engleski

What does it mean to negotiate an ambiguous peace agreement?

The article aims to answer the question of what does it mean to negotiate an ambiguous peace agreement, especially in the sense of a peace agreement that can be put to a constructive and positive use. The view proposed here is that, first, the conflict of meanings/interpretations, to which ambiguous peace agreement gives rise, can be pertinently theorized as a conflict of beliefs ; secondly, finding or constructing a universe of shared beliefs, i.e., the theory- making, by the parties of an ambiguous peace agreement provides the only assurance that ambiguities will be eliminated in the most reasoned way. Thirdly, the parties to such an agreement need to rely on normative structure of language in general, and on the principle of interpretive charity in particular, to ensure that they deal reasonably with the ambiguous aspects of the agreement. It is only within such, Rationalist/Discourse-Ethical tripartite perspective that one can recognize a dialogue-inviting, and also conflict- transforming and conflict-rationalizing, potential of ambiguous peace agreements. A number of episodes from the post-Dayton, post-‘Good Friday’, and post-Oslo I agreement bargaining processes are recounted here in order to illustrate and substantiate the key steps of the argument. Also, several practical recommendations, based on the Rationalist/Discourse-Ethical view, are suggested to the parties who aim seriously to upgrade an ambiguous peace.

Ambiguity ; Peace agreements ; Conflict transformation ; Dialogue

Rad je, nakon podneska časopisu Negotiation Journal (Harvard), naišao na određene poteškoće u smislu sposobnosti uredništva da pronađe recenzente za ovaj tip analize. Ponuđeni tip promjena na tekstu autor je odbio.