Critically examine the role of WHO in providing global health security during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Approach · directive: “critically examine”
What it asks · Critically examine the World Health Organization's contributions to global health security in COVID-19 (coordination, guidance, vaccine access) and its shortcomings (speed, independence, funding, enforcement).
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Critically examine: WHO's contribution to global health security in COVID-19 — coordination, guidance, vaccine access
- Critically examine: its shortcomings — speed, independence, funding, enforcement — and a reasoned verdict
Open with · The WHO, under the International Health Regulations (2005), led the global response to COVID-19 but was also criticised for delay, dependence on donors and weak enforcement.
Cover
- Role: declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (30 January 2020) and a pandemic (11 March 2020); issued guidance, testing protocols and situation reports.
- Global public goods: the ACT-Accelerator and COVAX (with Gavi and CEPI) aimed at equitable access; Emergency Use Listing speeded approvals; the Solidarity trial tested treatments.
- Delay and consistency: on 14 January 2020 it relayed China's finding of no clear human-to-human spread; the emergency came on 30 January; mask advice changed.
- Structural limits: no power to enforce IHR compliance, and assessed contributions are under a quarter of its budget, so it relies on earmarked voluntary funds.
- Politics: the US notified withdrawal in July 2020 (reversed in January 2021), showing how great-power disputes can cripple the agency.
- Vaccine inequity: COVAX fell short of its delivery targets amid vaccine nationalism; India and South Africa's TRIPS-waiver proposal (October 2020) sought wider access.
- Reform agenda: predictable assessed funding, stronger IHR compliance and transparency, independent surveillance, and a pandemic accord (negotiations began December 2021).
Close with · The WHO was indispensable as coordinator but constrained by mandate and money; a better-funded, more accountable WHO, with States honouring IHR duties, is central to global health security.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2020, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 234 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
Under the International Health Regulations (2005) the WHO coordinates the response to health emergencies; in COVID-19 it proved indispensable yet slow, under-funded and dependent on member States.
Contributions
- Alert and guidance: a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2020, a pandemic declaration on 11 March 2020, testing protocols, clinical guidance and situation reports.
- Global public goods: the ACT-Accelerator and COVAX (with Gavi and CEPI) for equitable vaccine access, Emergency Use Listing to speed approvals, and the Solidarity trial of treatments.
Shortcomings
- Speed and consistency: on 14 January 2020 it relayed China's finding of no clear human-to-human spread; the emergency came only on 30 January; mask advice shifted.
- No teeth, no money: it cannot enforce IHR duties to report and share data; assessed contributions are under a quarter of its budget, and the US notice of withdrawal (July 2020, reversed January 2021) showed its dependence on great powers.
- Vaccine inequity: COVAX missed its delivery targets amid vaccine nationalism; India and South Africa's TRIPS-waiver proposal (October 2020) sought wider access.
Verdict
- No other body could have coordinated the response; its failures were mostly of mandate and money. Reform: predictable assessed funding, IHR compliance and transparency, independent surveillance, and a binding pandemic accord.
The WHO delivered coordination and public goods but could neither compel States nor fund itself; global health security needs a better-resourced, more accountable WHO and members that honour their IHR duties.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.