Putting the ‘Con’ in ‘Consensus’ There is no 97% consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues (Appeared in the Financial Post May 2015). It was the lead up to the Paris Climate Summit, there was massive activist pressure in and on all governments to fall in lines with the ‘global warming’ agenda, to accept emission targets which was reported as “could harm our economy”. Governments worldwide, including NZ’s threw out domestic economy under electric vehicles, wind and solar farms, the economy was to be like a train wreckage

It was reported that 97% of scientists agreed with the climate change debate, as it turns out that was a massive lie, it was made up. Climate Activist Bill McKibben claimed there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are a ‘grave danger’. He was challenged, asked where his source of information came from, he promptly withdraw it. Barack Obama US President at the time sent out a tweet claiming ‘97% climate experts believe global warming is ‘real’ man -made and dangerous”, he was referring to a survey that did not even ask that question, he made it up

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50%) of the post 1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. (But does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, its unknown as to how many experts agree with this). And the statement, even if were true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs. One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. Both statements are inconsistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of government.

The most highly cited papers supposedly found 97% of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers show that 66% actually took no position. Of the remaining 34%, at least 33% supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. OK, so divide 33 by 34 and there you have it 97%, however 33% includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position. There are more recent surveys that shed light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

They are liars, there was no 97% consensus on man-made global warming. Half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession are split on the issue. The Netherlands Environmental Agency published a survey of International Climate Experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, 1868 responses were received. The questions referred only to the post 1950 period. 66% agreed with IPCC that global warming had happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either  did not know or think human influence was not dominant. Again NO 97% Con(Sensus) behind the IPCC

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC. The Dutch survey that described ‘climate experts’ a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. Of 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents – nearly half – believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998. ¾ of the respondents disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and and stated it cannot be predicted.”

The  IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” There are unresolved discrepancies between models, observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity, and Natural Climate variability. Its much too difficult to realistically climate model, simulate clouds. Clouds are an enormous influence in Climate Assessments, conclusions.

Lots of people get called ‘Climate Experts’ and they appear to contribute to the appearance of ‘consensus’, without necessarily even be knowledgeable about the core issues. A massive consensus by the misinformed really is NOT a Consensus.. It’s a big Fat Lie. Its worth nothing of any value. The phony claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence. The Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … People I urge you to call out all these political corrupt propagandists that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington.

They laugh at you if you dare to publicly debate, discuss this Global Warming Agenda. They derail, shut people down. They even shut the real scientists down. This is not real science, this is about controlling populations worldwide into smart cities, to eat bugs and plant foods. To destroy farming communities, small businesses.This is Corporate Capture world wide, the profiteers are those that are the DAVOS Crowd. The WEF and the UN. The WEF representing the Multistakeholder Corporations. The UN with their International Rules. Like hand in glove WEF and UN official partnership agreement 13^th June 2019.. The United Nations implements their one world global governance rules and regulations worldwide to be adopted by UN State’s (Includes New Zealand) and the Corporations are deployed worldwide to accelerate the Global One World Governance Agenda to enslave populations worldwide.  UN Agenda 2030. Leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere, at every age.

Those political cronies that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington with their political policing are determining that the people have no voice to call them out on their corruption and lies. I urge you do not remain silent stand up, the more you speak up publically the easier it gets. It may seem uncomfortable, you may feel nervous at first but the more you do this, the more courage you get, the more empowered you are. Remember Silence is the CON in CONSENT.

God Save New Zealand.

Link:  https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

 

 

 

...

BRIEFING NOTE ‘INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS AND 2030’    SEPTEMBER 2017

Indigenous key priorities and specific references in UN Agenda 2030. The SDGs explicitly include indigenous peoples. Two of the SDG targets make specific references to indigenous peoples, committing to double agricultural output of indigenous small-scale farmers and to ensure equal access to education for indigenous children.

There is also a strong commitment in the 2030 Agenda to empower and engage indigenous peoples in implementing and reviewing progress in achieving the goals. In addition, the proposed global list of indicators5 to measure progress on the SDGs includes several indicators that indigenous peoples had called for, including indicators that measure income of indigenous small-scale food producers and indigenous peoples’ access to education.

The proposed indicator to measure secure land rights makes an important reference to “type of tenure” which can capture the dimension of collective land rights which is central to indigenous peoples’ collective relationship to their lands, territories and resources.

Of particular relevance is also the indicator on peoples’ perception of discrimination based on prohibited grounds of discrimination in international human rights law, which could be used to trace progress on indigenous peoples’ experiences of discrimination.

The global indicator list constitutes a practical starting point, while Member States have expressed a need for further methodological development and improvement of data availability, which at a global level will be taken forward by the Inter-Agency Expert Group on SDG 6 .

Further, national statistical offices will now be developing national indicator frameworks, where it is essential to advocate for inclusion of the relevant global indicators as well as call for additional indicators of relevance to indigenous peoples in the local context.

Where to find the references to indigenous peoples in the 2030 Agenda resolution (A/RES/70/1) • Empowerment, engagement and education of indigenous peoples (Preamble: paragraphs 23, 25 and 52) • Ending hunger through sustainable agriculture (SDG2 , target 2.3) • Ensuring access to education for indigenous peoples (SDG4, target 4.5) • Indigenous peoples’ participation in follow-up and review

Disaggregation of data: To ensure that no one is left behind, the 2030 Agenda calls for States “to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts” (target 17.18).  Data-disaggregation according to indigenous or ethnic identity across all sustainable development goals must also be included to monitor progress for indigenous peoples. A critical priority at national level is therefore to ensure that data disaggregation includes “indigenous identifiers” (for instance language or self-identification in official statistics to capture the inequalities indigenous peoples face across all the sustainable development goals. Furthermore, the adoption of a human rights-based approach to data is essential, including respecting self-identification.

Land rights, poverty and hunger The sustainable development goals could contribute to securing indigenous peoples’ control over their land, territories and resources. The SDG targets, for instance, recognise the importance of equal rights to economic resources as well as equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources and traditional knowledge. In addition, the 2030 Agenda’s emphasis on promotion of resilient and sustainable agricultural practices and maintenance of seed diversity are consistent with efforts to promote for food security and poverty eradication amongst indigenous peoples. Yet, land is not merely an economic asset for indigenous peoples. It is defining element for their identity, culture and their relationship to their ancestors and future generations.  There is a need for recognition of indigenous land tenure systems as well as of the situation of indigenous nomadic and semi-nomadic communities. To secure indigenous peoples’ land rights.

It is essential that the 2030 Agenda implementation is taking in to account the principle of free, prior and informed consent and adequate consultations related to indigenous peoples’ lands and development priorities, as referred to in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Find the relevant targets: • Equal rights to economic resources (SDG1, target 1.4) • Promotion of resilient and sustainable agricultural practices (SDG2, target 2.3 and 2.4) • Maintenance of seed diversity (SDG2, target 2.5) • Equitable sharing of benefits from traditional knowledge (SDG2, target 2.5) Social Security, health and education

LINK: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/BriefingPaperIPRights2030Agenda.pdf

...

2019 Jacinda Ardern was the guest speaker at a private gathering in New York which was hosted by Bill and Melinda Gates. She boasted to the audience that New Zealand is the first country in the world to embed UN Agenda 2030 in NZs Legislation and Regulatory framework.  UN Agenda 2030 was non-binding however once entering it into domestic policy becomes binding. The gathering was an event arranged by Goalkeeper an organization set up by the Gates Foundation in 2017 to accelerate UN Agenda 2030 with its 17 goals which include 169 targets globally.

The first in the world, the leader of human experiments, the experimental path of UN Agenda 2030, to leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age. Prior to implementing Agenda 2030 into NZs domestic policy did the opposition publically warn us, after all this is a global economic, social engineering strategy to be actioned at local level.

UN Agenda 2030 was however in the 2017 ‘Confidence and Supply Agreement’ between the Labour Party and Greens, but the name was missing, it was merely a commitment to 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

Agenda 2030 featured in the 2017 Confidence and Supply Agreement between the Labour Party and the Greens – although not by name. Instead, the parties made a commitment to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that underpin Agenda 2030: And yes Jacinda Ardern became the poster child of UN Agenda 2030.

In 2018 Ardern spoke at the Conference on Sustainability in New York, she again boasted that her intention was to lead the world by embedding the UN Agenda 2030 SDGs into NZ’s domestic affairs saying :we have decided to try something no other country has done before, we have embedded the SDG Indicators into everything we do. (NZ Government chooses to do) She pointed out that traditional measures of progress for economic growth would no longer exist but these traditional methods would be replaced by new experimental indicators, “a national achievement that go far beyond growth”, she said.

Ardern’s ambitious project namely Indicators Aotearoa N Z, the creating of a set of indicators across varying dimensions eluding to New Zealanders future economic, cultural, social, environmental wellbeing. The introduction to the ‘Wellbeing’ Budget’ was not an innovative strategy to grow NZ’s economy it was merely the beginning phase of Ardern’s deliberate Socialist degrowth of our country. The plundering of New Zealand had begun. Ardern introduced the ‘Wellbeing Budget’. Never mind growth because she had already started taking the country into ‘degrowth’, and 2022 the global media familiarly report purposeful, deliberate ‘Degrowth’. . Ardern has said “whilst economic growth is important and something we will continue to pursue, it alone does no guarantee improvements to New Zealanders living standards”, and so New Zealanders living standards started to drop, as more people joined the public housing waiting list.

To publicly oppose any of Ardern’s decision making, pending legislations, regulations makes one the governments political politicking target practice. Failure to be compliant to government demands means that deliberate character assassination is deal out by the governments purchased mainstream media. Sadly far too many people in New Zealand can not, or choose not to conjure up moral courage to publicly speak out for one reason or another.

The housing crisis in New Zealand is a nightmare, the high cost of housing and sections. I have to wonder does anyone just purchase a section anymore. All I see are’ pack and stacks’ hastily being built all over Auckland. I wonder whatever happen to council bylaws etc., where a huge number of townhouses over shadow peoples property next door, stopping the sunlight, spoiling their privacy, built right close to the boundary fence line. The intensification of housing ‘Agenda 2030’ Smart Growth.

Everything is just so entrenched in an ideological global framework of so called ‘Smart ‘Cities’ which don’t look that smart to me. No gardens for the children to play in and n o apple tree to climb, eem yes my dreams of yesteryear. No children playing  with the neighbours kids in the cul-de-sac’s now its little ones in pushchairs with cell-phones in hands. Both parents having to work to survive, children put into day care during their parents working day, they have no choice of being a ‘stay at home mum’

Now its all about ‘Smart Growth’, Agenda 2030,  surveillance camera’s and the talk of transhumanism where humans meet machines and become robot like. The UN Agenda 2030 that Ardern boasted about on the global stage, as she implied that she would take the lead, the lead to control every aspect of our lives, the UN-WEF have mapped it all out. Destruction of ‘free-market enterprise economy’, replacing it with ‘multi-stakeholder Capitalist corporations’, in public-private partnership with governments worldwide. Corporations in the drivers seat, government (regime) as the back seat passenger, small businesses and rural communities – farmers are the roadkill, those that New Zealand’s socialist regime deliberately throw under their tractors. The government using the farmers as their whipping boy in their ambitious climate hoax scheme. Yes, New Zealand the ‘guineapig state’.

There is no open public debate and no justification for Ardern’s actions nor that of any of the other political cronies in the toilet bowl of Wellington… In my research I have touched on UN Agenda 21, Agenda 2030. Agenda 2050 and Agenda 2063 in on the table yet to be exposed worldwide. The UN Global Socialist States of the World. Socialism has failed miserably and caused huge suffering in the past. If you wear a blindfold and a mask around your mouth time to get rid of both and see it for what it really is. Ardern has gone replaced by Hipkins, just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Yes New Zealand truly is a guineapig state number one alongside Australia for human trials. New Zealand with its one regularity agency-Pharmac. A small populated country with numerous cultures, ethnic groups that live her. For human experiment, varying cultures are important part of human trials. NZ is the first country to see the rising of the dawn which is advantageous when it comes to the rest of the world. Much needed cancer drugs for example are often too expensive for people to buy, hence more people are inclined to take part in human trials. New Zealand has one of the quickest time frames for human trials to be completed, therefore saves drug companies, research agencies lots of money. ‘Wealth NOT Health’

New Zealanders have become guineapigs of socialist experiments.  Ardern also offered New Zealanders up to be guineapigs for the World Economic Forums ‘Reimagining Regulation for the Age of AI

Back in 2013 Google chose New Zealand to be the guineapig for global tech firms. Facebook has enthusiastically used New Zealanders as guineapigs when they trailed a scheme where user pay to make their posts more prominent on friends newsfeeds. In 2011 Facebook also rolled out its timeline feature first in New Zealand in 2011 saying at the time “As a global company we need to gain perspective and insights from outside the US”

The LinkedIn social network also tested its endorsement feature in New Zealand

However Googles Project Loon is probably the most ambitious high tech test carried out in New Zealand, this aimed to bring the internet to 2/3rds of the global population currently without web  access. This involved send 30 helium filled balloons to the edge of space above the South Island, each of these balloons were carrying transmitters capable of beaming wi-fi internet access down to antennae on properties below. Googles ultimate goal was a network of thousands of these balloons thus creating a  network that provides online access to anywhere in the world.. this was Googles dream and still remains Googles dream.

NOTE; Guinea pigs often sleep with their eyes open looking like they are in a trance. COVID19 Guineapig State. Ministry Of Health reported ‘COVID19 Vaccine trials and testing..ongoing trials, safety monitoring and real world data from COVID19 vaccination programmes worldwide provide us with useful information.

We are in phase 3 of the clinical vaccine (Jab) trials as the government determine whether the Pfizer BioNTech COVID19 jab is safe and effective.  YES this government purchased enough of these shots for every man, woman and child in New Zealand to be a guineapig for this human clinical trial. Coerced, blackmailed, lied to, manipulated and mandated into being guineapigs in global Human Clinical Trials as Guineapigs. And to top it off the government ignores the multitude of post jab deaths and numerous severe adverse events.

NOTE: A Texas Court demanded that FDA share their thousands of papers that Pfizer produced to gain authority to market their jab. This information will not be available to the public until at least 2024. Therefore NZ Government know jack shit about the Pfizer drug and all its contents, however they do know that there are huge risks but continue to announce this is for the public good, benefits the public with zilch risks.

October 2022 Pfizer admitted in European Court it did not test their jab to see if it stopped transmission of the virus before it entered the global market place . Governments, including NZ Govt continues to lie to us. If a person has a COVID test and it comes up positive e, if they die within 28days of that positive test they are counted as a COVID death. This was introduced 10^th March 2022 in NZ. The World Health Org., (UN) requested that all countries align themselves in counting COVID19 deaths in this way. Therefore a suicide, a post jab death, a motor vehicle accident, being shot by the police equates to a COVID death if that person came up with a positive COVID19 test within 28 days of their death. The window of time can be expanded and has been in the UK.   ZILCH TRANSPARANCY AND THE BULL SHITE LIES CONTINUE. Just keep people in the state of fear, so they are easier to control.

Guineapigs that sleep with their eyes open as if in a trance.

...

As other UN Nations agreed to UN Agenda 2030 (Non-binding Agreement), Ardern had to go one step further by entering UN Agenda 2030 into New Zealand Domestic Policy hence making Agenda 2030 Binding, not only did she do this but she urged other UN Nations to follow her lead, as she boasted about this when she was a guest speaker at a Global Shapers gathering hosted by Bill and Melinda Gates.  To be UN Agenda 2030 was adopted 25^th September 2015 includes 17 Global Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 Targets to transform economy and re-engineer human behaviour, social engineering. References:- Poverty, environment, housing, energy, health, infrastructure etc.,  UN Agenda 2030 is namely a ‘soft law’, does not require a referenda, or parliamentarians to give their approval only the leaders of the Regime-government of the country in question. Sustainability is a word used for multi-stakeholder corporate capture of the world’s economy, a global introduced locally acted out advertising campaign. The 1987 Report stated ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

There are legal implications as to UN Agenda 2030, it was adopted by way of a  UN General Assembly resolution 70/1 that reaffirms commitment for UN Agenda 2030 implementation “in a manner that is consistent with the rights and obligations of States under International Law (Para 18) despite the faxt that the content, text of UN Agenda 2030 is NOT legally binding. This employs Human Rights as a lens.  Some of the intersections between UN Agenda 2030 and International Law may create legal obligations for UN Member Nation States

International Law and Sustainable Development:  International Law is a legal system (NOT necessarily lawful). It governs relationships between countries, has extended its scope to include international organizations and individuals. There are four recognized sources of International Law (Art 8 Statute International Court Of Justice). They are International Conventions. International Custom. General Principles of Law. Judicial Decisions. International Law is based on the mutual consent of nations as in UN treaties and conventions, or way that is practiced and then eventually becomes custom. UN Member States are legally bound by the international instrument,  through the Sovereign acts of signing and ratifying the instrument.  UN Member States may be legally bound when a practice becomes a ‘custom’, which happens when two requirements are met. (1) There must be an established State practice that must be ‘general and consistent’. (2) The practice in question must be accompanied by a sense of ‘Legal Obligation’ and ‘Accepted as Law’, thus meaning that States carry out the practice because authorities believe it is a legal obligation to do so. (3) Several UN Agenda 2030 SDGs and Targets mirror ‘Legal Obligations’ that UN Member States have already assumed under ‘Treaty Law and ‘Custom’. The UN Agenda 2030 Indicators can be used to measure compliance with ‘International Law’ where intersections exist between targets and ‘International Legal Obligations.

Human Rights ‘Law within the Global Development Indicator Framework: Preamble. Para 3- Realizing the ‘Human Rights for ALL’ UN Agenda 2030 actually breaches the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which forms part of the International Bill Of Rights. NZ Bill Of Rights 1991 and NZ Human Rights Act 1993

Human Rights for ALL:Does not fit New Zealand Governments ‘Two Tier Marxist Ideology’. It is noted that NZ Government is actually a Corporation. The sovereign (people) of New Zealand cannot be ruled by a Corporation unless they make an agreement via a ‘Contract’ with that Corporation. ‘Hereby established a corporation, to be called the New Zealand Government Property Corporation’, cannot legally action legislations but as I have said before ‘what is namely legal is not necessarily lawful’

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has the government of New Zealand registered as a corporation under the name of ‘Her Majesty The Queen Of England In Right Of New Zealand’.  Note Prince Charles has not yet been crowned as King of England. It is her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s role when a new prime minister is appointed to meet and appoint the new prime minister. But Queen Elizabeth is dead, then how can Chris Hipkin be Prime Minister? Then I question “is Chris Hipkin a fake Prime Minister” ?

UN Agenda 2020 ‘human rights for ALL’ (Preamble para 3) is unrealistic. UN/WEF/NGO’s and all their cohorts are seriously breaching, violating International and National Human Rights for example Freedom of Speech, Freedom Of Assembly, Freedom Of Religion. NZ Bill Of Rights 1990 ‘Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment that includes jabs. Individuals freedom to choose is taken away by being pressured, coerced, mandated or lose ones income, making  people reliant of an authoritarian regime that is already seriously harming New Zealanders.

UN Agenda 2030 SDGs 1 & 2: Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stipulates that everyone has the right to “an adequate standard of living… including adequate food” and “to be free from hunger”. United Nations Member States that are parties to the Covenant thus have a legal obligation to fulfil Goals 1 and 2. Far too many people in New Zealand have an inadequate standard of living. 67,000 people on the backlog of the hospital waiting list.  Approx. 25,000 people waiting on the Social Housing list.  RNZ reported 2^nd August 2022 41,000 New Zealanders will bed down without adequate access to housing tonight. WSWS.Org report 9/9/2022 ‘New Zealand’s worsening homelessness crisis driven by property speculation, soaring rents and not enough public housing’. Salvation Army reported in a Winter Appeal 2022 they have provided more than 90,000 food parcels in NZ, as New Zealanders are struggling to put food on the table.

NOTE: UN Agenda 2030 and UN Member States Obligations to Comply: With Indicators 1.1.1.1.1 and 1.2.2 measure the prevalence of poverty that policy makers must verify compliance with the legal obligations, commitments of UN Agenda 2030. To demonstrate that the SDGs are not merely aspirational but are reinforced legally, a responsibility of UN Member States. This must be acted put universally. (Universally- by everyone in every case)

UN Agenda 2030 (para 5 of Resolution 70/1). Un Agenda 2030 is of an unprecedented scope and significance, is accepted by ALL countries, is applicable to ALL. Goals and Targets that involve the ENTIRE world, a ‘New Global Obligation’. (an obligation equates to an action that is morally bound). The obligations, commitments that the NZ Government (Corporation) has agreed to are anything but moral. Global Obligations: Have not yet received adequate legal recognition, regulation and realization.

The UN Agenda SDGs As Legal Stimulant: Legal does not necessarily mean ‘Lawful’. There is no clear correspondence between the SDGs and International Laws. International Law comprises of ‘hard law’. Binding treaties, agreements are ‘customary laws’, otherwise known as ‘soft law’. Soft Law for example relates to Non-binding but still significant  legal guidelines, policy declaration, codes of conduct or UN General Assembly resolutions. Soft Law often precedes the codification of ‘international norms; and ‘practices’ into binding law, in two principal ways through ‘soft law’ instruments for example as in UN General Assembly Resolutions that may become binding, codification in a treat or transformation into ‘customary international law’. UN Member States may choose to codify the principles, declaration and policy prescriptions that have been introduced by the UN General Assembly in treaties, thus transforming them from voluntary influential instruments into legal obligations. UN Agenda 2030 does not explicitly create new legal obligations, but the intersections between international law and the SDGs stimulates greater compliance. A more plausible route to create legal obligations out of an aspirational plan in this case UN Agenda 2030, therefore UN Agenda 2030 is the formation of customary international law (Soft Law)

If a significant number of States pursue the SDGs, they may become legally binding as custom. There is no timeline for that transformation; it does not necessarily take long. It is simply a matter of enough States undertaking the practice with a discernible sense of obligation. However Jacinda Ardern decided to take the lead and urged others to also follow her, when she introduced UN Agenda 2030 into Domestic Policy. Ardern was a guest speaker at a gathering arranged by Bill & Melinda Gates for the ‘WEF Global Shapers’. Ardern boasted to the audience that NZ is the first nation in the world to enter UN Agenda 2030 into NZ domestic policy, hence making the non-binding UN Agenda 2030 binding (Legally not necessarily lawful)

If enough States abide by Goal 17 and authorities believe that they have a legal obligation to do so, related targets may become customary international law and have the same force of law as an investment treaty pursuing this very goal.

Rooting the UN Agenda 2030 SDGs in concrete as legal principles ultimately serves Global Corporate capture. However  does seriously violate  International and National Human Rights. UN Agenda 2030 is devoid of Common Laws as at the very heart  of Common Law is ‘Firstly Do No Harm’. There is no doubt massive harm is in the process of being done to populations, economies across the world.

(Resource: International-human-rights-law-agenda-2030-english.pdf )

 

 

 

...