the virus, what steps have been taken by the WHO since, and what potential gaps still exist today.

By advocating for improved international public health collaboration and concerted efforts to enhance pandemic preparedness, this research contributes to the intellectual discourse on mechanisms to help ensure a more-resilient response to future global health threats in an increasingly interconnected world.

Keywords: COVID-19, WHO, IHR, IHR 2005, PHEIC

I. Introduction

Founded in 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) is a United Nations agency of 194 member states that is tasked with promoting health on a global scale. Because a key element of its charter is to help prevent the spread of serious public health threats beyond a country’s borders, the WHO later established the International Health Regulations (IHR) to more effectively control specific highly contagious diseases. These regulations have been updated multiple times since their adoption in 1969, including important changes contained in a revision called IHR 2005, to deliver even better protection worldwide.

Despite the WHO’s efforts to put a foundation in place for effectively addressing a pandemic (with the IHR and its amendments), COVID-19 exposed serious gaps in global preparedness. A lack of transparency and sharing of information across countries underscored the need for quicker identification and collaboration worldwide. Clear differences in how member states reacted once a pandemic was declared highlighted the need for more consistent reporting and response. And considerable differences in the containment strategies used by these countries to slow the spread of the disease, both inside and outside their borders, shined a light on the inadequacies of the existing regulations.

In the years following the deadly outbreak, countries have banded together to revise and update the IHR even more. In June 2024, additional amendments were announced, which included a clearer definition of a pandemic emergency and a more-effective way to declare one. Member states also made a recommitment to solidarity and equity, and they agreed to better share resources in the future to prevent (and collectively respond to) similar outbreaks.

This paper aims to better understand the shortfalls of IHR 2005 – the version of the regulations in place at the time of the COVID-19 outbreak – that led to less-than-ideal responses. It will also evaluate the potential effectiveness of the most recent 2024 amendments and identify possible roadblocks to success in addressing a future public health threat of a similar magnitude, as well as offer suggestions for better future pandemic management.

II. Overview of COVID-19 and the Role of IHR

A. Background on COVID-19

COVID-19, was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, a novel coronavirus that is part of a family of viruses that includes those responsible for the common cold, as well as more severe illnesses like SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). Coronaviruses are characterized by crown-like spikes on their surface, which helps them attach to host cells. Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 revealed it to be closely related to coronaviruses found in bats. It also shares similarities with the virus responsible for SARS, suggesting (although disputed) that it may have originated in bats and then jumped to humans, possibly through an intermediary host, which is a phenomenon known as zoonotic spillover. (Lora, 2021). 

COVID-19 reportedly first emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. The initial cases were linked to a seafood market in Wuhan, which also sold live wild animals. By January 2020, COVID-19 cases were spreading rapidly in Wuhan, leading to the imposition of localized lockdowns and travel restrictions. (History, 2023). Due to its many transmission methods the disease was already in a position to spread across borders as worldwide travel generally continued. 

On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. The decision was based on its rapid and widespread transmission, the likes of which the world had not seen for more than a century with the Spanish Flu in 1918. The virus soon spread to other countries, primarily through international travel, and it reached 200 countries in just months – quickly reaching Europe, North America, and around the globe. This outbreak led to widespread health crises, economic disruptions, and societal changes. (WHO, 2024). 

B. Background on the WHO and its Relationship with IHR

Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the WHO is a specialized agency of the United Nations, which was established on April 7, 1948. This date, now celebrated annually as World Health Day, marks the beginning of a global effort to improve health standards and manage health crises on an international scale. (WHO, 2021). WHO’s core mission is to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the vulnerable, encompassing a broad array of activities aimed at enhancing global health standards and coordinating international health efforts. (WHO, 2024).

The WHO operates through a structured governance system. The World Health Assembly (WHA), its decision-making body, comprises representatives from all member states and convenes annually to set policies, approve budgets, and make critical decisions on health issues. (WHO, 2021). The Executive Board, composed of 34 members elected for two-year terms, implements WHA decisions and provides guidance on health policies and programs. The WHO Secretariat, led by the Director-General, manages the organization’s daily operations.

Among its many functions, the WHO is known for developing international health standards, providing technical assistance to countries, and monitoring global health trends. It also plays a crucial role in disease prevention, strengthening health systems, and helping coordinate emergency response. Notable achievements include the eradication of smallpox and ongoing efforts to control polio, which underscore the WHO’s significant impact on global health. (WHO, 2021).

The IHR is an international legal agreement first adopted in 1969 by all 194 WHO member states with the goal of managing specific diseases such as cholera, plague, yellow fever, smallpox, relapsing fever, and typhus. (WHO, 2021). However, as global health threats evolved, so too did the IHR with several changes adopted over the next 35 years. 

In the early 2000s, the IHR was revised once more to address an even broader spectrum of public health emergencies, reflecting the changing nature of worldwide health risks and the impact of globalization. This latest set of amendments, called IHR 2005, were introduced to prevent, protect against, control, and provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases while minimizing unnecessary interference with international travel and trade. It was the version of the IHR in place when COVID-19 first emerged. 

In more recent years, the IHR was updated once again, covering all public health emergencies – not just those related to specific diseases – and emphasizes a comprehensive approach to health security. This includes requirements for countries to develop and maintain core capacities to detect, assess, notify, and respond to public health threats. (Taylor, 2020).

III. Shortcomings of IHR 2005 Exposed by COVID-19:

Even though the WHO worked hard to prepare for a pandemic, including the approval of IHR 2005, it was not fully prepared for a disease that spread with the speed and ease of COVID-19. In retrospect, there were critical gaps in its regulations – and in how each member state interpreted and executed them – that led to delayed and inconsistent compliance. Ultimately, these problems had national and global repercussions, including the death of millions of people, the investment of trillions of dollars in relief, and a significant impact on people’s mobility, work, and even mental health. These are some of the key shortcomings that were exposed:

A. Slowness of Declaration of a PHEIC

One clear gap in IHR 2005 was how and when a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, or PHEIC, is declared. A PHEIC is defined by the IHR as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other states through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.” The purpose of declaring a PHEIC is to prompt global cooperation and mobilize resources for a coordinated response to manage and contain health emergencies. (Stuckleberger, 2020). This designation facilitates the implementation of measures and strategies to prevent the spread of the disease and reduce its impact on global health.

Despite early indications of a novel respiratory illness in China in late 2019, a PHEIC was not declared until January 30, 2020. (History, 2020). This delay was in part caused by China placing considerable effort into suppressing information and attempting to prevent critical test results from leaving China’s borders, but it was also caused by an apparent lack of clarity on the wording of what constitutes an extraordinary event. 

The results of a delayed PHEIC were significant on a global scale, with clear implications to global response timing, coordination, and resource allocation. For instance, WHO noted that a late start dampened efforts to mobilize resources, coordinate surveillance, and deploy critical medical supplies and personnel to affected regions. (WHO, 2024). In order to prevent similar results in the future, new language and alignment on the definition of a PHEIC would be needed, and the WHO would need to provide greater assurances to individual countries that sensitive information would be protected in order to encourage them to willingly share information. 

B. Delayed Reporting and Fragmented Response Mechanisms

Effective pandemic response hinges on the prompt and transparent reporting of outbreaks by member states. As mentioned, the initial reaction to COVID-19 was compromised by local Chinese authorities hiding information and downplaying the severity of the situation. However, other countries around the world also established barriers in reporting cases and sharing crucial information about the virus. This inability, or unwillingness, to comply with reporting obligations specifically called out by IHR 2005 led to critical global delays in assessing the gravity of the problem and the timing of a coordinated counterattack.

A second component of response that broke down during the pandemic was the consistency in which corrective efforts – called the “response mechanism” – were carried out worldwide. Many countries, particularly low and middle-income nations, struggled to allocate adequate funds for surveillance, laboratory capacity, and public health infrastructure. (Jones, 2021). They simply had too many domestic needs competing for limited resources, and thus reacted with varying degrees of effectiveness. Compounding the problem, the WHO’s ability to support these countries of lower socioeconomic status with technical assistance and financial support was hindered by funding shortages and competing global health priorities. This divide highlighted the urgent need for sustainable financing alternatives to bolster global health security and enhance pandemic preparedness, as well as more-effective prioritization amongst states themselves, to deliver a more-complete response mechanism worldwide.

The combination of delayed reporting and a fragmented response mechanism delivered a perfect environment for a pandemic to thrive. Inconsistencies in how countries communicated about the health risk highlighted vulnerabilities in the enforcement of the IHR 2005. (Stuckleberg, 2020). Added to this, a significant variance in the protections put in place by individual member states to control the spread of the disease resulted in cracks that led to a faster spread. Together, these challenges put the WHO in a position where it was not able to effectively execute on its mission. 

C. Inconsistent Compliance with WHO Recommendations on Travel Restrictions and Quarantines Across Member States

A third and critical deficiency of IHR 2005 was also uncovered by the pandemic: containment. The IHR recommends travel restrictions and quarantine to curb the spread of disease, while minimizing disruptions to international travel and trade. These guidelines are based on scientific evidence and aim to protect global health by advising member states on proportionate measures. (UN, 2020). 

 At the onset of the pandemic, countries implemented travel restrictions at different times based on their assessment of the threat and local public health capabilities. Some nations, such as New Zealand and Australia, quickly imposed strict travel bans and border controls. In contrast, other countries were slower to act, or they implemented partial measures at first – allowing the virus to spread more widely before restrictions were enforced. (Illmer, 2021). 

Quarantines were also not consistent in terms of scope. For instance, some states imposed comprehensive bans on non-citizens and non-residents, while others were less stringent, particularly within their region. Some countries also enforced strict protocols for travelers arriving from high-risk areas, including mandatory health screening and isolation in designated facilities for multiple days. Other countries allowed self-isolation at home or imposed less-rigorous monitoring and enforcement, leading to varying levels of effectiveness in preventing virus transmission. (Illmer, 2021). 

Finally, the extent and frequency of testing for travelers varied widely from one member state to another. Some required multiple tests and proof of negative results, which might have included a mix of tests taken before departure, upon arrival, during a stay, and before return. Other countries required less-frequent testing – sometimes just at arrival or departure, if at all. (Illmer, 2021). 

These differences in approach prevented authorities from detecting and isolating cases quickly. Importantly, the inability to contain the virus also led to more, and faster, mutations – making it even more difficult to diagnose and treat the symptoms, as well as to build an effective vaccine for prevention and elimination. To limit the scale of future pandemics and drive more consistency in the implementation of containment techniques, the WHO would need to better manage numerous factors, including clearer rules, consistent health infrastructure, social factors, and even communication barriers. 

IV. Recent Responses to Address Shortcomings: Amendments to IHR 

While IHR 2005 represented a considerable step forward from its predecessors in terms of preparing the world for a global pandemic, COVID-19 exposed a number of inadequacies in it as well – particularly in the areas of declaration, response, and containment. One of the best ways to address these deficiencies on a global scale was to adjust the IHR even further, which was completed by the WHO in 2024 with a new set of amendments. Below are some of the most important changes that were included.

A. PHEIC and Pandemic Emergency Declaration

Article 54 of the 2024 IHR amendments represents a critical element in the revision process aimed at improving the management and response to PHEIC. This article specifically sets out to address the conditions under which a PHEIC is declared and managed, as well as streamline the PHEIC process, enhance the effectiveness of global responses, and ensure that future emergencies are managed more efficiently. (WHO, 2021).

Specifically, the language now includes better guidance on how to assess the severity of the health threat, its potential for international spread, and the impact on public health systems. (WHO, 2024). It also requires the WHO to assess potential emergencies more promptly, with predefined timelines for decision making and communication. And in addition to addressing past delays in emergency identification, these changes also seek to reduce the risk of premature or inappropriate declarations that may distract important resources during an emergency, by ensuring that only events meeting these stringent criteria are classified as PHEICs.

Once a PHEIC has been named, there is also a need for ongoing assessment of them. Article 54 introduces the concept of mandatory periodic reviews. The WHO Emergency Committee is now tasked with evaluating the status of each in-process PHEIC at regular intervals. (WHO, 2024). These reviews assess whether the conditions warrant the continuation of the PHEIC status, or determine if the status should be downgraded or lifted. This action, which includes evaluating ongoing risks and the effectiveness of response measures, ensures that the PHEIC designation remains relevant and appropriate based on the evolving situation. (Farge, 2023).

B. Reporting and Response in the Context of IHR Amendments

IHR 2005 introduced significant enhancements to promote transparency in information sharing among member states and with the WHO. These amendments were integrated into multiple sections of the IHR, notably Article 10 which focuses on the dissemination of information, and Article 11 which addresses confidentiality and publication of information (Searchinger, 2024).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges of transparency under the IHR 2005 were highly visible. Timely and complete sharing of information between Chinese health authorities and the WHO would have been essential in understanding the nature and severity of the emerging threat. These initial delays, and inconsistencies in reporting and information sharing, greatly impacted early international awareness and response efforts. (WHO, 2024).

Under the latest 2024 amendments, there is a clear emphasis on comprehensive information exchange during public health emergencies. Member states are now further obligated to share timely and accurate data related to disease outbreaks, public health risks, and planned response measures with the WHO and other relevant stakeholders. (Farge, 2023). This includes epidemiological data, laboratory findings, surveillance reports, and best practices in outbreak response.

The amendments also clarify the confidentiality provisions outlined in Article 11, ensuring that sensitive information is appropriately protected while facilitating the dissemination of critical health information. (IHR, 2024). The combination is intended to promote openness and collaboration among member states, aiming to foster a unified global approach to managing health crises.

C. Coordinating Financial Mechanism

Another key revision now included in the IHR is the Coordinating Financial Mechanism, which aims to break down financial constraints and improve the allocation of resources during health emergencies. The introduction of this mechanism reflects the lessons learned from past crises, including the 2014 Ebola outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted the need for more-robust financial coordination and support. (WHO, 2021).

The primary goal of the Coordinating Financial Mechanism is to ensure that sufficient funds are available for effective response to public health emergencies. This includes covering the costs associated with emergency interventions, such as medical supplies, vaccines, and treatments. By securing a reliable funding source, it intends to eliminate financial barriers that may hinder timely and effective responses to health crises. (Stucklerberger, 2020).

The newly defined mechanism also seeks to improve coordination among various funding sources, including governments, international organizations, and private sector entities. This involves streamlining financial contributions and ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and transparently. The enhanced coordination helps avoid duplication of efforts and ensures that financial resources are directed to where they are most needed, thereby improving the overall effectiveness of the response. (Stucklerberger, 2020).

Lastly, in order to create and build capacity, this mechanism focuses on expanding resources, particularly in second and third-world countries. This includes funding to strengthen health infrastructures, improve surveillance systems, and train healthcare workers. By addressing capacity gaps, it aims to improve the preparedness and response capabilities of countries with limited resources, ensuring a more equitable and effective global response. (Miller, 2024).

V. Looking Ahead: Geopolitical Challenges to Global Health Cooperation

The 2024 amendments to IHR 2005 represent meaningful progress in the preparation for the world’s next great pandemic. However, there is still work to be done. Additional obstacles, which previously stood in the way of a unified, global response during COVID-19, will likely remain in place even after the latest changes are implemented. Largely geopolitical in nature and driven by individual countries’ own unique political, economic, and social priorities, these ongoing challenges may require additional clarification, diplomatic efforts, or new amendments to ensure consistent execution against the obligations set out in IHR. 

A. Vaccine Nationalism

Vaccine nationalism emerged prominently during the COVID-19 pandemic, where wealthier nations prioritized securing vaccine doses for their populations through bilateral agreements and domestic production. This approach resulted in disparities in global vaccine distribution, with low-income countries facing delays in accessing vaccines through multilateral initiatives like COVAX (Miller, 2024). 

For instance, countries like the United States and numerous European nations signed early procurement deals with vaccine manufacturers, ensuring rapid vaccination of their populations. In contrast, many third-world countries struggled to secure sufficient vaccine supplies, prolonging the pandemic’s impact on their vulnerable populations. Agreements on vaccine equity and balanced distribution will be necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future. 

B. Political Tensions and Information Sharing

Long-standing tensions among certain member states likely contributed to delays in information sharing and cooperation during the initial stages of COVID-19. China is a known political rival of the United States and other Western countries, which gave them an incentive to withhold critical epidemiological data coming out of Wuhan from the rest of the world in the early days of the pandemic. This, of course, disrupted early global awareness and response efforts, allowing the virus to spread beyond China’s borders before global countermeasures were fully in place. 

China was highly criticized about its lack of information transparency and timely notification to international health authorities. (Miller, 2024). However, past criticism largely from existing rivals may not be enough to change this behavior in the future – particularly when officials may see sharing sensitive information as a sign of geopolitical weakness or as a national security threat. The confidentiality provisions outlined in Article 11 are designed to help prevent these practices, but nationalistic tendencies are more likely to win out during a crisis. Additional international relations efforts by individual states to solidify alignment on global health priorities will be necessary, as will unified global pressure to adhere to the amended principles of IHR.

C. Trade and Export Restrictions

One of the most essential worldwide needs during the pandemic was for healthcare items like respirators, which were critical for some of the hardest-hit COVID patients to breathe. Expecting a high demand domestically for these medical supplies and related personal protective equipment (PPE), numerous countries implemented international trade restrictions and export bans on them. Such protectionist measures disrupted global supply chains and exacerbated shortages of essential medical supplies in regions heavily impacted by COVID-19 (Miller, 2024). 

Similar to what led to vaccine nationalism, country leaders will be tempted in future healthcare crisis situations to protect their citizens first. A commitment to preventing these practices – via additional clarifications to the IHR, or even new amendments – will be needed to avoid putting overseas frontline workers and vulnerable populations at greater risk. Additional diplomatic efforts will also be necessary to ensure open, international cooperation in pandemic response.

VI. Conclusion

COVID-19 highlighted a critical need for transparent communication, enforceable mechanisms, and equitable distribution of resources to ensure effective preparedness and response. IHR 2005 provided a solid starting point to accomplish these core objectives, but a number of deficiencies were exposed during the height of the pandemic that led to unnecessary worldwide disruptions, spending, and suffering. 

The latest round of amendments, which were adopted in June 2024, address some of the most important gaps in IHR 2005 including those related to declaration, response, and containment. They represent the coordinated effort of the WHO and its member states, and they are likely to further enhance global resilience against future health threats and foster international solidarity in health crises. 

However, there are still obstacles to be overcome – most notably geopolitical factors such as vaccine nationalism, political tensions affecting information sharing, and trade barriers – which can lead to disparities in vaccine distribution, delayed international cooperation, and strained global health governance processes. As we reflect on the lessons learned from COVID-19, it becomes evident that investing in global health security frameworks is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic necessity that will require ongoing clarifications, amendments, and diplomatic ingenuity.  

VII. Acknowledgments

The author of this paper would like to acknowledge Dr. Allyn Taylor – for her support throughout the writing process.

VIII. References

1. Bartolini, Giulio. “THE FAILURE of “CORE CAPACITIES” under the WHO INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 233–250, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589320000470.
2. Bloomfield, Ashley. “The Updated International Health Regulations: Good News for Global Health Equity.” The Lancet Journal, 17 June 2024, www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01248-0/abstract.
3. Congressional Research Service. “International Health Regulations Amendments.” Congressional Research Service (CRS), 24 June 2024, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12139/4.
4. F. Halabi, Sam, et al. “Safeguarding the Pandemic Agreement from Disinformation | Think of Global Health.” Council on Foreign Relations, 21 May 2024, www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/safeguarding-pandemic-agreement-disinformation. Accessed 1 July 2024.
5. Farge, Emma. “Pandemic Treaty: What Is It and How Will It Save Lives in the Future?” World Economic Forum, 26 May 2023, www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/who-pandemic-treaty-what-how-work/.
6. Geneva, U. S. Mission. “U.S. National Statement – IHR and INB.” U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Geneva, 2 June 2024, geneva.usmission.gov/2024/06/02/u-s-national-statement-for-agenda-items-13-3-and-13-4-ihr-and-inb/. Accessed 1 July 2024.
7. History.com Editors. “COVID-19 Pandemic – Origins, Impact & Vaccines.” History.com, 25 Apr. 2023, www.history.com/topics/21st-century/covid-19-pandemic.
8. Illmer, Andreas, et al. “Wuhan Lockdown: A Year of China’s Fight against the Covid Pandemic.” BBC News, 22 Jan. 2021, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55628488.
9. International Law and the Globalization of Infectious Diseases: The International Health Regulations and the Global Battle Against COVID-19. Presentation by Allyn Taylor to Law A 508, Transnational Law, University of Washington School of Law, May 7, 2020
10. Jeong, Eunsun, et al. “Understanding South Korea’s Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Real-Time Analysis.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 24, 21 Dec. 2020, p. 9571, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249571.
11. Jones, Lora, et al. “Coronavirus: How the Pandemic Has Changed the World Economy.” BBC News, 24 Jan. 2021, www.bbc.com/news/business-51706225.
12. Michaud, Josh, et al. “The International Health Regulations and the U.S.: Implications of an Amended Agreement.” KFF, 18 June 2024, www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/the-international-health-regulations-and-the-u-s-implications-of-an-amended-agreement/.
13. Miller, Mathew. “Amendments to International Health Regulations Strengthen Global Pandemic Preparedness.” United States Department of State, 3 June 2024, www.state.gov/amendments-to-international-health-regulations-strengthen-global-pandemic-preparedness/. Accessed 26 June 2024.
14. Our World in Data. “Emerging COVID-19 Success Story: South Korea Learned the Lessons of MERS.” Our World in Data, 30 June 2020, ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-south-korea.
15. Pfizer. “Retrospect and Context: One Scientist’s Thoughts on Comparing COVID-19 to the 1918 Flu Pandemic | Pfizer.” Www.pfizer.com, www.pfizer.com/news/articles/retrospect_and_context_one_scientist_s_thoughts_on_comparing_covid_19_to_
    the_1918_flu_pandemic#:~:text=At%20 least%2050%20 million%20 died%2C%20 with%20675%2C000%20deaths%20occurring%20in%20the%20U.S.&text=Today%2C%20the%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic.
16. Searchinger, Chloe . “The New Amendments to the International Health Regulations | Think Global Health.” Council on Foreign Relations, 4 June 2024, www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/new-amendments-international-health-regulations. Accessed 26 June 2024.
17. Stuckelberger, Astrid, and Manuel Urbina. “WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) vs COVID-19 Uncertainty.” Acta Bio Medica : Atenei Parmensis, vol. 91, no. 2, 2020, pp. 113–117, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7569658/, https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i2.9626.
18. Taylor, Allyn L. , and Roojin Habibi. “The Collapse of Global Cooperation under the WHO International Health Regulations at the Outset of COVID-19: Sculpting the Future of Global Health Governance | ASIL.” Www.asil.org, 5 June 2020, www.asil.org/insights/volume/24/issue/15/collapse-global-cooperation-under-who-international-health-regulations.
19. United Nations. “The UN Coronavirus Communications Team | United Nations.” United Nations, United Nations, 2020, www.un.org/en/coronavirus.
20. Walker, Juliet. “How Would a Pandemic Treaty Relate with the Existing IHR (2005)?” The BMJ, 23 May 2021, blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/23/how-would-a-pandemic-treaty-relate-with-the-existing-ihr-2005/.
21. “World Health Assembly Agreement Reached on Wide-Ranging, Decisive Package of Amendments to Improve the International Health Regulations.” Www.who.int, World Health Organization, 1 June 2024, www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2024-world-health-assembly-agreement-reached-on-wide-ranging–decisive-package-of-amendments-to-improve-the-international-health-regulations–and-sets-date-for-finalizing-negotiations-on-a-proposed-pandemic-agreement.
22. World Health Organisation. “Key Events in the WHO Response.” Www.who.int, 2015, www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/one-year-into-the-ebola-epidemic/key-events-in-the-who-response-to-the-ebola-outbreak.
23. World Health Organization. “WHO Member States Agree to Share Outcomes of Historic IHR, Pandemic Agreement Processes to World Health Assembly.” Www.who.int, 24 May 2024, www.who.int/news/item/24-05-2024-who-member-states-agree-to-share-outcomes-of-historic-ihr–pandemic-agreement-processes-to-world-health-assembly. Accessed 1 July 2024.
24. World Health Organization (WHO). “Latest Deadly Ebola Virus Outbreak in DR Congo Declared Over.” UN News, 3 May 2021, news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091162.
25. World Health Organization (WHO)). International Health Regulations (2005). 1 June 2024, apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA77/A77_ACONF14-en.pdf.

About the author

Sydney Garber

Sydney Garber is a senior at Capital High School in Boise Idaho. She is a top ten student in her class and is actively involved in student government and mock trial, as well as an all-state softball pitcher.

Sydney intends to study international relations in college, with a long-term goal of becoming a foreign diplomat or working at the United Nations. To that end, she is the campus captain of a statewide program to drive voter registrations and has interned at the DACOR-Bacon House in Washington DC – an organization dedicated to leaders in international relations and foreign policy.

In addition to pursuing her career aspirations, Sydney is also an active volunteer. She is Founder and President of The Iron Butterfly Initiative – an organization dedicated to advancing mental health in women’s sports – which has been covered by the Associated Press and more than 250 media outlets worldwide. She is also a founding member of the Idaho branch of the National Charity League, where she served as Vice President of Philanthropy and Vice President of Programming.

The post The Short- and Long-Term Shortcomings of the International Health Regulations (IHR) Exposed by COVID-19 appeared first on Exploratio Journal.

Introduction

Trade between the United States (US) and China, the world’s largest economies, has been turbulent over the past decade. China became the US’s largest trading partner in November 2013, and it remained that way for the larger part of the past decade, but due to the ongoing trade war between the two countries, and an increasingly hostile sentiment in both countries due to geopolitical conflicts, Mexico surpassed China as the US’s biggest trading partner in February of 2021 (US Census Bureau Foreign Trade, n.d.). The continued erosion of diplomatic as well as economic relations between the US and China poses implications for the world at large (S&P Global, n.d.). 

In the US, China’s image has continued to sour, reaching an all-time low in 2023 as a result of COVID-19 and amid mounting trade tensions; Pew reported that in 2023, some 83% of US adults held unfavorable views of China (Fagan, 2023). This negative perception is further fueled and reflected by the news media, which has long played a central role in shaping both public opinion and policymakers’ perspectives on international affairs (Chen & Wang, 2022; Cyber-Diplomacy, 2002).

The U.S. stance on trade with China has shifted significantly under the administrations of Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden, with unfavorable views of China rising by 29% during Trump’s presidency, as he treated China as an economic and military “enemy” (Higgins, 2019). Since hard news coverage sets the tone of ongoing policy issues, public perceptions are likely to be reflected in media coverage. Studying that media coverage directly can help us understand the media’s agenda-setting role with respect to US-China trade relations. 

In this study, I investigate firstly how the tone of US media coverage of trade with China has changed over time. Additionally, I ask whether the media increasingly portrayed China in a negative light during the Trump administration and whether the tone of the coverage returned to its pre-Trump baseline during the Biden administration. Additionally, to explore the effect of political alignment on news reporting and determine whether the political skew of news media affects coverage of trade with China, I ask the following question: How does the political alignment of a media source affect its coverage of trade with China? Along with studying the general trends in media coverage over time, I will also study the topics and concerns that influence perception and perception changes the most by asking the following question: what topics influence the tone of media coverage on trade with China the most? 

To investigate these questions, I use newspaper article data from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and the New York Times (NYT) across three consecutive time periods (2013-2016, 2017-2020, 2021-2024). A total of 91 relevant articles from the NYT and 129 relevant articles from the WSJ were coded for the general tone and specific mentions of trade with China. I analyzed quotations and general trends in Google Sheets. 

I find that US media portrayals of China worsened over time, and soured particularly during the Trump administration. Additionally, I find that while the left-leaning New York Times was susceptible to administration changes, the Wall Street Journal’s portrayals remained largely consistent over the years. Topics such as tariffs, technology, and trade disputes, were the main focuses of US news media. By studying the changes in US media portrayal of trade with China, this research aims to further understand the role of US media in US-China trade relations. 

Literature Review

1. China-US Trade Relations

To encapsulate the development of the US-China trade relations, researchers point to a few key events. China’s trade relations with the US were defined most notably by China joining the WTO in 2001, the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath (Chen & Wang, 2022). While the relationship was initially positive, the relationship began to deteriorate, starting with smaller and separate disputes that eventually developed into a full-fledged trade war. In recent years, researchers point to events such as the establishment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the official start of the US-China trade war that began with the introduction of new US tariffs on solar panels in 2018, and even events that appear less related to trade, such as the COVID-19 epidemic, or human rights in Tibet (Ramirez & Rong, 2012; Tang & Willnat, 2023). Overall, the US’s grievances against China have centered around a few issues: China’s trade practices, most notably its alleged currency manipulation, forced intellectual property (IP) transfers, as well as the China-US trade deficit (Ramirez & Rong, 2012, p. 1). While previous literature has studied US perceptions of China over generally shorter time frames, such as those following COVID-19, this research will study the US tone of media coverage on trade with China over a longer period of time, thus providing a broader understanding of trends in the tone of media coverage over time. 

2. Political Differences

Both the contemporary political environment as well as the political skew of media outlets have an impact on their general stance on China. Hard news both reflects and informs the general sentiments of the population at any time. Under three different administrations since 2013, the US’s perception of China has become increasingly adversarial. Most notably, the Trump Administration treated China as an economic and military “enemy”; and according to a Pew survey, the share of Americans holding unfavorable views of China grew by 29% during the time Trump was in office (2017-2021) (Fagan, 2023; Higgins, 2019). In general, liberals and conservatives are divided in their views of China, with conservatives likely to be more adversarial (Jin et al., 2022, p. 4). This division is reflective of the general party stance as well as actions and rhetoric employed by respective administrations while in office. While previous literature has mainly focused on influences of political alignment on perceptions of China in general within the general population, this research aims to analyze that influence in news media, both in terms of bias as well as the administration in power. 

3. Role of Media on International Trade

The media represents one of the primary channels through which individuals consume information on international affairs and public opinion, which in turn influence the perception people have of certain countries (Wanta & Golan, 2004). Media portrayals influence policymakers as well, and even with the rise of social media today traditional news media continues to be a source of information for politicians (Cyber-Diplomacy, 2002). As a result, news media often also serves as a mirror, reflecting the nation’s identity and political and trade agenda (Cook, 2005). Therefore, analysis of trends in hard news will examine how media sets the agenda of public debates and shapes public opinion. While most literature confined news analysis to shorter timeframes or neglected to compare separate US outlets with each other, this research aims to study the impact of news media over a more extensive timeframe and seeks to compare key topics’ presence in news to help better understand the issues and topics that drive perceptions on US trade with China.

4. Hypotheses

Republicans have consistently held more negative views on China as opposed to Democrats and previous surveys have revealed the significant souring of China’s perception in the US during the Trump administration (Fagan, 2023; Huang, 2020). Overall, this suggests that under the Trump administration, media perception of China follows the general trend and therefore also becomes more negative. I therefore propose:

Hypothesis 1: media coverage of trade with China will be the most adversarial in the years of Trump’s presidency (2017-2021) and less so in the four years before that and in the time up till now. 

The effect of the trade war as well as COVID-19 on the tone of media coverage of China is also likely to leave lasting impacts. Indeed, the Trump administration introduced various elements of uncertainty to trade relations between the US and China, such as the initiation of the trade war in 2018. Additionally, the Biden administration has continued to place additional tariffs on China, such as the increase in import taxes on Chinese EVs, and has preserved various Trump-era tariffs. I therefore propose:

Hypothesis 2a: the tone of media coverage of trade with China remains relatively negative post-Trump. 

However, since political rhetoric during the Biden administration has also proven to be significantly less preposterous, there is the likelihood that media coverage has toned down during his administration. This leads me to propose:

Hypothesis 2b: the tone of media coverage of trade with China recovers and returns to pre-Trump levels during the Biden administration. 

Since Republicans tend to view China more negatively, I therefore pose:

Hypothesis 3: media coverage of trade with China in right-leaning news media (such as WSJ) will be more adversarial than those in left-leaning news media (such as NYT). 

As the US increasingly views rising China and its growing economic influence in the world as a national security threat, and as tariffs and grievances focus increasingly on a few certain topics, I suggest:

Hypothesis 4: topics such as cybersecurity, technology, trade deficit, and China’s trade tactics and regulations will affect US media coverage the most. 

Data and Methods

1. Data

Data for this study was made up of relevant news reports and op-eds published in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal between 1 January 2013 and 8 February 2024 to cover the three most recent administrations. A total of 220 relevant articles were obtained, of which 91 were from NYT and 129 were from WSJ. 

I divided the larger timeframe into three four-year time frames to cover the three respective administrations of Obama, Trump, and, now, Biden. I made a search in the ProQuest database using the terms “China” and “trade” within a vicinity of five words and in a timeframe of a week. 21 weeks were selected at random within each four-year period in order to craft a purposeful sample due to the large volume of the available data; specifically, 21 weeks represents about 10% of the total time in any four-year time period. All relevant articles were collated and downloaded so that each file represented all relevant articles within a week. To ensure that all articles fell under the category of hard news, opinion and commentary pieces, including editorials, were excluded during coding. Additionally, articles that were irrelevant thematically were also marked as so and discarded during coding. 

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal were chosen as targets for this research because of their respective political leanings. These two publications fulfill the requirement of having broad media coverage as well as being sufficiently different in terms of political alignment. Ad Fontes Media rating of NYT has it at a relatively reliable 41.91 and a -7.94 bias rating (on a scale of 42, where neutral is 0 and extremely left-leaning is -42 while the extreme right is +42). On the other hand, WSJ was rated at 43.34 reliability and +4.24 bias. While the New York Times is slightly more skewed compared to the Wall Street Journal, a better pair of outlets could not be found as the type and accessibility of the publications data was also a limiting factor (Interactive Media Bias Chart, n.d.).

2. Coding

I conducted the coding of news articles to systematically analyze the portrayal of trade relations between the U.S. and China in the media and to answer the four research questions. The goal of coding was to identify the general sentiment on trade with China in each of the three time frames for the two different news outlets, as well as identify the topics that were most relevant to these sentiments. 

To classify the articles, I developed a systematic coding scheme. There were five code categories, some were developed iteratively while others were set from the beginning. These were “General Tone,” “Perception of China,” “Quote/Not Quote,” “Speaker,” and “Substantive Domain.” The former four categories were set from the beginning while the “Substantive Domain” codes developed as coding progressed. “General Tone,” and “Perception of China,” specifically analyze the tone that the speaker employs when describing trade with China. Negative or adversarial portrayals were when China was portrayed as causing great harm, having a trade agenda that was against the interests of the US, or being an adversary in the “trade war.” Positive portrayals were when China was portrayed as being a collaborator with the US on trade, or the relationship being one of mutual benefit. Neutral portrayals were when authors remained relatively neutral. 

Coding was done manually using Atlas. ti. During coding, I first did a search of the article using the words “China” and “U.S.” to determine relevant sections, which I then read; if “China” and “U.S.” were consistently mentioned, the entire article was read. I coded sentences that characterized China in certain ways: whether “adversarial”, “neutral” or as “a partner.” Articles were coded as well for speaker and substantive domain. After reading, I coded the article as a whole on “General Tone,” which ranged from “Adversarial,” to “Neutral,” and “Positive.” Coding for the substantive domain was iterative and when the codebook was revised, I revisited and recoded previous articles; this proved not to be a challenge as topics were added as they appeared and overlapping codes merged at the end of the coding process. Challenges during the coding surrounded the coder bias, as coding became more consistent as the process went on. To address this, earlier articles were revisited and the coding was revised for consistency. 

Codes and quotes were stored in Atlas.ti and exported to Google Sheets for analysis to ensure that the data was easily accessible and to enable more efficient analysis. Individual quotes occupied separate rows in the sheet and had properties discerning its outlet (NYT or WSJ), timeframe, week number, and separate properties for all existing codes (with binary 0s and 1s assigned in cells to indicate the codes assigned to the quote). 

To analyze the change in general tone over time, I sorted quotes first by news outlet and then by timeframe; in this way quotes were separated by outlet and time, for example, all NYT articles from a certain timeframe were put together. For every timeframe, the number of articles having “Adversarial Portrayals” was divided by the number of total articles coded for “General Tone” to give the percentage of adversarial portrayals in the timeframe. I then organized the six percentages (three from NYT and three from WSJ representing the three timeframes) in a table and generated Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

To analyze the trends in the substantive domain, I separated the data by timeframe exclusively, disregarding the specific news outlet. I divided the total appearances of a specific code under “Substantive Domain” in a certain timeframe by the total amount of “Substantive Domain” codes during the timeframe to give the percente of its prevalence during that specific time period. I then organized the resulting percentages into a chart and generated Figure 3. 

Findings

To study how US media coverage of China has changed over the three most recent administrations and gauge Trump’s impact on media discourse, I compared the number of adversarial articles published in a given year to the total number of relevant articles in that same year. As shown in Figure 1, adversarial portrayals of China in the US media increased over the three four-year timeframes, from 63.98% between 2013-2016 to a high of 75.85% in 2017-2020, and finally decreasing to 67.12% in 2021-2024 but not returning to original levels. Overall, these findings indicate that news reporting was consistently more adversarial than not and its negative tone largely increased over the course of the three administrations, only decreasing slightly between the Trump and Biden administrations. Figure 1 also provides evidence for Hypothesis 1 concerning the media perception of China during Trump’s presidency. During the time Trump was in office (2017-2020), adversarial portrayals of China in news media grew by 11.87% from when Obama was in office. The adversarial portrayals of China were also the highest during that time compared to the two other timeframes, thus affirming the hypotheses. 

Trump had a lasting impact on media coverage of trade with China. Figure 1 indicates that while adversarial media portrayals decreased (from 75.86% in 2017-2020 to 67.12% in 2021-2024), negative portrayals during the Biden administration have yet to return to the levels observed during the Obama administration. This suggests that while neither Hypothesis 2a nor 2b is fully right, the answer is somewhere in between the two. While political rhetoric and actions during the Trump administration had a negative lasting impact on coverage of trade with China, the tone did indeed improve between the Trump and Biden administrations. 

To test how the political alignment of media outlets influenced media portrayals of China, the trends of adversarial portrayals were analyzed separately by newspaper over time. As shown in Figure 2, adversarial portrayals of trade with China in the New York Times rose sharply between the Obama and Trump administrations and recovered slightly in the Biden administration (Obama: 57.69%, Trump: 82.05 %, Biden: 66.67%). On the other hand, media portrayals by the Wall Street Journal have remained consistently adversarial (Obama: 70.27%, Trump: 69.64 %, Biden: 67.57%). This indicates that while left-leaning news was originally more optimistic and positive about trade with China, the mood soured drastically during the Trump administration, and in recent years, left and right-leaning media sources share a stance on trade with China. Thus, while hypothesis three was originally true in 2013-2016, the left-leaning NYT had significantly more negative portrayals of China during the Trump administration (NYT: 82.05% WSJ: 69.64%) and leveled out with right-leaning WSJ during the Biden administration.

On the contrary, however, the tone of reporting from the WSJ experienced little change over the course of the three administrations. Adversarial portrayals of trade with China remained largely steady (2013-2016: 70.27%, 2017-2020: 69.64%, 2021-2024: 67.57%). This indicates that while the NYT was more susceptible to changing political rhetoric, the reporting from the WSJ remained consistent. 

To test how different topics or events influenced the tone of US media coverage of China differently over time, the substantive domain of passages in articles regarding trade with China was analyzed. Figure 3 shows the percent prevalence of specific topics and their change over the years. In 2013-2016, the most influential topics were “Trade Disputes”, “Growth in bilateral trade”, “China’s Trade Agenda,” and “US’s Trade Agenda” (15.09%, 11.32%, 11.32%, 10.32% respectively). “China’s Trade Agenda,” and “US’s Trade Agenda” respectively refer to the specific trade strategies or efforts by the two countries, for instance, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is classified under “US’s Trade Agenda.” During this time, the growth of bilateral trade between the two countries was reported extensively and was instrumental in informing the general media perception of trade with China. For reference, “Growth in Bilateral Trade” was not a significant factor in either 2017-2020 or 2021-2024. This is indicative of the fact that increased US trade with China was a relatively novel topic. Additionally exclusively in 2013-2016, the topics “Currency Manipulation” and “Job Concerns” were prevalent (both 7.55%). This is reflective of the specific concerns of the Obama Administration on increased trade with China during that specific timeframe. Later on, these specific concerns were not a primary focus. 

During 2017-2020, “Trade Disputes” was the most influential topic (25.48%). “Trade Disputes” remained a hot topic throughout the three time frames (15.09% in 2013-2016; 15.00% in 2021-2024) but were about 10% more prevalent during 2013-2016. “Tariffs” also follow a similar trend, being the most prevalent during 2017-2020 at 11.08% (about 9% more prevalent than during either 2013-2016 or 2021-2024).  

A connection can be drawn between these trends and specific policies enacted during the Trump administration, notably, the beginning of the US-China trade war. The increase in the prevalence of the topic of “Technology” during this specific time period is also indicative of the correlation between the political rhetoric of the Trump administration and specific media representations of trade with China. The topic “Technology” shot up in prevalence in 2017-2020 from 0.94% during the previous timeframe to 8.86%. This makes sense as a significant portion of US tariffs enacted on China during that period were on technologies, more specifically solar panels (York, 2024). Interestingly, however, technology remained a focus in 2021-2024, and its prevalence increased to 9.5%. This indicates that the Biden administration continued to focus on important technology industries in the US. This is mirrored, for example, in the Biden administration’s increased semiconductor, battery, EV, and medical product tariffs (The White House, 2024).

The topic “China’s Trade Policy” grew over the three timeframes (2013-2016: 5.66%, 2017-2020: 9.42%, 2021-2024: 11.50%). This indicates that the political rhetoric became increasingly frustrated with China’s trade practices as time went on. 

Conclusion

In this study I set out to examine how US media coverage of trade with China changes based on a variety of factors: time, political environment, as well as political bias. I  used two US-based hard-news outlets, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, two oppositely skewed outlets to collect relevant data. Employing qualitative coding and analysis methods, I gathered data and quantified and measured specific trends in US media perception of trade with China. 

My findings suggest that although a variety of factors have influenced media coverage of trade with China, US media perception follows a general trend and is heavily influenced by the contemporary political environment as well as specific developments in US-China trade. In the past decade, changing political administrations and the corresponding political rhetoric as well as trade policies as played the primary role in driving change in media portrayals. Interestingly, the analysis found that while the right-leaning WSJ was consistently adversarial towards China in trade, the left-leaning NYT, while initially significantly friendlier was heavily influenced by the adversarial political rhetoric of the Trump Administration. 

Media portrayals of trade with China play a huge role in informing the perception of the wider population as well as politicians and policy-makers. Understanding the how and why behind the changes in US media portrayals of trade with China is thus crucial to understanding the larger stance of the US on the issue. As trade disputes between the US and China continue to unravel, implications will be felt worldwide. This analysis of US media portrayals finds out what drives the US and paints a better picture of its stance on trade. 

About the author

Yuan Peng

Y.A. Peng is a student at the Cate School with a strong passion for political science as well as community engagement. Yuan is deeply interested in US and China relations and how they play out, not only in the two countries but also in other regions in the world. Yuan is a leader on campus and is the co-founder of the debate and ethics club, as well as a Student DEI Representative. In his free time, he reads and has a passion for the visual arts.

The post US Media Representations of China: a Study of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in Reporting on Trade With China appeared first on Exploratio Journal.