“Should” isn’t certain

George Dvorsky, Gizmodo, A Single Typo Nearly Killed the Paris Climate Accord, 12/14/15, gizmodo.com/a-single-typo-nearly-killed-the-paris-climate-accord-1747908970

When it comes to legally binding terminology, there’s a big difference between “should” and “shall.” Whereas “should” is a kind of wishy-washy call to action, the word “shall” implies an obligation, and this is why Secretary of State John Kerry could not abide the unexpected change. The New York Times reports:

Throughout the process, the longer and less binding “should” was a deliberate part of the international agreement, put there to establish that the richest countries, including the United States, felt obligated to pony up money to help poor countries adapt to climate change and make the transition to sustainable energy systems. “Shall” meant something altogether different, American officials said.