This being the UN, I don't think there's going to be many legal intricacies because it's mostly a debate forum with little to no strings attached. Even ICC ruli

This being the UN, I don't think there's going to be many legal intricacies because it's mostly a debate forum with little to no strings attached. Even ICC rulings serve more of a ceremonial/PR role than an actual court ruling: The world has judged you and very publicly found you guilty of stuff, but it's really up to the Security Council countries' own governing bodies to do something about that. As things stand, what this decision does is make it look like the UK has a vested interest in polluting the world, which makes exactly 0 sense to me from a foreign policy POV: this is not something countries want to look like they stand for. Hence my asking, I just can't make the decision or the arguments behind it make sense?