The UNFCCc practice on ‘objections’ evolved quickly in first part of the 2000s. In essence, when a Party wants to object to the adoption of a decision, it has to formally object (with that word) twice: prior to the adoption and immediately afterwards. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

The UNFCCc practice on ‘objections’ evolved quickly in first part of the 2000s. In essence, when a Party wants to object to the adoption of a decision, it has to formally object (with that word) twice: prior to the adoption and immediately afterwards.

Comments

davidg0.bsky.social•99 days ago

Thanks for the explanation! That means they would have needed to also object before. But what if the presidency does simply not give the floor to them? Is there any way to reverse a decision, you wanted to object to, once the gavel is fallen?

maasmarinus.bsky.social•99 days ago

Normally a request for the floor is done by pushing a button, but if ignored you can stand up, wave your flag (country nameplate) — and demand a point of order. A Chair is required to address a point of order immediately, before any other issue.

maasmarinus.bsky.social•99 days ago

If it turns out, in discussing the point of order, that the adoption was flawed, because a Party was denied the floor prior to adoption (wanting to raise a formal objection) and after adoption (again with an objection), a President should rule that the decision should be put to the floor again.

davidg0.bsky.social•99 days ago

Thanks so much for the detailed reply! I understand that this was probably not done by India and, therefore, explains the handling by the presidency.

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply