There is more than one school of thought when it comes to the role and importance of peace agreements throughout the process of negotiating the negotiated resolution of an internal conflict. An approach that is perhaps best described as « constituent » sees the content of the peace agreement as the key to the overall process, reflecting its strengths, weaknesses, virtues and inadequacies. A « good » agreement will lead to lasting peace; A « bad » agreement will lead to delays, setbacks and even the collapse of the peace process. This approach therefore underlines the strict requirements that must be met by the provisions of an agreement: text accuracy, technical feasibility, international legitimacy, detailed implementation schedule. One of these consequences is that a mediator is required to ensure that negotiations between the parties meet these high standards, even if it means being able to resist impatient spectators and the parties themselves. The « instrumental » school does not give the same seat to the agreement, whose negotiations are only one of the many phases of a complex transition. It should therefore not bear the weight of the whole process alone. Concerns about the inadequacies of the agreement in terms of formulation, feasibility or legitimacy should be balanced against the overriding need to maintain the dynamics of macroeconomic transition. Uncertainties, shortcomings, even glaring impossibilities, is an acceptable cost. Over time, ambiguities will be removed, gaps will be filled, changes will be made to address impossibilities, and, most importantly, the relevance of seemingly intractable issues will be eroded as the parties gradually learn to deal with confrontation. Implementation can, but should not only be expected as a reflection of the original agreement.
. Результатов: 33. Точных совпадений: 33. Затраченное время: 125 мс Индекс слова: 1-300, 301-600, 601-900, Больше ..