The reasons for treaty violations and how these ethical considerations may affect them are mentioned below. In most of these situations, the law cannot agree with moral or cultural relativism and forgive what people generally consider „fair” or „false.” It is therefore imperative that treaties be as durable as possible, so that the parties are not able to find legal „gaps” and use their power, wealth, ignorance or cultural differences in the cancellation of contracts. After these descriptions, you`ll find a list of ways to make contracts more sustainable. These cases were used in analyses by Druckman and Albin (2011), Albin and Druckman (2012) and Downs and Stedman (2002). The cases were initially selected by Downs and Stedman to include cases between 1979 and 1997 where belligerents reached a peace agreement in a civil war and where international actors are expected to play an important role in the implementation of the agreement. The cases include a large number of types of contracts, ranging from large to limited or „flimsy,” and include a large number of intervening parties in the first two years following the signing of the agreement (Stedman 2002). When the principles of procedural fairness (PJ) (including transparency, fair representation, fair play and voluntary agreement) are expressed in the negotiation process (Hollander-Blumoff and Tyler 2008; Kass 2008; Wagner and Druckman 2012) and manifesto are added to the analysis (Albin and Druckman 2012), the relationship between PJ and SA is also communicated by equality. This relationship applies in particular to cases where equality has resulted in equal treatment provisions (non-discriminatory treatment and equal opportunities) and equal shares (sharing of political authority). However, if equality included provisions for identical measures (disarmament and demilitarization), agreements were less stable or less stable than „agreements based on other principles of fairness (or not at all” (Albin and Druckman 2012: 177). Is it ethically defensible to hold someone to a contract if they clearly did not know exactly what they were committing to or did not commit themselves to out of ignorance? Is it ethically defensible for a lawyer to encourage the signing of a document, if he clearly does not fully understand the document? The distinction between DP and SA is of particular interest in understanding the value of DP variables for the review of peace agreements.