On November 16, 2012, the parties met twice and held discussions that lasted more than three hours to negotiate the basis of an agreement. As a result of these meetings, a final act was prepared and faxed to the complainant`s chair (who also attended the hearing), who signed it and referred it to the respondent`s lawyers. Although the United States and Turkey are not parties to the agreement, as they have not indicated their intention to withdraw from the 1992 UNFCCC, they will continue to be required, as an “Annex 1” country under the UNFCCC, to end national communications and establish an annual inventory of greenhouse gases.  The effect of the words the complainant said that “there was a market… “settlement of the agreement” was strong evidence of the binding nature of the agreement. The previous correspondence did not require that an agreement reached at the meeting of 16 November 2012 be subject to other documents or the explicit agreement of the various bodies. Therefore, the intention was clearly to be bound by both parties. In a letter to the Court, Justice Ann Lyons stated that the characterizations of the facts by the judges were correct and it is open to the judge to conclude, based on the documents and evidence before him, that although the parties understood that, although they were subject to the formality of the signing of the act by all parties , the purpose of the meeting is to conclude that the parties understood that, although they were subject to the formality of the signing of the deed by all parties, the very purpose of the meeting was to conclude that the parties had understood that they had to go through the formality of signing the deed by all parties. to reach a binding agreement between the agents (CEOs) of the parties. Since November 2020, 194 states and the European Union have signed the agreement. 187 countries and the EU, which account for about 79% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified the agreement or have joined the agreement, including China and India, the countries with the first and third largest CO2 emissions among UNFCCC members.
   As of November 2020[update], the United States, Iran and Turkey are the only countries with more than 1% not to be contracting parties. Adaptation issues were at the forefront of the paris agreement. Collective long-term adaptation objectives are included in the agreement and countries must be accountable for their adaptation measures, making adaptation a parallel element of the mitigation agreement.  Adaptation objectives focus on improving adaptive capacity, resilience and vulnerability limitation.  Although mitigation and adjustment require increased climate funding, adjustment has generally received less support and has mobilized less private sector action.  A 2014 OECD report showed that in 2014, only 16% of the world`s financial resources were devoted to adaptation to climate change.  The Paris Agreement called for a balance between climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, highlighting in particular the need to strengthen support for adaptation from the parties most affected by climate change, including least developed countries and small island developing states.