Armin Hohenadler

This brings me to the fourth and final argument for partial support for the use of ambiguous languages in peace agreements. Strictly speaking, there is no peace agreement that, as normally defined, resolves a conflict and transforms hostile relations between former adversaries into a simple relationship of peace, cooperation and understanding. Instead, there are shades of grey and the process of conflict transformation is beginning to take root. Former enemies begin to learn how to manage their differences and prevent them from endangering overlapping interests, including interest in peace. This is why a verbal conflict over the interpretation of an ambiguous provision can give two important lessons to former enemies. First, a verbal conflict, a freedom of expression of one`s own interest, which goes against the interests of another, is not false, as long as it takes place politely and with due account of the codes of courtesy. Second, the best way to depart from the state of war is a slow accumulation of pros and cons in the form of logical arguments and well-founded arguments for a third reading, a third interpretation that an ambiguous, though indirect, provision may have already raised. „Peace is what we have when the transformations of creative conflicts can take place without violence“:28 Such a concept of peace leaves more than enough room for the concept of constructive ambiguity. Second, since an ambiguous provision X is in principle open to two incompatible readings, a consequence that Part A might consider abusive is a consequence in which the implementation of Disposition X would take place along Xb and not xa.

But what if the implementation of another ambiguous provision Y takes place along the Ya and not Yb readings, compensating for the sense of injustice of Party A and restoring the balance between Parties A and B? This situation therefore strongly indicates that a possible sense of injustice has nothing to do with an ambiguous provision per se. A correct description of the first situation would mean that Party A considers the implementation of X to be unfair, because X`s ambiguity is replaced by a strict and ambiguous meaning, favourable to the interests of the other party. The sense of injustice therefore has something to do with the ambiguity of ambiguities or, in another way, with a mismatch or injustice when several ambiguous provisions of an agreement are interpreted in parallel. It has nothing to do with the ambiguities that are being made. If Partia opts for the implementation of an ambiguous X provision in the manner it deems more appropriate (Xa), it does not mean that they do not comply with the provision. The party does respect the agreement, but does so in accordance with its logical interpretation. However, if the party chooses to apply Disposition X in the way that the other party considers more appropriate (Xb), it also does not mean non-compliance with the provision, since it complies with the provision to the extent that the other party prefers it.