General Discussion

Thing is, what the UN calls "ratification" and what individual countries call "ratification" sometimes differ, if you look at their list of countries.

And the UN loses that tussle. They think otherwise, I'm sure.

It seems to think that President Obama could single-handedly bind the US to the treaty. He couldn't, neither could President Biden--although in many member states the Leader does wield that kind of authority, often granted with a 95-99% democratic vote or by virtue of the Constitution he presented and required to be approved. We, however, require Senate ratification for it to be binding on us. The UN, however, considers his certification of "acceptance" equivalent to "ratification." (Which would seem to imply that 'ratify' means 'to make like a rat.')

As for the actual status in other countries, and whether those pesky details of territorial sovereignty matter in the official entry into force of the agreement, I simply don't know nor care.