The year 2015 came to and end and we are almost a fortnight into 2016; I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on some of the major success stories as seen in the media. The relevance of this reflection is either to credit some of the impressive strides or successes made or to discredit where things went wrong.

These are, however, my own thoughts or views, and do not represent the ideas of any organisation, or based on any scientific finding.

First, the amendment of the Rwandan Constitution, which came as a result of demand of Rwandans to change the Constitution to allow President Paul Kagame to continue his leadership of the country beyond 2017.

Subsequently, it was unequivocally approved through a the constitutional referendum in which an overwhelming majority of Rwandans voted ‘Yes’. Of course, it goes without saying that Rwandans, without coercion or intimidation, determined the course of their leadership.

Even if there are those who purport to have been ‘deeply disappointed’ by the outcome of the constitutional referendum and President Kagame’s acceptance to run for presidency in 2017, it was a choice of Rwandans and nobody is more concerned about Rwandans than Rwandans themselves.

Second, in early December 2015, over 195 nations reached a landmark Paris Climate Agreement that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave off the most drastic effects of climate change.

Notwithstanding its being non-legally binding, in part, not in whole, it was a historic breakthrough on an issue that has foiled decades of international efforts to address climate change. In the past, similar efforts were made, notably Copenhagen Conference 2009, Cancun 2010, Durban 2011 and Doha 2012, but all ended vainly.

In fact, one of the mistakes made was to require developed economies, like the United States, to take action to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but exempted developing countries, like China and India, from such obligations.

In that regard, the emerging economies, such as China and India, felt less obligated to adapt mitigating measures. At some point, China claimed to be classified among developing countries, though at the top of them, and thus was under no obligation towards Kyoto Protocol, especially in its first commitment period.

At this point in time, there’s a paradigm shift, where an action is required in some form from every country, rich or poor. As noted in one of my earlier pieces, the Paris Agreement embodies that following key measures: "to peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century; to keep global temperature increase "well below” 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C; to review progress every five years; and $100bn a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future”.

Human-induced climate change effects aren’t limited by the so-called geographical boundaries and consequently all countries have realised that they have a bounden duty to fix climate change problems.

So, the Paris Agreement requires countries to significantly strengthen the review process as set out in the agreement. Indeed, the agreement, is a critically important milestone towards fixing the problem. One thing can, however, be said, being a ‘non-binding agreement’ doesn’t mean that it’s meaningless, whether it’s a binding treaty or non-binding, compliance must be done in good faith.

Third, which is also worth considering, is the cancellation of the Red Notice against 40 Senior officers of the Rwandan army by Spanish Section of Interpol. To many Rwandans, it was breathtaking news! And there’s no more cloud hanging over them in that particular case.

Fourth, at the UN level, the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDGs’) was a remarkable achievement that will be expected to use to frame the agenda and political policies of UN member states over the next 15 years.

Interestingly, this universal set of goals [SDGs] was adopted to supplant the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) whose standing ended in December, 2015. The centerpiece of SDGs is to end poverty and improve the lives of poor people―as well as a rallying point for NGOs to hold them to account.

One of the scathing criticisms for MDGs is that they never envisaged human rights and did not specifically address economic development. While in theory applied to all countries, in reality they were considered targets for poor countries to achieve, with finance from developed countries. Contrariwise, every country now is expected to work towards achieving the SDGs.

The genesis of SDGs goes back to the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Declaration on environment and sustainable development as well as the Rio+20 Summit in 2012. The delegates in the Rio+20 Summit suggested adopting a new set of goals that places human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.

Two things can, however, be underlined; sustainable development is unachievable without putting in place policies designed to make people climb out of poverty and without measures intended to use reasonably the natural resources and to combat climate change threats.

The writer is an international law expert and lecturer.