How about the mounting and insurmountable evidence of Glyphosate and other ingredients in "ROUNDUP", role in directly causing serious, life threatening damage to our bodies and many other biological entities and systems on the earth?, as fuel for common interest enough to get the duffers off their bloated seats.

I wonder if the response you mention from the "founder" is referring to how international law has different difficulties and parameters than local/state based law because of the difficulty in reaching an amenable and transactionable agreement between such disconnected parties.

Which seems a bit of a canard when we consider that even w actual maritime law it came down to and still most often comes down to business interests,as the debate on Organic or toxic herbicide use does here in our state boundaries.

For me this argument is rarely between Gov and it's population but rather between fear based (non rational/non evidenced founded) people and the non fear based (rational/evidence no matter the consequences based) people.
So the challenge is to what degree should we go to persuade unyielding, fearful, 2+2=22 persons and people in positions of power, that their present understanding is destructive for them as well as others.
I think the best tack is in the continual impersonal calm non violent in every sense respectful presenting of the facts as we know them. Since debate or brainstorming is usually not possible w those who are clinging to their own self centered security more than they are to evidence, we most often will be presenting the evidence and then waiting for them to process it, rather than trying to force them to calculate what we have presented. In fact if we present, tho it make take years, as Gandhi said, and many calm reiterations of the facts and then relax, rather than continue our press, their own stupidity will usually become self aware in them and they will stop and say, "I knew it all the time". As we slowly smile.