Unity in diversity is a noble cause, but that does not reflect the realities of the ethnically divided societies in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before the signing of the Dayton Agreement in 1995, the country had fallen victim to the Yugoslav Wars, which were caused by the separation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into constituent republics that declared themselves sovereign states, inciting ethnonationalist tensions between them. Thus, the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the Dayton Agreement, was ratified to bring the conflict to an end. As Juwana outlines, international law can be utilized as a political instrument through several mechanisms: as a concept changer/maker, as a means of domestic affairs intervention, and, lastly, as a tool to exert pressure. This essay argues that the Dayton Agreement is a strong representative case of the deployment of international law in all three aforementioned mechanisms. While it succeeded in ending the conflict, it also exemplifies how international law is shaped by dominant powers to sustain existing dynamics.
One of the most significant contributions made by the Dayton Agreement is a reconceptualized understanding of sovereignty and autonomy. In addition to establishing the legal continuity of the newly sovereign state, the Agreement formally recognizes two entities, namely, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. While retaining the traditional understanding of the concept of sovereignty, the Agreement introduces a more contemporary application in the post–Cold War context. Sovereignty is typically understood as being held by a single, overarching governing body, but through this agreement, it is instead shared via a tripartite presidency within two autonomous entities and three main ethnic groups: the Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. Having the head of state represent each of the ethnicities helps prevent ethnic domination and future conflict. Given the role of ethnic divisions in the Bosnian War, incorporating them into the constitution provides a solid foundation for newly established legal norms. However, neither the Bosniaks, the Croats, nor the Serbs reached their objectives of more representation within the central government, and instead, the creation of two separate entities further entrenched these social gaps into the constitution and raised concerns about the effectiveness of a shared sovereignty model, as noted by Szasz.
Moreover, the current constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (originally called Annex 4) was drafted entirely by the foreign actors involved in the peacebuilding process of the Dayton Agreement, namely the US, NATO, and the UN. As a result, the constitution was not established through internal democratic processes that involved the citizens of Bosnia or a representative constitutional assembly. Echoing Yee’s analysis, it can be argued that this rendered it illegitimate, and it exemplifies the use of international law as a means of domestic interference, given the lack of approval from the citizens in question and others affected by the change in the constitution. The international administration of Bosnia also instilled a governing body called the Office of the High Representative (OHR), or Annex 10, which oversees and enforces the constitutional reform and implementation of legal and political commitments over displaced persons and refugees. It was granted the Bonn Powers by the Peace Implementation Council in 1995, which allowed it to impose laws and constitutional changes as well as dismiss political officials who do not abide by the Dayton Agreement, further strengthening its position in governing the internal affairs of the state (Banning; Caplan). This presents serious implications for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s ability to govern its state without the intervention of other actors. With such limited local agency, at what point is the intervention truly justified?
Annex 1-A of the Dayton Agreement explicitly authorizes the establishment of a multinational military Implementation Force under NATO that has full rights to perform peacekeeping operations. The conditional nature of these terms serves to pressure the state into compliance with the framework. It’s important to note that the Bosnian War featured a death toll of 100,000 and over 2,000,000 displaced persons, making it the deadliest of the Yugoslav Wars. There were fears that a prolonged war and regional instability would have triggered spillover effects into other fragile post-Soviet or European countries. This is where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) comes in; as a response to the emerging threat, safeguarding and guiding Bosnia toward a ceasefire became their utmost priority. Backed by NATO, the US also played an important role in initiating the peacebuilding processes, led by Richard Holbrooke, whilst offering the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, as the signing location. This directly contributed to Dayton talks and marked a significant turning point in NATO’s role as an active enforcer of peace. Above all, the overruling of Bosnian sovereignty by the US’s strategic and military dominance is a clear indicator that it was not carried out in good faith.
In providing peace and stability for those harmed by the Bosnian War, perhaps the Dayton Agreement was a source of solace through the establishment of a new government system that ended the ethnonationalist tensions. When analyzing the effectiveness of the framework, it’s important to understand the root cause and purpose of its existence. It’s undeniable that the Agreement put an end to the bloody conflict in Bosnia, but the final reflection is whose interests it ultimately served. The initial successes in ending the war are ultimately overshadowed by the nature of the compliance itself, which has been a contested debate since its creation. Time and time again, international law has revealed itself to be anything but neutral. As many of these dominant powers’ interests are pursued through the administrations detailed in the Dayton Agreement, to what extent can international surveillance be imposed before it infringes on a nation’s sovereignty, and does Bosnia-Herzegovina continue to exercise genuine authority under such conditions? The rationale behind the Dayton Agreement provides important insight into how international legal frameworks function within existing global power hierarchies.
