Can International Law Stop Hantavirus? (In 3 minutes)
By Yusra Suedi (PhD, Assistant Professor of International Law at University of Manchester)
[The usual caveats apply: this is a simplified explainer, lawyers may disagree on several of these points, and by the time you read this, something may have already changed.]
Hantavirus has been spreading from a cruise ship that left Argentina on April 1st 2026.
The World Health Organization (WHO) says the global risk is low and it’s not another COVID-19.
But there’s no treatment or vaccine, people have died and ~30 passengers who left the ship early are being tracked across the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, and other countries.
So can international law actually stop something like this?
Right now: The system is working
Hantavirus is a contained outbreak; not a pandemic. The International Health Regulations (IHR) are the rulebook on how countries handle diseases that cross borders.
It was updated and took effect in September 2025 (following COVID-19 failures).
E.g.: When the UK notified WHO on 2 May about the cruise ship, it was directly following the IHR.
One big COVID lesson: fewer people fumbling around
Under the updated IHR, countries must now create one National IHR Authority: a government office in charge of coordinating responses to cross-border health threats.
Before, during COVID-19, you had lots of departments doing their own thing and fumbling to figure out who’s in charge.
This has possibly improved coordination for hantavirus. The WHO says countries are coordinating well. Good sign.
Vaccine hoarding is supposed to be harder now
Under the updated IHR, WHO must help countries get fair access to vaccines and actively remove obstacles preventing this.
This fixes one of COVID’s biggest failures: rich countries bought up vaccines while others waited months or years.
If a hantavirus vaccine were developed, WHO would be legally required to ensure Cape Verde or South Africa (where the cruise ship stopped) get access at the same time as the UK or Switzerland.
(Of course, countries must be willing to make this happen too.)
The problem is 11 countries (including Germany, Israel, Brazil, Canada) rejected these IHR updates. So they’re not bound by the equity provisions. E.g.: If Israel develops a vaccine, it could keep it. Still, for a small outbreak like this, the system is functioning for now.
If it became a pandemic: Different story
If hantavirus escalates to a true pandemic, different rules also kick in: the Pandemic Agreement.
The problem is that agreement can’t work yet. Countries are still negotiating the crucial part (how to share virus samples and vaccines) through 2027. Until then, it’s just paper and countries would share vaccines out of goodwill, not legal obligation.
And WHO has less power to push them because:
The US exited WHO taking ~$1 billion in funding
This forced WHO to cut 1,200 jobs (22% of staff) by June 2026.
Countries have pledged more funding to compensate, and would need to hurry if a pandemic broke out.
Argentina (where the cruise ship came from) left too
It left on 17 March 2026, just weeks before this outbreak! So it has no legal obligation to share findings or participate in the global response.
But it will keep cooperating with PAHO (WHO’s regional office for the Americas), so neighbouring countries can still share its hantavirus data with the global WHO system.
One silver lining:
The updated IHR created a new ‘pandemic emergency’ alert level that triggers stronger coordination. So at least the alarm bells would be louder.
In brief:
For this outbreak, international law is mostly doing its job. But for the next pandemic? Only if countries actually fund and use the tools they’ve built.
If you found this useful, share it with someone who might find it useful too!
If you enjoyed this SAIL post, you might also enjoy:
So interesting - thanks so much for sharing! Unlike Covid, I hope that the hantavirus stays contained