Use of Ambiguities in Peace Agreements.¶
Pehar, D. (2001). Use of Ambiguities in Peace Agreements. Language and Diplomacy.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Incomplete Contract
- In diplomacy it is constructive ambiguity — deliberate vagueness that secures agreement despite irreconcilable underlying preferences — and arbitration clauses naming a handler without resolving the dispute.
This sourceConstructive ambiguity — deliberate vagueness that secures agreement despite irreconcilable underlying preferences, deferring the contested point to a later gap-handler.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Pehar supports constructive ambiguity as deliberate vagueness that lets mediators bridge contradictory interests; it says nothing about arbitration clauses that name a handler without resolving a dispute.
“If two parties have strong and contradictory interests, and if it seems that neither side is ready to concede a part of its maximum demand”
- In diplomacy it is constructive ambiguity — deliberate vagueness that secures agreement despite irreconcilable underlying preferences — and arbitration clauses naming a handler without resolving the dispute.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:6cdb30566e00 · see in the full table