Before jumping into the captioned topics I’m going to state that I absolutely LOVE both Jerm Warfare AND Astrid Stuckleberger for EVERYTHING they’ve done during the interminable years of Covid Insanity (CI) that helped those of us who sensed something foul afoot from the get-go, and assured us that we were far from alone in questioning EVERYTHING. So let this be a big shout out and thank you to you both and an expression of deep gratitude! Now, on to the topics at hand.
Yesterday I participated in the 'live chat' when 'Jerm Warfare' interviewed Astrid Stuckleberger, who I believe was one of the first people to claim, also on a Jerm Warfare podcast about year ago, that '2/3 vote by the WHA (World Health Assembly) and the treaty / amendments get adopted!' This error has been repeated like wildfire and is what I believe led to the claims, from last year but continued to this day, that 'when the WHA votes on the amendments to the IHR in May 2022 (and yes, I know that date is long past, but the claims just get recycled to another future date without explaining how it didn’t happen LAST time…)
1. Our sovereignty will be ceded to the WHO;
2. The WHO will take over our Constitution; and
3. The UN will invade us.'
So, on yesterday's live broadcast, she made the same statement - that a 2/3 vote will bind us (and the world) to the amendments. I asked, in the live chat, how that would happen. She said because of Articles 19 through 22 in the Constitution of the WHO.
Before analyzing these Articles, I’m going to discuss Articles 9 and 35 from The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, for unless you have this vital bit of information, you may make the same mistake that Astrid - and many, many others - did; and please do NOT misunderstand me here. I’m NOT throwing shade on ANYONE who made this mistake as it’s an arcane bit of knowledge that I only happen to have because of a class I took at New York University many moons ago called ‘The Vienna Conventions.’ So let’s roll.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties specifies how all treaties come into being and is what governs ALL aspects of treaties, from who can participate in their crafting, to how they are crafted and how they are adopted, rejected, or adopted WITH RESERVATION, to how they are exited, revoked, amended, entered into force, etc.
Article 9
Adoption of the text
1. The adoption of the text of a treaty takes place by the consent of all the States participating in its drawing up except as provided in paragraph 2.
2. The adoption of the text of a treaty at an international conference takes place by the vote of two thirds of the States present and voting, unless by the same majority they shall decide to apply a different rule.
It is of vital importance to note that NO STATE CAN BIND ANOTHER WITHOUT ITS WRITTEN CONSENT. Also from the Vienna Convention:
Article 35
Treaties providing for obligations for third States
An obligation arises for a third State from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to be the means of establishing the obligation and the third State expressly accepts that obligation in writing.
From these two Articles it is clear that the ‘international conference’ at which ‘2/3 vote’ IS TO ADOPT THE TEXT OF A TREATY, and that NO STATE CAN BIND A THIRD STATE TO A TREATY WITHOUT ITS WRITTEN CONSENT. Does this clarify that ‘a 2/3 vote at the WHA binds the world’ is a misunderstanding? And it is one that is easy to have unless you’ve studied the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Now, fortified with that background, let’s move on to Articles 19-22 of the Constitution of the WHO.
Here these Articles are:
Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or
agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organ-
ization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the
adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force
for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional
processes.
See how easy it is to misinterpret the statement ‘A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements’ unless you understand, from the Vienna Convention, that it means ‘adoption of THE LANGUAGE’ of such conventions or agreements?
However, I’m going to re-iterate in BOLD the rest of the sentence from Article 19, above: WHICH SHALL COME INTO FORCE FOR EACH MEMBER WHEN ACCEPTED BY IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES.
Translation: 2/3 of the World Health Assembly can vote to ADOPT THE TEXT OF A TREATY (OR AMENDMENTS) but they do NOT bind a state until the state BINDS ITSELF in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the
adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action
relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member
shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not
accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a
statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each
Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accord-
ance with Chapter XIV.
Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concern-
ing:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to
prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public
health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological,
pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international com-
merce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar
products moving in international commerce.
Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all
Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health
Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of
rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.
I don’t believe you can take Article 21 without Article 22 which specifies that ‘…Members MAY NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF REJECTION OR RESERVATIONS WITHIN THE PERIOD STATED IN THE NOTICE.’
It is clear that from all of the above, ‘assemblies’ and ‘international conferences’ are able, by 2/3 vote, TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE OF TREATIES / AMENDMENTS; THAT NO STATE CAN BIND ANOTHER WITHOUT ITS WRITTEN CONSENT; AND THAT STATES CAN REJECT OR ACCEPT WITH RESERVATION, TREATIES / AMENDMENTS;
And that therefore, the WHO CANNOT, ‘if 2/3 vote,’
Usurp our sovereignty;
Take over our Constitution;
Well, I suppose the UN could still ‘invade,’ but I don’t think over amendments to health treaties?
I think it is awesome that so many have shone the light on the World Health Organization and its actions because I don’t believe for a nanosecond that foul play isn’t afoot, but I do believe sorting out treaty (international) law and what it can and can’t do is of vital importance to our credibility.
What we are REALLY facing is a creepy uninarrative emanating from ALL supranational entities including the UN and WEF. Not only do we - and by ‘we’ I mean each and every single one of us who questioned the ‘covid narrative’ and each and every single ‘covid policy’ both in real time and continue to do so unflailingly to the present day - not only do ‘we’ NOT HAVE A SEAT AT ANY OF THESE NEGOTIATING TABLES - they are flat out pretending that we, and our questions, DON’T EXIST. Except for the occasional shout out calling us ‘conspiracy theorists,’ which is the attention we DON’T want.
Hopefully this helped. Stay tuned!
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.