The phrase "a binding instrument" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal or formal contexts to refer to a document or agreement that is legally enforceable.
Example: "The contract we signed serves as a binding instrument between the two parties, ensuring that all terms are upheld."
Alternatives: "a legally binding document" or "an enforceable agreement".
There will be plenty of argument over whether this is a treaty or a protocol or a binding instrument with legal force.
We do not support the call for a binding instrument on financing by Member States, and we have heard from a large number of member states that they are not prepared to commit.01percentt of their gross domestic product, as called for as obligatory under such a binding instrument.
Since, international experts have been considering and debating how to create a binding instrument to address the changing accessibility of marine areas outside national jurisdiction and the new technologies, increased scientific knowledge, and expanding resource demands that impact them.
Then, at a 2009 UNEP Governing Council meeting shortly after Barack Obama's inauguration, the United States announced it would move ahead with negotiations toward a binding instrument.
This paper goes some way towards defining how such a binding instrument could be constructed and proportioned at the level of a specific disease, and the extent of this responsibility for all countries.
The joint FAO/UNEP programme for voluntary Prior Informed Consent (PIC) focused on development of a binding instrument for application of PIC procedure through the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), which adopted the text of the Convention as the Rotterdam Convention (see box).
Even assuming that no consensus can be reached on the use of WHO's treaty or regulations power, the development of recommendations preserves the obligation of states to report to WHO periodically (Article 62), and WHO could publicly state its aspiration to consolidate recommendations in this area into a legally binding instrument at a later date.
"This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law," the document says.
However, with a vote of 123 for, 38 against and 16 abstaining, the First Committe decided "to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination".
But the push for a treaty – which aims to create a "legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination" – won massive global support, with 123 nations voting in favour, 38 opposing and 16 abstaining.
The proposal recommended a conference be held next year to negotiate "a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination".
