Any resolution from the UN has to get approval from the security council iirc so if the US or UK object it'll never be formally adopted by the UN.

> They mention legal concerns from Washington but don’t explain them for some reason.

Odds are they haven't actually been spelled out because they amount to "it'll cause huge disruptions to business because they'll all suddenly be suable for their decades of environmental damages". The government is maximally vague on these things so it's harder to actually refute.

> Any resolution from the UN has to get approval from the security council iirc so if the US or UK object it'll never be formally adopted by the UN.

That's not correct. The general assembly can adopt resolutions and is meant to adopt resolutions by itself. Those resolutions are non-binding however.

The security council needs to agree if the resolution touches on security relevant topics. And the security council is the only UN organ that can issue binding resolutions.

Was going to say this and I'll further add that the GP, when referencing US or UK objections, is referring to the veto power that the permanent members of the security council, often referred to as P5, have on security council resolutions. Any one P5 member can veto to block the adoption of security council resolutions.

My bad, so they don't do anything because the only source of a resolution with any actual teeth China has power over. That's on top of the other stuff like the economic reliance on China for a lot of manufactured goods around the world.

China has also spent a lot of time pouring loans and projects (often extractive) into small poor countries through Belt and Roads giving them a fair amount of power in the general assembly because each country gets a single vote in the GA.