Territory

• The civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was ultimately fought between Bosnian Serbs and a coalition of Bosnian Croats and Bosniak Muslims for the partition of the territory which remained of the former Yugoslavian state. In response, the Dayton Agreement sets out the Inter-Entity Boundary Line which roughly transformed the military ceasefire lines as it existed at the end of the Bosnian war into permanent political divisions. This divided the country’s territory into 49% and 51% respectively between the Republika Srpska for the Bosnian Serb population and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Croat-Bosniak Muslim alliance.

Constitutional Issues and Governance

• Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement composes the constitution which established a consociational form of government in order to guarantee equal ethnic representation between the Serbs, Croats, and Bosniak Muslims. However, this also had the effect of institutionalizing the division between the major ethnic groups into the Bosnia-Herzegovinian state structure. It also resulted in a highly complex and decentralized system including a tripartite presidency, national Parliament and Cabinet – shares of power all allocated according to ethnicity. These structures are then also replicated on an entity level with further regionalization, each level of government granted significant autonomy.

Federation Agreement between Bosnian Croats and Muslims

• For there to be a single united Muslim-Croat entity alongside the Republika Srpska entity in the reformation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the tenuous alliance had to be solidified into the present-day Federation. The accord settles the matter regarding the authority – that was previously held by local governments in Croat or Bosniak military controlled areas – which would be ceded to the federation government. Extensive powers were granted to the federation government, including control over defence, justice, taxation, and internal affairs. Most crucially, the accord calls for the integration of Croat and Muslim military commanders into the Bosnian Army.

Criminal Prosecution of War Crimes

• Dayton contains several provisions that oblige the involved parties to cooperate and comply with entities appointed to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed – namely the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In the negotiations, attempts to push for greater involvement of the tribunal were met with opposition by the negotiating Serb, Croat, and Muslim parties. Aside from prohibiting individuals who have been sentenced or indicted by the tribunal, few other effective mechanisms are ultimately included in the Agreement to actively assist or carry out the tribunal’s mandate.

Democracy

• Annex 3 of the Dayton Agreement establishes the objective to promote free, fair, and democratic elections. The tripartite presidency is elected through a separate direct plurality votes. The bicameral Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina consist of a directly elected House of Representatives through proportional representation and a House of Peoples, whose members are indirectly elected from the entity’s separate legislatures. While Dayton guaranteed universal suffrage for adult citizens, it was ultimately agreed that refugee suffrage would be tied to their intention to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina to encourage their return.

Freedom of Movement and Refugees

• The principle of freedom of movement between the two Entities is enshrined in the Dayton Agreement, particularly for civilian refugees and displaced persons in Annex 7. The agreement states to allow displaced persons to return home and regain lost property or obtain compensation. To be enforced by the NATO Implementation Force (IFOR), this ensures the dismantlement of the many checkpoints that had been erected across the country throughout the war.

Enforcement

• To monitor and ensure compliance on the military aspects of the Agreement, Dayton establishes a multinational military Implementation Force (IFOR) under the command of NATO, with a grant of authority from the UN. In practice, this simply entailed transitioning the existing UN force into IFOR under NATO command. For civilian matters, the Office of the High Representative was founded to essentially held the task of building state capacities and institutions. It coordinated aspects of the peace settlement such as humanitarian aid, economic reconstruction, human rights, and the holding of free elections.

Serb (or Yugoslav), loyal to Republika Srpska and FR Yugoslavia

• Led by the President Slobodhan Milosevic
• Initially demanded 70% of land and said that anything less than 64% would be unjust
• Bosnians wanted control of Goradze.
• They wanted control of Brcko to increase territorial links
• Bosnian Serbs were not in favour of an integral Bosnia-Herzegovina as they wanted to establish a unitary state for all Serbs.
• Wanted to have institutions where they had equal rights with the Muslim-Croat side in order to prevent political oppression of the Bosnian Serbs by the Muslim-Croat federation
• Initially wanted the country to fully be divided but settled for a union
• Wanted to control a part of Sarajevo as they were concerned about the Serb minority living in Sarajevo
• Wanted the lifting of sanctions placed on Serbia

Bosnian (or Bosniak), loyal to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

• The Bosnians were headed by President Alija Izetbegovic
• Demanded the existence of two distinct entities within Bosnia, the Muslim-Croat federation and the Serb republic
• The Muslim side was mostly concerned about oppression by the Serbs after the genocide
  • Demands were made regarding the prosecution of war criminals, namely Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic

Croat, loyal to the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia and Croatia

• The Croatian delegation was led by President Franjo Tudman
• Initially demanded at least 51% of the land.
• Croat side wanted control of Goradze in order to connect the enclave to the rest of the territory.
• Croatia wanted to reintegrate Eastern Slavonia into its legal borders
• Croats wanted a peace solution based on sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia Herzegovina.
• Demanded the establishment if the legal and constitutional preconditions that would prevent Serb secession.
• Wanted the state to remain a republic as they wanted to keep an integral Bosnia
• Demanded to have an undivided Sarajevo under their control to control important communications and transportation sites.

USA and other Western allies

• Chief negotiator of the peace talks was Richard Holbrooke. There was a clear prominent involvement by the US during the peace talks. Only former Swedish PM Carl Bildt and some senior European diplomats participated in the peace talks, the others playing a static role in the talks. As has been pointed out, “United States took direct control over the peace process at Dayton, relegating other Western actors to subordinate roles”
• The contact group’s priority was a ceasefire and to avoid sending contradictory signals to the warring factions
• Also concerned with the final territorial divide of Bosnia
• Pursued a strategy of developing a draft United Nations Security Council resolution on the tightening of sanctions
  • US wanted to lift the arms embargo placed on the Bosnian muslims

Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats

• Although one of the main warring factions in Bosnia, the Bosnian Serbs were not directly admitted to the talks. As had been agreed upon, they would be a part of the Serbian delegation, thus accepting Milosevic’s authority and leadership. Similarly, the Bosnian Croats were represented by Croatian president Tudman. Only the Bosniaks would represent them autonomously.This took away the Bosnian Serbs’ and Bosnian Croats’ autonomy as even though they were involved in the peace talks, it was only under another entity which did not necessarily share the same values
• Significant individual actors such as former general Ratko Mladic and former politician Radovan Karadzic.
  • Mladic was excluded from the peace talks as he was found guilty of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). He is held responsible for the Siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre.
  • Similarly to Mladic, Karadzic was also excluded from the peace talks as the former president of Republika Srpska was found guilty of committing war crimes including genocide against Bosniak and Croat civilians by the ICTY.

Over 20 years later, the success of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina – commonly known as the Dayton Peace Agreement – continues to be debated according to various metrics. Agreed upon in 1995, Dayton ended the most brutal European conflict since the Second World War – the Bosnian War. As one of the most comprehensive peace agreements in the world, it is frequently held as an example of a skillful balance of diplomacy, political manoeuvring and military pressure to great success. However, the Dayton talks were also a prime example of exclusive Track I diplomacy; negotiations were controlled and dominated solely by international and political elites. In this sense, Dayton perhaps should not be characterized as a true peace process. While the Dayton Agreement has proved to be a successful peacekeeping tool with a legacy of over two decades of negative peace, it has not been conducive to true peacebuilding and post-war societal and state reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina some had hoped it would be.

The negotiation talks of the Dayton Agreement was best typified by exclusivity, leading to descriptions of Dayton as an accord made “about the Bosnians without the Bosnians.” The negotiation process was open only to a very limited number of actors who were invited by the American lead negotiators, namely European and Russian diplomats and the representatives of the three ethnic groups – Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. While the urgent situation necessitated this exclusive arrangement for the sake of efficiency, the closed nature of this negotiation leaves an insufficient peace process despite the comprehensiveness of the peace accord on paper. This process was a pure example in track I diplomacy – high-level formal talks occurring behind closed doors between state officials and elite representatives. However, without incorporating track II or III diplomacy or simply the lack of input from levels of society beyond the elites can lead to issues of real significance to everyday citizens going ignored. For example, the issue of boundaries in the 51-49 territorial split was decided with no input from those who lived in those towns and villages – the initial proposed map in fact being drawn by the Americans. This exemplifies the disconnect that was present between the peace process and the Bosnians who would be living under its consequences and be impacted the most.

Two decades later, the Dayton Agreement has succeeded in preserving the peace and ceasefire in Bosnia and Herzegovina, yet has also preserved the political climate with the same dynamic of ethnic politics continuing to fuel tensions. In essence, Dayton has frozen Bosnia in time. The complicated system that prioritized the equal representation of all three groups – Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks – in all state institutions has also made the government apparatus a massive and unwieldy structure. The layers upon layers of governments and levels of authorities makes change and reform highly difficult, ensuring the continued dominance of political elites. This has minimized the opportunities for the participation of the public and civil society in the process of policymaking. Consequently, the constitution as provided in Dayton has in effect also constrained the possibility for progress and reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to its effect upon political and societal institutional growth, Dayton has also preserved the tense dynamics between the ethnic groups in its efforts to be a ‘multi-ethnic’ state. Instead of forging a common citizenship, the system has allowed political and ethnic leaders to take advantage of the state’s precarious union and encourage hostile ethnically-tinged rhetoric. Furthermore, the fact that places at all levels of governments are allocated according to ethnicity has also sidelined ethnic minorities who do not fall into the three major groups from political life in the country. Altogether, the complex system that was robust enough to satisfy the warring parties at the time of the conflict has led to a system of inertia – ill-equipped to handle the challenges of a post-war Bosnia.

The Dayton Agreement was essential to ending the deadliest conflict in Europe since the Second World War. However, what was instrumental in peacekeeping has not necessarily had the same amount of success when it comes to state-building. While successfully preventing the outbreak of more physical violence that had once consumed the region, Dayton has constrained Bosnia and Herzegovina from moving beyond the post-war stage and truly building a sustainable peace.

Final Dayton Agreement

Summary of the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia-Herzegovina

Chronology of Events

Short Documentary Mapping the Path to the Dayton Peace Accords

Richard Holbrooke Interview on Milosevic and Dayton

Federation Agreement Between Croats and Bosniaks

Study of the Battle and Siege of Sarajevo

Bosnia - a matter of politics or humanity?

Bosnia War Crimes: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and U.S. Policy

Bassiouni, M. Cherif. “Study of the Battle and Siege of Sarajevo.” University of West England Bristol.

• This source is an UN archive originally authored by M. Cherif Bassiouni. It is a study of the battle of Sarajevo. This is a firsthand UN report which outlines the Battle of Sarajevo in detail and in chronological order. One of the biggest battles in the Bosnian War, this event was an important moment in the conflict and this source goes into great depth in mapping what took place through daily, weekly and monthly reports from UN Protection Forces. The chronology is based on incidents reported in the database, source materials and media reports. This source gave a clear picture of the battle and helped in mapping the timeline and also a good understanding of the involvement of the various parties, which serves as context for the Dayton peace talks.

“Bosnia-Herzegovina Profile - Timeline.” BBC News, BBC, 30 Nov. 2017.

• The BBC is renown as a reputable news source which offers a centrist perspective on most issues. It is one of the oldest news corporations in the world. This article offered a somewhat detailed outlook on the happenings of the Bosnian war and is intended for a global audience. The article is well structured and breaks down the events into blocks. For example, it groups the war in one block, the Dayton agreements, and the arrest of key figures in another. It offers a wide array of events that happened during the war even some minor details. Its strengths lie in the article’s direct approach to the conflict and is to the point and succinct. One glaring weakness however, is how it fails to address the complexity of the situation.

Caplan, Richard. "Assessing the Dayton Accord: The Structural Weaknesses of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina." Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 11, no. 2, 2000, pp. 213-232.

• The main purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the Dayton Agreement itself and a brief evaluation of the inherent structural weaknesses present in the Accord. The author outlines all the major provisions that constitute the Accord, including the process which led to the agreement on territorial, military, and constitutional aspects included in the settlement. While providing a useful summary of the contents of the Accord, the date of the source also means it lacks perspective in its analysis and evaluation of the outcomes. However, this also provides a useful perspective on how little has changed. Despite the gap in time between this article and other sources, the same issues concerning the obstacle the Accord itself poses to peacebuilding is a common theme and continue to persist.

Janjić, Jovan (1996). Srpski general Ratko Mladić. Matica srpska. p. 15. Ратко Младић рођен је 12. марта 1943. године, у селу Божиновићи код Калиновика.

• This source documents the life of Srpski general Ratko Mladic. Janjic wrote this book as a means of historical information and someone interested in the events of the Bosnian war would benefit from reading this book due to its informative nature. The information on Mladic in this book gives historical understanding of his actions and what exactly those actions were that led him to be indicted as a war criminal. This source helped for the research on Mladic and the history behind his exclusion from the Dayton peace talks.

Keil, Soeren, and Anastasiia Kudlenko. "Bosnia and Herzegovina 20 Years After Dayton: Complexity Born of Paradoxes." International Peacekeeping, vol. 22, no. 5, 2015, pp. 471-489.

• This article addresses the common argument that Dayton contains inherent flaws and weaknesses that lead to the inertia that frequently characterizes governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It evaluates initiatives of state-building, democratization and reconstruction in the post-war period by both international and local actors. While concurring with other literature about certain structural weaknesses in the Dayton Agreement, it points out that the agreement is also undermined by local and domestic actors. Therefore, not only is the Dayton Agreement not solely responsible for the troubles that plague Bosnian institutions, but resolving these issues will require going beyond the constitution as well. However, this also means that there is hope for progress without reopening up the constitution – only requiring political will for smaller-scale action from both local and international leaders.

Leigh-Phippard, Helen. “The Contact Group on (And in) Bosnia: An Exercise in Conflict Mediation?” International Journal, vol. 53, no. 2, 1998, pp. 306–324. JSTOR, JSTOR.

• Leigh-Phippard’s article is concerned with the role played by the contact group in Bosnia peace talks. A discussion of the contact group’s activity throughout the period of the peace process is followed by an analysis of the reasons behind and the effectiveness of the mediation. The author provides historical context which helps readers understand the reasons behind the formation of the contact group and the potential difficulties faced. The analysis of the role of the contact group in Bosnia done in this article will allow readers to understand the role of the actors not directly involved in the conflict but are there to mediate. 

Malcolm, Noel. Bosnia: a Short History. Papermac, 1996. 

• Sir Noel Malcolm is an English political journalist and Author, He attended Cambridge and was knighted for his services to European history among other accolades. Bosnia: A Short History is written for the uninformed individual and gives an outsider a good understanding of the country since its inception. The book gives a neutral perspective on the conflict and goes straight to the point. It is an easy read and allowed me to quickly understand the complexity of the Bosnian War. One of the book’s main strengths is the author’s ability to explain a complex situation in simple terms without over simplifying the situation. One weakness I would note is that at times the book delved too much into the international view of Bosnia.

Nimet Beriker‐Atiyas, Tijen Demirel‐Pegg, (2000) "AN ANALYSIS OF INTEGRATIVE OUTCOMES IN THE DAYTON PEACE NEGOTIATIONS", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 Issue: 4, pp.358-377

• Beriker-Atiyas and Demirel-Pegg uses Pruitt’s ideas on the five types of integrative solutions in order to analyse the integrative outcomes of the Dayton peace negotiations. In order for their analysis, the authors considered aspects such as negotiation issues, the parties’ positions and underlying interests, what the priorities of the parties were and how the negotiations ended. The authors provide a good analysis of the events leading up to and in Dayton through their exploration of the various parties’ demands and how the negotiations actually ended up. This source provides readers with important information regarding the parties’ positions going into the negotiations. The authors use numbers and statistics which help paint a clearer picture of the situation.

Stroschein, Sherrill. "Consociational Settlements and Reconstruction: Bosnia in Comparative Perspective (1995–Present)." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 656, no. 1, 2014, pp. 97-115.

• This article describes and analyzes the implementation and results of consociational governance structures in Bosnia and Herzegovina working in conjunction with international aid and intervention in the overall picture of state-building. Firstly, it describes how consociational governance – the foundation of Bosnia’s constitution – works and its purpose. The author then compares the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina to post-conflict Northern Ireland. It concludes that the systemic obstacles to state-building in Bosnia cannot be resolved by mere international financial aid, but is in large part due to problems inherent in its consociational structures. Due to its focus on the effect of international aid and intervention, the author neglects the effect of internal and domestic actors. By comparing two fragile post-conflict societies, the challenges in Bosnia could be viewed in greater context and the contrast allowed the highlighting of certain weaknesses in Bosnia’s institutions.

“TIMELINE: What Happened during the War in Bosnia?” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 21 July 2008.

• Reuters is another reputable news source that provides a lot of first hand sources. This article is a compilation of those sources in the form of a timeline. It is intended for an international audience and as such does a good job of explaining the main points of the conflict. The article is a good way to verify information from other sites and has a clearly laid out timeline of events. Its scope extends to well after the war today and allows the reader to see how Bosnia has fared in the aftermath of the war. Its main weakness is the fact that many of the dates differ by a day or two from what most other sources say. However, the information found within the site is reliable and informative.

Works Cited

• Bassiouni, M. Cherif. “Study of the Battle and Siege of Sarajevo.” University of West England Bristol.

• Borger, Julian. "Bosnia​'s bitter, flawed peace deal​,​ 20 years on." The Guardian, 10 Nov 2015.
• “Bosnia-Herzegovina Profile - Timeline.” BBC News, BBC, 30 Nov. 2017.
• Brunborg, H., Lyngstad, T.H. & Urdal, H. European Journal of Population (2003) 19: 229. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024949307841
• Clinton, Bill. “Dayton Accords.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 27 June 2013.
• Cohen, Richard. "Terms of Muslim-Croat Alliance Are Set at Dayton Talks.” The New York Times, 11 Nov 1995.
• Daalder, Ivo H. " Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended." Brookings, 1 Dec 1998.
• Hronesova, Jessie. " A flawed recipe for how to end a war and build a state: 20 years since the Dayton Agreement." European Politics and Policy (LSE), 14 Dec 2015.
• Janjić, Jovan (1996). Srpski general Ratko Mladić. Matica srpska. p. 15. Ратко Младић рођен је 12. марта 1943. године, у селу Божиновићи код Калиновика.
• Leigh-Phippard, Helen. “The Contact Group on (And in) Bosnia: An Exercise in Conflict Mediation?” International Journal, vol. 53, no. 2, 1998, pp. 306–324. JSTOR, JSTOR.
• Malcolm, Noel. Bosnia: a Short History. Papermac, 1996.
• Nardelli, Alberto; Dzidic, Denis; Jukic, Elvira. " Bosnia and Herzegovina: the world's most complicated system of government?." The Guardian, 8 Oct 2014.
• Nimet Beriker‐Atiyas, Tijen Demirel‐Pegg, (2000) "AN ANALYSIS OF INTEGRATIVE OUTCOMES IN THE DAYTON PEACE NEGOTIATIONS", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11 Issue: 4, pp.358-377
• Paczulla, Jutta. “The Long, Difficult Road to Dayton: Peace Efforts in Bosnia- Herzegovina.” International Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, 2004, pp. 255–272. JSTOR, JSTOR.
• Schuett, Oliver. "The International War Crimes Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia and the Dayton Peace Agreement: Peace Versus Justice?" International Peacekeeping, vol. 4, no. 2, 1997, pp. 91-114.
• “Serbs Stop UN Aid for Bombarded 'Safe Haven'.” HeraldScotland, 1 July 1993.
• Simons, Geoff. UN Malaise: Power, Problems and Realpolitik. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
• “Summary of the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia-Herzegovina.” University of Minnesota, 30 Nov. 1995, hrlibrary.umn.edu/icty/dayton/daytonsum.html
• “TIMELINE: What Happened during the War in Bosnia?” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 21 July 2008.
• Vitez, CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY in. “UN Lifeline to Bosnia Reaches Breaking Point.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 10 July 1993.