Lippmann said that the „14 points“ were subject to an infinite number of different interpretations from all over the world. Each group saw in the document what they wanted to see and that is why the document seemed perfectly acceptable to the majority of the states involved in the First World War. This is also why the document has managed to gather a majority of States and to direct their efforts towards finding conditions for a comprehensive peace settlement. It is interesting to note that the United States did not explain to its allies its own interpretation of the document until the Allies agreed to the ceasefire. One would imagine a method to verify the advantages of Franck`s position, but I do not think such a method is applicable. Even if all ambiguous agreements that failed because of insurmountable difficulties of interpretation could be categorized, the interpretation process itself could fail for hundreds of reasons. Moreover, what we generally see in reality is not a mere case of failure of an agreement or agreement that has been implemented in a light, coherent and comprehensive manner. Most of the cases were somewhere in between. For example, how do you rank Wilson`s 14 points? They have played an extremely important role in bringing together many nations and providing them with a source of motivation to find notions of peace.
However, they have not been fully implemented. The 14 points were therefore a type of half-successful ambiguous agreement. What can we say about the implementation of Dayton? I believe that the only convenient way to describe the obstacles to the implementation process should not include its ambiguity, because, quite rightly, those who are supposed to comply with the Dayton Agreements have not yet recognized, let alone adopted, its ambiguity. Instead, they tend to abuse the ambiguous provisions of the agreement, insist on their unilateral interpretation to justify the promotion of their outdated policy which, in the recent past, has caused misery and suffering to the peoples of Bosnia. So what is an ambiguous expression, and how does an ambiguous word, phrase or text differ from a word that is not ambiguous? Unfortunately, ambiguities are difficult to define because of their ambiguities, solely because of their ambiguity. We reject any peace agreement that includes President Kiir and Riek Machar as head of the transitional government of national unity, so any peace he signs with the Government of South Sudan will not be legitimate and will not be respected by the general-led SPLM/A-IO. Provision B states that „both sides agree that talks between them will begin immediately in order to clarify the issue of the return to positions of 22 October as part of an agreement on the withdrawal and secession of troops under the aegis of the United Nations.“ This provision is a shining example of a „syntactic ambiguity“ that Egyptian and Israeli negotiators could interpret in a diametrically opposed manner to Naston, based on the syntactic links they considered appropriate between the parties to the provision. Egyptian negotiators interpreted this provision as a clear request to Israel to withdraw its armed forces in accordance with UN Committee Resolution 340.
Comments are closed.