1. Soft Law’s Non-Binding Nature

Soft law refers to non-binding norms, resolutions, and statements by UN bodies that shape expectations but do not have the force of law. They influence national policies and public discourse despite lacking legal enforceability.

Example: The UN General Assembly resolution on equitable vaccine distribution, while non-binding, influenced numerous governments to implement policies aimed at rapid and universal COVID-19 vaccine rollout, demonstrating how soft law can effectively shape national actions even without legal enforcement.

2. Limitations on Religious Liberty Under UN Rights Framework

The UN recognizes freedom of religion but allows limitations for public health. This framework often leads to deprioritizing religious exemptions during health emergencies.

Example: The UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 22 affirms freedom of religion under ICCPR Article 18 but explicitly states that manifestations of religion may be restricted when necessary to protect public health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, several UN statements referenced this clause when supporting temporary limits on religious gatherings and practices, emphasizing that public health measures could override certain religious expressions when deemed proportionate and necessary. This framework often leads to deprioritizing religious exemptions during health emergencies.

Some UN soft law documents categorize vaccine refusal as misinformation or harmful narrative, which may lead to religious objections being viewed as threats to public health.

UN COVID-19 Examples: - UN Secretary-General (April 2020): In launching the global initiative to combat COVID-19 misinformation, the UN stated that “misinformation can spread faster than the virus itself” and emphasized that content discouraging vaccination or public-health measures should be “actively countered and pre-bunked” through coordinated government, media, and social-platform response. - UN Verified Campaign & WHO–UN Communications Guidance (2020–2021): The UN’s “Verified” campaign classified anti-vaccine narratives—including those based on personal or religious objection—as “harmful content” requiring platform takedowns or reduction in reach. Their joint guidance with WHO urged governments and tech companies to “remove false or harmful information that undermines public-health interventions, including vaccines.”

3. Influence of UN Agencies on National Policies

UN agencies, especially the WHO, promote concepts like “vaccines for all” and “universal health access,” which can pressure governments to adopt policies that may conflict with individual conscience.

Example: The WHO’s COVAX initiative aimed to distribute COVID-19 vaccines equitably across countries, encouraging governments to prioritize rapid vaccine rollout. In several nations, this global guidance influenced policy decisions that limited religious or personal exemptions, demonstrating the practical pressure UN agencies can exert on national health policies.

4. Treatment of Religious Objections as Misinformation

Some UN and WHO soft law documents emphasize the need to combat “misinformation” and “harmful narratives” related to vaccine hesitancy. For example, WHO and UN communications during global health emergencies have described vaccine refusal and related narratives as contributing to public health risks. This framing can implicitly categorize certain religious or conscience-based objections alongside harmful misinformation.

Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations launched the “Verified” initiative and the WHO partnered with social media platforms to counter what they labeled “the infodemic.” In associated guidance, WHO described vaccine hesitancy narratives—including those rooted in ideological or belief-based objections—as contributing to public health threats. These communications often grouped all forms of vaccine refusal under categories such as “misinformation,” “harmful narratives,” or “barriers to public health compliance,” which had the effect of placing religious or conscience-based objections within the same category as demonstrably false or intentionally deceptive information. Some UN soft law documents categorize vaccine refusal as misinformation or harmful narrative, which may lead to religious objections being viewed as threats to public health.

5. Funding-Related Pressures

Countries seeking UN or WHO funding may face expectations to comply with global health norms, which may indirectly pressure governments to suppress or narrow religious exemptions.

Example: Several low- and middle-income countries participating in the WHO’s COVID-19 vaccination programs received financial and logistical support contingent on meeting global vaccination targets. In some cases, governments adopted stricter vaccination policies, limiting religious or personal exemptions, in order to secure continued access to these critical funds and international resources.

6. Emphasis on the Common Good

UN language frequently elevates the common good over individual liberties, potentially conflicting with personal conscience and religious convictions.

Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, UN agencies and the Secretary-General repeatedly stressed that public health measures, including restrictions on gatherings and vaccine campaigns, were necessary to protect the health of all, framing the collective welfare as a higher priority than individual exemptions or personal beliefs. This emphasis on the common good sometimes led governments to limit religious or personal objections in order to comply with UN guidance.

7. Use of Soft Law in Courts and Policy Justifications

Although non-binding, soft law is often cited by courts and policymakers to justify restrictions on religious exemptions, presenting such measures as compliance with international standards.

Example: In 2021, several European courts referred to WHO and UN pandemic guidance when ruling on cases involving religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates or gathering restrictions. Judges cited these documents as authoritative international standards, supporting the view that public health considerations could outweigh individual religious objections.