Just about every industrialized democracy that has the concept of emergency powers and uses them in emergencies? This happens all the time in small and big ways, there are plenty of US examples alone. For instance the US currently does not have rationing or near-universal consumer goods price controls, the National Guard doesn't run New Orleans, etc, etc.
Yes, nation-state-unique emergency powers exist and were used widely over the last few years.
> world organizations will need to be pretty totalitarian to effectively manage public health.
What's being proposed for May 2023 majority vote goes way beyond existing powers, e.g. asking all countries to strike "human rights" from the international health treaty and their local response to health emergencies.
What's a good historical example of a national or global institution voluntarily giving up totalitarian powers
That's the question you asked and 'it's a thing that happens all the time' is the answer. Global institutions don't have any 'totalitarian powers' so that one has a simple answer too.
There's a difference between "totalitarian" and "emergency" powers.
We're clearly talking about emergency powers here, whatever you want to call them.
If 50% of countries agree in May 2023 to the draft WHO/IHR amendment to drop "human rights", that would change.
No it wouldn't. WHO/IHR and all similar organizations don't have any ability to enforce their edicts themselves, they represent the collective agreements and actions of their sovereign members. The members have to do the work, if any and come to the agreement to begin with. 'International organizations with unchecked supranational powers' is an idea with a long history in the US but it's not a real thing, it's largely a Bircher (and similar) fever dream.
> We're clearly talking about emergency powers here, whatever you want to call them.
Emergency powers end after some time period. The draft IHR amendments are not time limited and affect 196 countries.
> WHO/IHR and all similar organizations don't have any ability to enforce their edicts themselves, they represent the collective agreements and actions of their sovereign members. The members have to do the work.
Yes, the 196 countries voting in May 2023 for the IHR amendments.
So the options are:
1) Countries implement totalitarian policy after voting YES, to comply with IHR-23.
2) Some countries vote YES, then refuse to implement IHR-23.
3) Some countries vote NO, IHR-23 passes by majority, they withdraw from IHR.
People taking control of their government after years of resistance and protests is not remotely the same as a government giving up control in response to pre-defined written criteria in a legal agreement like the IHR treaty.
> Between 1986 and 1988, some petty apartheid laws were repealed, along with the pass laws. Botha told White South Africans to "adapt or die" and twice he wavered on the eve of what were billed as "rubicon" announcements of substantial reforms, although on both occasions he backed away from substantial changes. Ironically, these reforms served only to trigger intensified political violence through the remainder of the 1980s as more communities and political groups across the country joined the resistance movement.
> ... The Bisho massacre on 7 September 1992 brought matters to a head. The Ciskei Defence Force killed 29 people and injured 200 when they opened fire on ANC marchers demanding the reincorporation of the Ciskei homeland into South Africa. In the aftermath, Mandela and de Klerk agreed to meet to find ways to end the spiralling violence. This led to a resumption of negotiations.
What's a good historical example of a national or global institution voluntarily giving up totalitarian powers on the basis of subjective criteria?