A criticism of the use of ambiguity in peace agreements would also add that their use is an interruption of communication between the parties to the conflict, which normally precedes the outbreak of armed conflicts between the parties. One of the main causes of such an interruption in communication is the propensity of parties to radically interpret some of the most important of their political relations differently. For example, the interpretation of the importance of key concepts of their political relations preceded the war between the Croatian authorities and the Croatian Serb minority, supported by Serbia itself and which probably contributed to its initiation in 1991. For the Croatian authorities, for example, the term “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” meant a union of free and fundamentally independent republics, while the term meant much more to the Serb minority. The same is true of ambiguous peace agreements. Just as before the outbreak of war, crucial notions of political vocabulary become ambiguous and lead to misunderstandings and differences of opinion that then lead to war, an ambiguous peace agreement itself will create new misunderstandings and give more warmth to the already hostile feelings of the parties. Therefore, ambiguities likely lead the parties to initiate a new spiral of physical violence or, at the very least, to put in place a barrier between them in order to distinguish their positions. Among the most optimistic expectations, ambiguous “peace agreements” trigger a psychological war of words and perceptions. 2. Both sides agree that talks between them will begin immediately to clarify the issue of the return to positions of 22 October as part of an agreement on the withdrawal and secession of the armed forces under the aegis of the United Nations. Negative attitudes towards ambiguous agreements can, in particular, give historical experiences.
I begin with a discussion of Franck`s disadvantages in the format of a deductive argument, in which he wisely set out his own vision.