Experienced mediators are familiar with the negotiator who takes a strong and seemingly unalterable stand on a point of pr inciple--only to exchange it fbr money when the price is right. But one reason why agreements can be difficult to get is that a matter of principle often is at the root of the dispute. An explicit confrontation over such a question can result in a total inability to work out a settlement; so it should not be surprising that negotiators and mediators sometimes paper over these cracks with calculated or innocent ambiguities. This paper will examine the function of ambiguity in agreements, and defend its deliberate use under certain circumstances. There will always be those who value the effect of ambiguities on their earnings, such as a full-time labor arbitrator of my acquaintance who once declared happily that "There's no such thing as clear contract language." But most neutrals seem to have a vague d i s a p p r o ~ of ambiguity, This is excusable. Most paeutrals practice a specific profession--mediation, arbitration, adjudication and so for th-and proceed from the "settlement" of one case to another of like kind. A general preference for wrapping up loose ends fits with the notion of "settlement," and a neat and tidy job seems consistent with professionalism. The parties to the dispute generally have a different perspective. Even while negotiating an agreement, they are looking down the road to the later interpretation of that agreement; and in the case of permanent relationships, they are quite likely to be engaged in the arbitration of one dispute, the litigation of another, and the negotiation of a third at the same time. The sense of the liabilities and limits of a written agreement which this generates is heightened by the internal politics of any par t T wCiich consists of a group. Much of what happens in negotiation can be seen in terms of a struggle between radical and moderate elements within each party. In a multi-faceted negotiation, the fact that the moderate element on one issue may be the radical element on another obscures, but does not change, the essential relationship between moderate and radical. Bear with me if I encapsulate a negotiating group as consisting of a radical minority and a moderate majority. (Where the situation is reversed, effective negotiation or mediation is unlikely) In such a group, the radicals can be expected to emphasize philosophical and ideological purposes, partly out of conviction, but also because this gives them a platform in the continuing attempt to garner public support and perhaps become the dominant faction. The moder-