In this respect, nothing would be won by elimination. On the one hand, this does not represent a real danger. Most disputes over the language of the statutes, not the treaties. (Legal interpretation is burdened with discretion, which means “should” – it is not merciful for contracts.) According to standards published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission), ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), “shall” requirements are the mandatory requirements, i.e. “must” or “must.”  The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) defines and must be synonymous with absolute requirements and must be designated as a somewhat flexible requirement in RFC documents.  The distinction between different types of treaty provisions suggests that “coherent drafting” means that the obligations of the parties must always be used and that the rules of contractual policy must be signalled by will (meaning that both parties must and will co-exist properly in a treaty). Others would dispose with such a distinction if the use of will psychologically help the sharp edges of the obligatory to help the other party to assume such an obligation. When I came to be clear, I found that this had been widely condemned. Legal Use – A modern style guide says that “Reeks von legalese”. The book devotes the next six pages to explaining the various things that, rightly or wrongly, can mean, in addition to an obligation, in legal writing. There has been some discussion about our acceptance of your analysis of the use of “must” to create a commitment. A preferred alternative is the use of “will” on the grounds that “must” is archaic. Can you do it? I don`t think I`m saying we should let the marketing department design all our agreements (God keep it!), but it`s something that needs to be recognized.
John Wallis was an influential supporter of the normative rule, which should be used as a habitual future first-person marker. In Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae (1653), he wrote: “The rule is […] to express a future event without emotional nuances, you should say, I will, we will, but you/she will; Conversely, for accent, arbitrariness or perseverance, I/we will do it, but you/them will.”