A Good Agreement Is

While we are at it, we are moving the words “good” and “bad” away from the scientific literature in almost all cases. Science is not a place of value judgment. Judgments, of course. Opinions, observations and speculations are all correct when identified as such. (“We believe… is a perfectly legitimate way to start a sentence if you have to tell the reader that you don`t know something safe.) Either your data matches something or it`s not. She accepts the simulation in the estimated uncertainty or she does not agree. This is consistent with Dr. X`s prediction in the 5% or not. None of us know what you think is a good deal or why, until you give us a number that we could replicate or understand.

If you use these phrases, you are not doing the best you can. That`s where I left and I used that word well, but only because I`m asking you all to do a good job. I can`t be quantitative. 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. 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. Let`s be honest, these sentences don`t make sense and, in my opinion, they have no place in the scientific literature.