Bosnia on the 10th Anniversary of Dayton (original) (raw)
Bosnia, between constitutional theory and reality
Banatul azi, 2021
An essay about the profound discrepancies between the promises of the constitutional-diplomatic model of the Dayton Accords and the reality on the ground that fails to adapt to a narrow, improper, artificial framework imposed after the end of the war three decades ago. Perhaps the main reason was the division of power based on ethnic criteria in the founding documents, a criterion that has never been challenged but that makes dissent possible and even the main weapon in undermining any attempt of reform in Bosnia.
Bosnia and Herzegovina 20 Years after Dayton: Complexity Born of Paradoxes
International Peacekeeping, 2015
This paper will start with an analysis of the Dayton Peace Agreement, and assess to what extent it focused on peace-building, state-reconstruction and democratization. It will provide an overview of major peace-building, state-reconstruction and democratization initiatives by international and local actors in postwar Bosnia. Following the often-presented argument that "Dayton is a good peace agreement but a bad blueprint for a democratic state," the paper will ask if the Dayton Peace Agreement has failed in the consolidation of Bosnian statehood and the democratization of the country. In order to do this, an in-depth analysis of the current situation in terms of state consolidation and democratization will be given. The main argument of the paper demonstrates that while the Dayton Agreement had some inherent weaknesses, actions by local elites and international state-builders also explain some of the current issues of the Bosnian state.
Dayton at twenty: towards new politics in Bosnia- Herzegovina
Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 2015
The Dayton Agreement continues to be mentioned as a potential model by Western politicians and pundits for various conflicts and sectarian violence around the globe, most recently for Syria, Ukraine and Iraq. Indeed, the Dayton Agreement is rightly associated by Bosnians and foreigners alike with the end of war and the absence of renewed armed conflict. However, for most people in BiH it is also associated with ushering in a political-economic order of inequality and dispossession, not only of the means of dignified livelihood, but of a future and the agentive capacities to shape that future. For this reason, most long-time observers caution against seeing BiH as a 'success story,' or at least recognizing it as one with a morbid after-life. The articles in this collection make clear that negotiations for peace between warring parties may not be the best conditions under which to design a system to secure freedom and prosperity. Indeed, they caution us to draw sharp distinctions between peace accords and social contracts.
Dayton Legacy – 25 Years of Building Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Review of International Affairs, 2020
A quarter of a century since peace was achieved in Bosnia and Herzegovina through the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement represents an occasion to consider the scope of the agreement and make an assessment of the Dayton peace legacy 25 years after. This paper discusses the circumstances that postponed the final peace agreement in Bosnia and prolonged the war for three years, as well as the political environment that finally instigated successful negotiations finalized in reaching the Dayton Agreement. From the moment the agreement entered into force until today, it has been an object of various criticisms, which have often neglected the complex circumstances in which it was reached, as well as the importance of its crucial achievement-peace. The Dayton Agreement, which put an end to the civil war, can only be assessed to a limited extent, having in mind that a significant time distance is still required. In this paper, the scope of the agreement's legacy will be considered in relation to two basic functions: peacebuilding and state-building in Bosnia, whereas we assume that these two functions are highly conditioned, and therefore any assessment should be understood in the wider context including both dimensions.
Bosnia-Herzegovina Ten Years after Dayton: Constitutional Change and Public Opinion
Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2006
Two American-based political geographers and the head of a Bosnian public opinion research organization present and discuss the results of public opinion polls related to the tenth anniversary of the Dayton Peace Accords. The paper reviews talks between Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) and the European Union (EU) aimed at signing a Stabilization and Association Agreement that should pave the way for eventual membership of BiH in the EU, a process that would stimulate reform of BiH's notoriously complex governance structure. The most recent constitutional change proposals are reviewed, and results of public opinion surveys (N = 614-2000 in late 2005) on constitutional change, reform of the governance structure of BiH state, and the Dayton Peace Accords after ten years are presented and discussed.
Constitutional Engineering in Post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina
International Peacekeeping, 2012
This article reflects on the dynamics associated with state building in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) with a particular focus on the role of external agency. The debate over constitutional reform has featured prominently in BiH since the early 2000s. The objective of this reform was to transform Dayton into a functional institutional framework that prepared the country for both international withdrawal and EU integration. Based on a detailed analysis of two international initiatives launched in 2005 and 2009 this article analyses the reasons why constitutional engineering in post-Dayton BiH failed. More specifically, the article argues that this reform failed as a result of various shortcomings including international divisions; a democratic deficit inherent in the process; and the neglect of local conditions (including conflicting notions of the future form of the state by both local and external actors).
Epiphany, 2016
Twenty-one years after entering into force of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Dayton Agreement), it seems that the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has not significantly changed. The basic achievements of the Dayton Agreement, such as stopping the war and country’s democratization and institution building processes are evident, however the agreement failed to create a politically stable functional state and the united nation accepted by all its citizens. On the contrary, the agreement significantly contributed to the creation of divided society (and political community) composed of three ‘constituent peoples’ and others. Neither social nor political community stood the test of time. The country could not meet the requirements and standards set by the European Union, especially the constitutional reform that is claimed to be the precondition to other reforms. Then, despite agreement’s significant accomplishments in the field of hu...
Bosnia: Institutional Change, Consociation and Democracy
Oslobođenje, 2021
Debates on electoral and constitutional change have now returned to the forefront of political agenda. The focus is on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on discrimination against others in the election of members of the Presidency and the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly, as well as on old disputes over the election of the Croatian member of the Presidency. Sources of the debate, however, are deeper because various arguments reflect old, mutually opposing views on how BiH should be organized. Those who propose a shift towards a unitary, or slightly decentralized, "functional" state model clash with advocates of a highly decentralized political community based on the "original" Dayton Agreement.
Is Dayton Failing: Bosnia Four Years after the Peace Agreement
In anticipation of the fourth anniversary on 21 November 1999 of the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, this report presents a detailed analysis of the agreement and the future of the Bosnian peace process. The report assesses efforts to implement the agreement annex by annex, identifying obstacles to continued progress and setting out key choices facing international policymakers. A traditional peace treaty consists of a cease-fire and arms reduction and boundary demarcation agreements. Dayton went far beyond these goals to create a new state, comprised of two multi-ethnic entities. Dayton's aim was to not only stop the fighting, but to reverse ethnic cleansing and provide a blueprint for a unified country. Today Bosnia and Herzegovina has three de facto mono-ethnic entities, three separate armies, three separate police forces, and a national government that exists mostly on paper and operates at the mercy of the entities. Indicted war criminals remain at large and political power is concentrated largely in the hands of hard line nationalists determined to obstruct international efforts to advance the peace process. In many areas, local political leaders have joined forces with police and local extremists to prevent refugees from returning to their pre-war homes. The effect has been to cement wartime ethnic cleansing and maintain ethnic cleansers in power within mono-ethnic political frameworks. The few successes of Dayton – the Central Bank, a common currency, common license plates, state symbols and customs reforms – are superficial and were imposed by the international community. Indeed, the only unqualified success has been the four-year absence of armed conflict. A thorough examination of the Dayton Peace Accords, annex by annex, indicates that the ethnic cleansers are winning the battle to shape post-war Bosnia. All in all, significant portions of Dayton remain unimplemented. In spite of the High Representative's recent energetic and long-awaited actions on refugee returns, it is too early to state whether or not they will translate into actual implementation. Local authorities continue to demand donor aid in return for partial co-operation. Dayton’s fragile and limited achievements to date could now be threatened as donor aid starts to fall. The inability of donors to hold out the promise of aid could cause local leaders to be even more non-compliant than now. The severe economic downturn and negative GDP growth that a reduction in aid will cause can only aggravate social unrest. Pensions are in arrears, and estimates of unemployment range from 39 percent in the Federation to 50 percent in Republika Srpska. Social discontent has already burst into the open, with demonstrators regularly blocking highways and buildings. Ominously, in the past, many local politicians have channelled this unrest into nationalism. The current policies for implementing Dayton are flawed, due to the refusal of the NATO-led international force (SFOR) to fulfil its mandate and act as an implementing agent, despite clear authorisation to do so under the terms of the agreement. In addition, two out of the three ethnic groups actively oppose Dayton, and are prepared to wait until such a time as the international community withdraws and the agreement can be laid to rest. Unless a way can be found to break the current deadlock, the agreement’s only major success – peace – will be increasingly at risk. While peace was a worthy and admirable goal, it was the promise of implementation of certain key principles and the creation of a unified state that persuaded the Bosniaks in particular to sign the agreement in 1995. Unlike the Serbs and Croats, they demand a higher level of implementation of all the Dayton annexes throughout all three ethnic areas. The failure of current policies to ensure complete implementation could yet trigger renewed fighting, particularly as the international community starts to withdraw. As the 1998 Madrid Implementation Council noted, “Bosnia and Herzegovina’s structure remains fragile. Without the scaffolding of international support, it would collapse”. The international community must now examine seriously its options for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future. These policy options include: 1. Pulling out immediately; 2. Maintaining the present approach; 3. Rewriting the Dayton Peace Accords; 4. Enforcing Dayton more robustly; 5. Creating an international protectorate for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The international community must decide if Dayton is worth salvaging, or whether a complete pullout is warranted, as isolationist forces in some countries urge. If the international community decides to pull out, it must be prepared for the very real possibility that the Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks will attempt to achieve their unrealised war aims through violence. All the hard-won progress of the last four years will be lost. If the international community chooses this option, it must decide if it is willing to pay the social, political, economic, and human costs associated with a renewed war in the Balkans, as well as the implications for broader pan-Balkan and European stability. If, on the other hand, the international community wishes to remain engaged in Bosnia, it must choose one of the remaining options, realising that some could also lead to renewed fighting. The International Crisis Group does not believe that Option Two – maintaining the present approach – provides a viable basis for long-term peace in Bosnia. Option Three, while risking renewed fighting, could also lead to a positive reinterpretation of the political realities in place and lead to a lasting peace. Options Four and Five, while requiring a more focused long-term international presence, would lock in the gains made to date and create an environment conducive to the development of an international exit strategy, and the emergence of Bosnia as a self-sustaining economic and political unit. Option Four would require a more robust approach within the Dayton framework, both by SFOR and the Office of the High Representative (OHR), as well as more targeted approaches to aid. Option Five, while unpopular abroad, is very popular in Bosnia, and would enable the international community to correct some of Dayton's mistakes. Sarajevo, 28 October, 1999
Dayton Agreement and Democracy to Come in Bosnia and Herzegovina
2017
3 Abstract Jacques Derrida is one of the most controversial philosophers of late 20th and beginning of 21st century. He earned this title not only because of his views upon the various topics he dealt with in his work, but also due his general approach toward philosophy. Derrida’s critical approach developed within deconstruction, ideas which have been both praised and criticized. Some of various critical positions refer to the inability of Derrida’s theory to be applied upon concrete problems. These standings have been inspirational. In order to question them, this research is based upon idea of applying Derrida’s idea on concrete problems. Therefore, the politico-legal context of Bosnia and Herzegovina is chosen as a case study. This is done due to several factors, including the complexity of the issues, their universality and actuality. Throughout this work, theory is intertwined with concrete problems. In many cases it highlights some deeper issues and it is able to give some deeper inside upon the problems. However, the main characteristic this work is able to show is that ideas and concepts developed by Jacques Derrida are more than useful when they are applied upon the issues existing in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s political and legal reality.
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Berlin process: Analysis of the Key Processes in B&H before the London Conference 2018
Since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement on December 14th in Paris 1995, the political but also general social scene of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been overwhelmed with the issues of reforms and changes in regard to the Constitutional settlement agreed in Dayton. The Bosnian-Herzegovinian everyday reality that the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina face with on a daily basis stands as an unquestionable witness to the necessity of the Constitution changes, which was adopted as an integral part of a Peace Agreement which only or most important goal was to "end the war". After the cessation of armed conflict, the large number of B&H administration, overlapping of competencies, inconsistency of internal structure (one part (entity) functions on the “republican model” while the other on the “federal”), and above all the reality of everyday life, as well as the challenges encountered by the citizens of B&H imposed as a necessity changes of the Constitution and the internal organization of the state. Therefore, the basic features of the post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina political system could be understood as the weak, often hardly manageable - but also characterized with permanent presence of the crisis in the functioning of the same, especially in terms of the functioning of state institutions, which resulted in poor progress on the path of EU integration, reforms, but also the path of Bosnia and Herzegovina to NATO integrations. Current territorial-political organization of Bosnia and Herzegovina is primarily a consequence of war and conflict, but also the outcome of the strong pressure from the international community (primarily the US administration) to end it. Considering the conditions and circumstances in which it was created, the unjust, often discriminating and above all the illogical setting of the constitutional and legal order of the same was inadequate. The lack of tolerance, non-acceptance of the others and the diverse, tensions, nationalism and “great-state” projects of B&H’s neighbors, in addition to the widespread hatred that was present in the 1990s that did not disappear overnight, subsided before the greater and stronger force in a given time. Moreover, it could be said that they were frozen in the Dayton Peace Agreement whose melting-down can always begin.