Peace agreements are treaties that aim to end a violent conflict or significantly modify a conflict so that it can be dealt with in a more constructive manner. There are different types of agreements that can be reached during a peace process. Each type of agreement has its own purpose and serves in itself to give a positive impetus to a final settlement. However, these agreements are not easy to distinguish, as content can sometimes overlap. Not all types of agreements are necessary for each conflict. Some processes can lead to progressive agreements leading to a comprehensive settlement. Other peace processes could try to negotiate an agreement in a comprehensive way. So, point 4 . B on the “reduction of arms at the level of domestic security” is clearly ambiguous, as is point 10 on “autonomy for the peoples of Austria-Hungary”. Lippman is particularly attentive to the ambiguities of Wilson`s Point 8, which speaks of the problems that hit Franco-German relations at the time. This point states that “the whole of French territory must be liberated and the invaded parts must be restored, and the injustice that the Prussian imposed in 1871 on the question of Alsace-Lorraine, which has disturbed the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be repaired.” As Lippmann pointed out, Wilson did not say that the Alsace-Lorraine region would simply be brought back to France. He did not say it because at the time it was not known whether the French would have continued to fight if they had been offered a referendum on this issue.
However, the sensitive wording of this point was to leave open the possibility of such an interpretation. Wilson also loaded this point with another meaning. At about the same time, France had reached a secret agreement with Russia to demand that Germany return Alsace-Lorraine in the broader concept of the region of 1814. Wilson learned by chance that this secret agreement was being reached, and he disagreed. In other words, Wilson more precisely developed methods for the precise implementation of the “correction” provision later in the process, leaving sufficient leeway for the French interpretation of the methods as well as for their secret ambitions. However, he also made it clear that the correction should be aimed at the injustice inflicted on France in 1871 and not in 1814.