For potential trade-offs, we know the international legalization of ABR policies may prioritize process over outcomes, consensus over plurality, homogeneity over diversity, generality over specificity, stability over flexibility, precedent over evidence, states over non-state actors, ministries of foreign affairs over ministries of health, and lawyers over health professionals. International legal agreements are often ambiguous and lack specific commitments as states settle for the lowest common denominator. They are also often slow to be implemented, challenging to enforce, and difficult to modify. An international legal agreement on ABR could crowd out alternative approaches, limit future action in the area, and further exacerbate challenges in global health governance by promoting a piecemeal, issue-specific approach. Yet we also know that ABR will not be solved by doctors and health professionals by themselves, that the common threat posed by ABR
may encourage bolder legal provisions than are often agreed, and that ABR requires cross-sectoral collaboration that will not come even with the most coherent governance of traditional global health actors.