Intergovernmental bodies such as the World Health Assembly adopt a wide range of resolutions and decisions on matters concerning global health. While a few of these are legally binding – such as amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and the much-anticipated Pandemic Treaty – most are non-binding resolutions and decisions that still carry important political and policy significance. The Pandemic Treaty is expected to enter the ratification process once agreement is reached on the remaining issue of Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS), which is expected to be submitted for consideration at the upcoming 79th World Health Assembly. Although most resolutions are non-binding, they still reflect international consensus and require countries to consider appropriate action in line with their own national priorities. Except for budgetary and administrative matters – which are brought forward by the WHO Secretariat through the Executive Board – all resolutions and decisions are proposed by Member States themselves, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the World Health Assembly and the relevant timelines. In line with this process, Member States such as Nepal can propose resolutions and decisions on issues of global importance, provided that at least one serving member of the WHO Executive Board sponsors the proposal. During 2025, Member States introduced a record number of such draft resolutions and decisions – around 55 in total – the highest number in the history of the World Health Assembly. According to the Rules of Procedure, each resolution and decision must go through informal negotiations before it can be submitted to the Executive Board and, eventually, to the World Health Assembly in May for adoption. Countries proposing resolutions seek co-sponsors – usually Member States that either share similar concerns or wish to support the issue being addressed. Therefore, Member States such as Nepal are expected, where possible, to bring forward resolutions and lead negotiations. If not, they should at least co-sponsor draft resolutions under negotiation or actively participate in the informal negotiation process to ensure that no language or paragraph in a draft text goes against national interests or primarily serves the interests of a few powerful countries or vested groups. The primary responsibility for engaging throughout the end-to-end negotiation process lies with the respective country missions based in Geneva, such as the Nepal Embassy, together with the relevant ministries and institutions in the capital. These missions are expected to share draft resolutions and decisions with their capitals, keep them informed about developments in negotiations, and seek guidance – commonly referred to as 'capital instructions' – on any aspect of the text where the country may have concerns or hold a different position. However, in Nepal's case, support and oversight from the capital have often been absent. As a result, Nepal frequently raises its nameplate in support of almost every resolution and decision, regardless of whether it is legally binding or whether it has significant implications for Nepal itself or for the Global South, with which Nepal is generally associated because of its geography and economic status. Successive heads of mission are aware of this situation, and the most common explanation given is the lack of staff at the mission. While that may be true, the same challenge exists for many countries. Yet, missions such as Bangladesh often play a more active role than even larger missions, while among countries in the South-East Asia region, Thailand is particularly active, not only in negotiations but also in leading some of them. This demonstrates that if there is political will and a sense of responsibility, there is always a way for missions to fulfil their role effectively. As Nepal is now led by a new government with a mandate to govern for a full five-year term and a stated commitment to transformation, there is now an opportunity to reform both Nepal's foreign policy approach and the role of its diplomatic missions. This includes rethinking what responsibilities missions should be playing and what mechanisms should exist in the capital to provide strategic oversight. Such reforms would help ensure that missions in places such as Geneva and New York remain fully informed, actively participate in negotiations, and keep the capital continuously engaged, as is the practice in many other countries. To make this possible, there is a need to revisit the appointment process for heads of mission and mission staff, strengthen standard operating procedures, and move away from the long-standing practice of distributing such positions through syndicates, political patronage, and personal networks rather than merit and competence. Ghale is a former governing bodies staff member of World Health Organisation