The advent of the Paris Agreement (PA) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has attracted opposing points of view. It was perceived by some as a substantial victory for the global climate, even being hailed or referred as the “world’s greatest diplomatic success.” Others remained skeptical about its effectiveness in tackling the climate problem, deeming the PA as a “triumph of wishes over facts.” Perhaps, the adequate point of view is the one in which “the truth lies somewhere in-between.” In any way, what still resonates is whether the PA will be effective in preventing global climate change. No treaty prior to the PA has managed to gather such substantial amount of states with a common scientifically based objective, which, if accomplished, is likely to preclude the climate threat. This may be seen as a step towards ‘victory.’ On the other hand, the language in the PA does not always reveal itself as the most biding, what has created a certain confusion around its legal character, nonetheless made possible the almost universal acceptance by the parties. Anyhow, the PA does create obligations of which compliance is mandatory. Notwithstanding, on 4 November 2016 the PA entered in force with a discrepancy that could already have been predicted. Although the PA was placed with the objective to “strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change” by “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C ...[or ideally] 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”, most of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) have not demonstrated to be proactive enough towards the fulfillment of such objectives, leading to an overall insufficiency scenario, also referred as the PA emissions gap. The emissions gap gives cause to worry about the effectiveness of the PA in tackling the problem, once in the absence of compliance, broad participation and ambition of the parties would not guarantee the achievement of the global targets. Important to remember, the PA counts with a compliance mechanism and other internal administrative arrangements designed to promote compliance and enhance the individual participation. However, it remains unsure how these mechanisms are supposed to work, and if they will be able to positively impact the trajectory of a state refraining from compliance, or falling short of its own NDC. The effectiveness of the PA will be determined based on how successful it is in achieving its objectives. Therefore, it is crucial to question how such insufficient pathway, and other eventual behavior in disagreement with the objectives and principles of the PA, may be addressed in order to improve its effectiveness in tackling climate change.