In high-stakes negotiations, the replacement of one word with another can make a world of difference. And that’s exactly what happened in Paris during the final hours of the climate conference, where an intended “should” became “shall” in the final agreement draft due to a “typographical error”. If the error had not been corrected in time, the text could have locked a group of countries into commitments they were not ready to take. Watch Video: Paris Agreement & Its Impact On India The mistake, during the finalisation of documents in haste by UN staffers “who had not slept for days”, was pointed out minutes before the negotiators assembled for the final meeting to adopt the Paris Agreement. The snag held up the meeting for about half an hour. The result of the correction, however, was that the principle of “differentiation” between developed and developing nations was substantially diluted. The sentence originally read: “Developed country Parties shall continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets.” After correction, it became: “Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets.” The use of “shall” in such documents assigns an obligation while “should” is meant to be a guiding principle. The provision under question in Paris dealt with the obligations of developed and developing countries for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The use of “shall” and “should” was to “differentiate” the responsibilities of developed and developing countries, in line with the common but differentiated responsibilities principles. But, after correction, the obligations of developed and developing countries were at the same level. The developed countries were understandably happy with the correction, but developing nations had lost one big battle.
