No withdrawal clause in WHO constitution: Principal legal officer

GENEVA, Switzerland (MNTV) – World Health Organization (WHO) Principal Legal Officer Steven Solomon said at a press briefing in Geneva that the WHO Constitution is a treaty, and very notably, the WHO Constitution does not have a withdrawal clause.

This was not an oversight. It was very deliberate.

Solomon said the constitution’s drafters in 1946 deliberately avoided including a withdrawal clause, believing that universality was essential to global health security.

WHO member states are expected to debate the US’s financial obligations linked to a potential withdrawal, the organization’s principal legal officer said Tuesday, as the one-year notice period announced by the administration of US President Donald Trump approaches its end.

“They saw how a truly universal organization would make the world safer, so they did not include a withdrawal clause,” he said, noting that the WHO constitution followed the example of the UN Charter, which also lacks a withdrawal provision.

He explained that the U.S. later secured a separate arrangement with the World Health Assembly.

“In 1948, the US made an agreement with the World Health Assembly, reserving for itself, alone among countries, the right to withdraw on two conditions,” Solomon explained.

Those conditions include “one year notice,” which will be met by late January, and that “the U.S. will meet its financial obligations to the organization in full for the current fiscal year,” he added.

Solomon said the fulfillment and interpretation of that second condition is expected to be discussed by member states.

He said the issue is expected to be raised at the WHO Executive Board next month and continue at the World Health Assembly in May.