The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly demonstrated that international cooperation to combat pandemics is insufficient. The World Health Organization has, therefore, recently reformed the International Health Regulations based on the experience of the COVID 19-pandemic. The World Health Assembly also plans to adopt a new Pandemic Agreement to further strengthen international cooperation. However, negotiations have not yet been successful, and this year’s World Health Assembly agreed to extend the negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement by one year. Reason enough to analyse and critically evaluate the reform efforts in detail, and to give an outlook on the future of international pandemic law.

The current international framework that purports to regulate the spread of communicable disease in the context of maritime traffic is a fragmented, internally inconsistent, and inadequately enforced patchwork of treaties (including the International Health Regulations (2005)) and customary international law. The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the current framework and revealed it to be inadequate to deal with a major global health emergency. States have imposed or failed to impose varying control measures, the effects of which have been witnessed on board passenger vessels around the world. The cruise industry, in particular, has a significant global economic impact; therefore, appropriate, enforceable international regulation is necessary to ensure the adequate control of future communicable disease outbreaks.

The devastating 2014–16 West African Ebola outbreak challenged the authority of the World Health Organization (WHO) to enforce the legally binding International Health Regulations (IHR) that govern pandemic responses. Under Article 43 of the IHR, states parties can only implement additional health measures beyond the WHO’s recommendations if public health rationales or scientific evidence justify such measures. Yet at least fifty-eight states parties enacted additional health measures, mainly travel restrictions to or from Ebola-affected countries. This article explains why Canada’s visa restrictions targeting Ebola-affected countries failed to meet the IHR’s requirements and therefore violated international law. Specifically, Canada’s response went against public health authorities’ consensus views, the best available scientific evidence on disease transmission, and the WHO’s recommendations. In light of its traditional role as a global health champion, Canada must lead by example and abide by international law, including the IHR, instead of picking and choosing which rules to follow and thereby encouraging other countries to do the same.