Italy’s decision to abstain from a global pandemic treaty vote at the World Health Organization has reignited debate over national sovereignty, public health coordination, and the lessons learned from COVID-19.
At a Glance
- Italy was among 11 countries that abstained from a WHO vote adopting a new pandemic agreement
- The agreement passed with support from 124 nations, aimed at improving global pandemic coordination
- Italy cited concerns about maintaining national sovereignty over health policy
- Opposition lawmakers criticized the move as isolating and counterproductive
- Health Minister Orazio Schillaci called for further revisions before Italy can fully support the agreement
National Sovereignty Versus Global Coordination
On May 20, 2025, Italy abstained from a key WHO vote approving a new international framework for pandemic response, joining 10 other countries that declined to endorse the deal. The agreement—backed by 124 nations—is designed to improve global readiness, ensure equitable access to vaccines, and coordinate medical resources during health emergencies.
Watch a report: WHO Agreement Faces Sovereignty Backlash.
Italy’s abstention reflects Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s broader emphasis on national autonomy. Health Minister Orazio Schillaci said the government supports international collaboration in principle but believes further work is needed to ensure the agreement fully respects national policy prerogatives. “We expect the redefinition of a clear roadmap,” he said, calling for additional dialogue before Italy could ratify the terms.
Political Reactions Domestically and Abroad
The decision sparked criticism from opposition lawmakers, who argued it weakens Italy’s role in future global health crises. Democratic Party leader Chiara Braga described the abstention as “very serious,” accusing the government of prioritizing domestic politics over scientific consensus and multilateral coordination.
Health policy spokespersons from the Five Star Movement and Italia Viva echoed similar concerns, labeling the move “deeply irresponsible” and “embarrassing,” respectively. Critics argue that distancing from WHO frameworks could reduce Italy’s access to emergency supplies, research collaboration, and coordinated response efforts.
What the Agreement Proposes
The WHO pandemic agreement aims to establish mechanisms for sharing medical data, technologies, and resources more efficiently during global health emergencies. Proponents say it will help avoid some of the fragmented responses seen during COVID-19, particularly in areas like vaccine distribution and diagnostics. However, several nations, including Italy, have expressed caution about provisions related to data sharing, intellectual property, and decision-making authority.
The WHO has emphasized that the agreement does not grant enforcement powers over national governments but aims to promote best practices and collective planning. Still, the framework’s long-term impact on national policies remains a point of contention for some member states.
Balancing Global Solidarity and Domestic Control
Supporters of the Meloni government see Italy’s abstention as a principled stance in favor of democratic oversight and transparent negotiation. Senator Marco Lisei argued that Italy is “no longer a follower, but a protagonist” in international forums, and said abstaining was a signal that Rome expects more balanced terms in future revisions of the pact.
Italy’s position highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing global health solidarity with national autonomy—a tension that was deeply felt during the pandemic and remains unresolved. Whether Italy’s abstention leads to constructive revisions or increased isolation within the WHO framework will depend on diplomatic developments in the months ahead.
As the world prepares for future health emergencies, this episode illustrates both the complexity and importance of trust, transparency, and equitable governance in international health agreements.
