Consuetudin, a consuiteudo term for a consensus, is one of the simplest ways of saying that two or more parties agree on something.
In the case of the UN climate negotiations, it means the two parties agree to do something that is in the best interests of the planet.
It is not always the case, of course, but the concept is usually one of consensus, or at least a common goal of the parties involved.
That is what the new UN climate treaty is about.
The United States and China, the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, have said they want the UN to commit to a binding, legally binding goal to cut emissions by 28 percent by 2030.
The goal would require nations to cut their emissions to a level of 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
A few countries, such as China and India, have rejected the goal, which has the potential to create a global recession, but they are still at the negotiating table.
If a treaty is agreed to, it would have to be ratified by all countries and the world would be able to see it in action.
That means that the United States could take action that is harmful to the climate if the agreement is not ratified.
The next step in this process would be for the U.S. and other countries to file a claim for a treaty violation under the UN’s rules on jurisdiction.
The process would then take months and would require a U.N. Security Council vote, although the United Nations is already under the sway of President Donald Trump, who is opposed to any international treaty that does not require the approval of the United Nation.
But what would that actually mean for the United Kingdom?
The current U.K. government has made it clear that it would like to leave the UN and its climate deal if it gets the chance.
But it is unlikely that the U