Diplomatic ambiguity is one of the most interesting kinds of language-use in politics in general, and in diplomacy in particular. Normally, it is taken as a device that buys a temporary agreement at the price of a later verbal and interpretive conflict or misunderstanding. Prior to this study, no comprehensive or theory-guided analysis of this both political and linguistic phenomenon had been attempted. The study focuses on a number of ambiguously phrased peace-agreements, exploring three fundamental parameters in terms of which the concept of diplomatic ambiguity can be framed: language, power, and law. It proposes an argument of relevance to the most prominent schools of thought in International Relations, and closes a visible gap in the existing literature dealing with conflict, diplomacy, international politics, and discourse- related aspects of such politics. Due to its interdisciplinary character and sensitivity to the requirements of practice, it also offers an informative and practicable guide to the practitioners of international relations, diplomacy, politics, and law.