A casual read of the resolution suggests that it simply does what it says — call on member states “to review their procedures, practices and legislation on the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance.”

In its core provision, however, the resolution calls on all member states “to respect and protect” this international right. The exact meaning of the words “to respect and protect” will likely escape those who are unfamiliar with United Nations jargon, but these terms are vitally important.

By calling on states both to respect and protect the right to privacy, the resolution includes an expectation for member states to regulate private actors. Requiring governments to “respect” privacy rights essentially refers to negative rights — freedom from interference by the state. Nothing earth-shattering there. Requiring governments “protect” privacy rights, however, refers to positive obligations upon the state — a duty of the government to safeguard individuals from abuse by third parties. In United Nations circles, it is well understood that such a duty to safeguard includes protection from other private actors, including businesses.

The resolution, of course, imposes no direct legal obligation. It is, however, an important part of international agenda-setting and helps to establish new norms and expectations for government behavior. The resolution itself also sets up some of the international machinery to make sure that happens. For example, it calls on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to produce reports and recommendations for further action “on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy.” It is, indeed, due to these political stakes that the United States engaged in strenuous diplomatic efforts to shape the language of the resolution to its liking.

In the wake of Edward J. Snowden's revelations, we have witnessed coalitions of interesting bedfellows, as the interests of libertarians, progressives and human rights advocates have coalesced around protecting the individual right to privacy. The adoption and long-term political effects of the United Nations resolution may showcase some of the obstacles to forging these novel political coalitions in the United States. It will also usher in a new international effort that shifts the focus on the state as not only a possible threat to online privacy — but also a potential regulator and protector.