“Global Commissions of Inquiry” have usually been associated with the multilateral initiatives of governments and international organizations. However, various styles of “global commission” have emerged over time. During the COVID-19 pandemic, global commissions have been a key aspect of the COVID-19 international policy landscape, quickly emerging, in 2020 and 2021, to corral knowledge and evidence. These include “formal” commissions, such as the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response and the Global Commission for Post-Pandemic Policy, and “informal” commissions, including the Reform for Resilience and The Lancet Covid Commissions. This paper considers whether these Commissions have been engines for new ideas and global policy knowledge or whether this “chorus” of COVID Commissions represented a “clutter” of ideas at a time when global policy focus was needed. Global Commissions, in general, deserve greater scholarly attention to their design and the construction of their legitimate authority as hybrid and private commissions enter global policy making alongside official commissions.

中文翻译：

---

全球流行病政策的专家知识：大量证据还是混乱的全球委员会？

“全球调查委员会”通常与政府和国际组织的多边倡议联系在一起。然而，随着时间的推移，出现了各种形式的“全球委员会”。在 COVID-19 大流行期间，全球委员会一直是 COVID-19 国际政策格局的一个关键方面，并于 2020 年和 2021 年迅速出现，以收集知识和证据。其中包括“正式”委员会，例如流行病准备和应对独立小组和流行病后政策全球委员会，以及“非正式”委员会，包括抗灾力改革委员会和柳叶刀新冠委员会。本文探讨了这些委员会是否一直是新思想和全球政策知识的引擎，或者在需要全球政策重点的时候，新冠病毒委员会的“合唱”是否代表了思想的“混乱”。总体而言，随着混合委员会和私人委员会与官方委员会一起进入全球政策制定，全球委员会的设计和合法权威的构建值得学术界更多关注。