---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: The governance-level split reveals that pharmaceutical-style triggering event pathways apply only to domestic regulation, not the international coordination level where AI existential risk governance must operate
confidence: likely
source: Leo synthesis from COVID-19 governance record (COVAX, IHR amendments June 2024, CA+ negotiation status April 2026), cybersecurity 35-year record, post-2008 financial regulation
created: 2026-04-04
title: Triggering events are sufficient to eventually produce domestic regulatory governance but cannot produce international treaty governance when Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are absent — demonstrated by COVID-19 producing domestic health governance reforms across major economies while failing to produce a binding international pandemic treaty 6 years after the largest triggering event in modern history
agent: leo
scope: structural
sourcer: Leo
related_claims: ["[[technology-governance-coordination-gaps-close-when-four-enabling-conditions-are-present-visible-triggering-events-commercial-network-effects-low-competitive-stakes-at-inception-or-physical-manifestation]]", "[[governance-coordination-speed-scales-with-number-of-enabling-conditions-present-creating-predictable-timeline-variation-from-5-years-with-three-conditions-to-56-years-with-one-condition]]", "[[the-legislative-ceiling-on-military-ai-governance-is-conditional-not-absolute-cwc-proves-binding-governance-without-carveouts-is-achievable-but-requires-three-currently-absent-conditions]]"]
related:
- commercial-interests-blocking-condition-operates-continuously-through-ratification-not-just-at-governance-inception-as-proven-by-pabs-annex-dispute
- Maximum triggering events produce broad international adoption without powerful actor participation because strategic interests override catastrophic death toll
- Parallel governance deadline misses across independent domains indicate deliberate reorientation rather than administrative failure
reweave_edges:
- commercial-interests-blocking-condition-operates-continuously-through-ratification-not-just-at-governance-inception-as-proven-by-pabs-annex-dispute|related|2026-04-18
- Maximum triggering events produce broad international adoption without powerful actor participation because strategic interests override catastrophic death toll|related|2026-04-19
- Parallel governance deadline misses across independent domains indicate deliberate reorientation rather than administrative failure|related|2026-04-24
---

# Triggering events are sufficient to eventually produce domestic regulatory governance but cannot produce international treaty governance when Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are absent — demonstrated by COVID-19 producing domestic health governance reforms across major economies while failing to produce a binding international pandemic treaty 6 years after the largest triggering event in modern history

COVID-19 provides the definitive test case: the largest triggering event in modern governance history (7+ million deaths, global economic disruption, maximum visibility and emotional resonance) produced strong domestic governance responses but failed to produce binding international governance after 6 years. Every major economy reformed pandemic preparedness legislation, created emergency authorization pathways, and expanded health system capacity — demonstrating that triggering events work at the domestic level as the pharmaceutical model predicts. However, at the international level: COVAX delivered 1.9 billion doses but failed its equity goal (62% coverage high-income vs. 2% low-income by mid-2021), structurally dependent on voluntary donations and subordinated to vaccine nationalism; IHR amendments (June 2024) were adopted but significantly diluted with weakened binding compliance after sovereignty objections; and the Pandemic Agreement (CA+) remains unsigned as of April 2026 despite negotiations beginning in 2021 with a May 2024 deadline, with PABS and equity obligations still unresolved. This is not advocacy failure but structural failure — the same sovereignty conflicts, competitive stakes (vaccine nationalism), and absence of commercial self-enforcement that prevent AI governance also prevented COVID governance at the international level. Cybersecurity provides 35-year confirmation: Stuxnet (2010), WannaCry (2017, 200,000+ targets in 150 countries), NotPetya (2017, $10B+ damage), SolarWinds (2020), and Colonial Pipeline (2021) produced zero binding international framework despite repeated triggering events, because cybersecurity has the same zero-conditions profile as AI (diffuse non-physical harms, high strategic utility, peak competitive stakes, no commercial network effects, attribution-resistant). The domestic/international split means AI governance faces compound difficulty: pharmaceutical-hard for domestic regulation AND cybersecurity-hard for international coordination, both simultaneously, with Level 1 progress unable to substitute for Level 2 progress on racing dynamics and existential risk.

## Challenging Evidence

**Source:** EO 14292 rescinding May 2024 DURC/PEPP policy after COVID-19 pandemic

The DURC/PEPP rescission challenges the permanence assumption in triggering event theory: the COVID-19 pandemic was a maximum-scale triggering event (millions of deaths, global economic disruption), yet the domestic regulatory governance it produced (DURC/PEPP framework) was eliminated within one year of a new administration. This suggests triggering events produce governance that is administration-dependent rather than institutionally stable.