General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina

  • 93%
  • Implementation Score 
    after 10 years
Provisions in this Accord
Cease Fire

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 1-A

Article II: Cessation of Hostilities

Implementation History
1995

Intermediate Implementation

According to the UN Secretary General’s report,1 as soon as the cease fire agreement entered into force, the security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina improved significantly. The compliance of provisions under the cease-fire agreement was much better and neither side was found engaging in offensive activities. The report further suggested that all parties were participating in joint military commissions. The complete cessation of hostilities was observed after October 1995.

  • 1. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 981 (1995), 982 (1995) and 983 (1995),” United Nations Security Council (S/1995/987), November 23, 1995.
1996

Full Implementation

Notwithstanding the NATO enforced peace agreement, sporadic hostilities were reported between the three hostile factions in Bosnia on 6 January 1996. Skirmishes were reported in a the Serb suburb of Sarajevo. A Croatian policeman was shot to death in the Muslim side of Mostar town.2This violence occurred in conjunction with the handover of Serb-held suburbs to the Federation. The hostilities continued even when the warring sides met in Bosnia to discuss demobilization of their respective armed forces.3

Amidst upcoming elections, tit for tat violence took place in central Bosnia. Two mosques were damaged, one Catholic church firebombed, several vehicles destroyed, and a clutch of Muslim houses mined. These incidents were said to have involved Bosnia’s Muslims and Croats, who feared that upcoming elections would lead to rule by the “other lot."4 These hostilities, however, did not lead to a major outbreak of violence.

  • 2. “Gunfire rings out again over the weekend in Bosnia,” USA Today, January 8,1996.
  • 3. “Former warring sides in Bosnia meet to discuss demobilization,” Deutsche Presse-Agentur, April 20, 1996.
  • 4. “Bosnia. Unravelling,” The Economist, August 3, 1996, 44.
1997

Full Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

1998

Full Implementation

There were no hostilities of major scale reported, but riots occurred in Drvar by Croats against returning Serb refugees in April 1998.

1999

Full Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2000

Full Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2001

Full Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2002

Full Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported. The United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina was withdrawn in December.

2003

Full Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2004

No hostilities of major scale were reported. Replacing NATO, the European Union took on its biggest military mission on 2 December 2004. It was in charge of 7,000 peacekeeping troops in Bosnia.5

  • 5. “EU takes over from NATO in Bosnia: Canadians remain,” The Gazette (Montreal), December 3, 2004.
2005

Full Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

Powersharing Transitional Government

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK ANNEX 4, ARTICLE IV-V

Article IV: Parliamentary Assembly

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

In 1995, none of these institutions were established.

1996

Full Implementation

Once the post-conflict elections took place on 14 September 1996, the institutional set up of the confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was completed. Institutions were set up at the federal, entities, and canton levels with most responsibilities such as taxation, education, and police force placed on the level of cantons. The cantons (five Bosniak, three Croat, and two mixed cantons) were created as a result of the Washington Agreement.

Pospieszna and Schneider (2011) described the complexity of the federal arrangements, which included multiple levels of powersharing:

"The Washington agreement included all three dimensions of power sharing—it provided for the integration of rebels into the army (military power sharing), included provisions for extensive power-sharing in the new government (political power sharing), and called for the division of the territory that was combated into autonomous cantons, establishing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (territorial power sharing). Under the Dayton Agreement, two power sharing dimensions were included: political—the political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina was agreed upon (with the first elections scheduled for 1996), and territorial—specifications were given regarding the creation of the State of Bosnia Herzegovina as a confederation of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and of the Republika Srpska".1

  • 1. Paulina Pospieszna and Gerald Schneider, "Power Sharing Provisions and Long-Term Success of Mediation in Internal Conflicts," (paper presented at the 2011 APSA Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, September 1-4, 2011).
1997

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1998

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1999

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2000

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Executive Branch Reform

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 4

Article V: Presidency

The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall consist of three Members: one Bosniak and one Croat, each directly elected from the territory of the Federation, and one Serb directly elected from the territory of the Republika Srpska.

1. Election and Term.

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

There was no information available on executive branch reform.

1996

Full Implementation

A 3-member collective presidency emerged on 18 September 1996 from the 14 September 1996 elections. Bosniak (Bosnian Moslem) President Alija Izetbegovic was declared winner together with Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik and Bosnian Croat member Kresimir Zubak.1

President Alija Izetbegovic was the winner only in the sense that he received the most votes in total, and therefore earned the right to be the first chair of the tripartite presidency – there were, in effect, separate elections for each of the three presidents, meaning that there were three winners (of three elections) rather than one. The first meeting of the three member presidency met on 30 September 1996 in Sarajevo.2

Though they were in disagreement on the appointment of key positions, including Cabinet Ministers, these problems were resolved. This 3-member collective presidency was elected for a two year term, as outlined in the Dayton Accord.

As required by the Dayton Accord, executive branch reform took place with the establishment of a set of new institutions following the September 14, 1996 elections.

  • 1. “Bosnia's three-man presidency to meet next week,” Agence France Presse,  September 22, 1996.
  • 2. “Bosnia's Newly Elected Presidency Meets,” Associated Press, September 30, 1996.
1997

Full Implementation

No developments observed this year.

1998

Full Implementation

Presidential elections for four year terms took place on September 12, 1998, according to provisions in the Dayton Accord.

1999

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2000

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Legislative Branch Reform

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX-4

Article IV: Parliamentary Assembly

The Parliamentary Assembly shall have two chambers: the House of Peoples and the House of Representatives. House of Peoples.

1. The House of Peoples shall comprise 15 Delegates, two-thirds from the Federation (including five Croats and five Bosniaks) and one-third from the Republika Srpska (five Serbs).

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

The accord created a House of Peoples and House of Representatives. No information was available on the parliamentary assembly in December of 1995.

1996

Full Implementation

National elections took place on 14 September 1996, in which Bosnia's ethno-national parties dominated the election results. According to a news report, “the Muslim-led Party of Democratic Action took 19 of the 42 seats in the House of Representatives, which is intended to unite all three ethnic factions in a common legislative body. The hard-line Serb Democratic Party took 9 seats and the Croatian Democratic Union won 7. The balance went to smaller parties that had been in the opposition during the war.”1

  • 1. “Bosnia's Nationalist Parties Dominate Election Results,” The New York Times, September 22, 1996.
1997

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1998

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1999

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2000

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Constitutional Reform

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT FOR PEACE IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Article V

The Parties welcome and endorse the arrangements that have been made concerning the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as set forth in Annex 4. The Parties shall fully respect and promote fulfillment of the commitments made therein.

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 4

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

No constitutional changes took place.

1996

Intermediate Implementation

The Office of the High Representative (OHR) stated in its report to the U.N. Secretary General that the process of adopting the constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska to the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina had now almost been completed. According to the report, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe studied the constitutional amendments made by the entities and recommended further steps that were necessary.1

According to the OHR, “Amendments II to XXIV to the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were passed by the Constitutional Assembly of the Federation of BiH (sic), at its 14th session held on 5 June 1996. They were published in Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 13/1997”.2This satisfied the constitutional change requirement of the Dayton Accord.

  • 1. “3rd Report of the High Representative for Implementation of the Bosnian Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Office of the High Representative (OHR), 1996, accessed May 4, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/hr-reports/default.asp?content_id=3666.
  • 2. “Constitution,” Office of the High Representative (OHR), accessed May 4, 2011.
1997

Full Implementation

According to the OHR, “amendments XXV and XXVI to the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were passed according to the procedure in Chapter VIII, finalized on 8 May 1997. They were also published in Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 13/1997”.3

1998

Full Implementation

No developments observed this year.

1999

Full Implementation

No developments observed this year.

2000

Full Implementation

No developments observed this year.

2001

Full Implementation

No developments observed this year.

2002

Full Implementation

The constitution was further amended in 2002 and 2003 as per the High Representative’s decisions. The Amendment required each constituent people to be treated equally in each entity.4

2003

Full Implementation

The constitution was further amended in 2003 as per the High Representative’s decisions.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Boundary Demarcation

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 2

Agreement on Inter-Entity Boundary Line and Related Issues (With Appendix)

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (the "Parties") have agreed as follows:

Article I: Inter-Entity Boundary Line

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

On the issue of Brcko area, the parties failed to reach an agreement on arbitrators within the required time of 30-days.1

1996

Full Implementation

According to a report from the High Representative, a sub-commission of the Joint Military Commission was addressing the inter-ethnic boundary issue. They had held nine meetings thus far.2

The situation improved by the time of the third report of the Office of the High Representative (OHR). The report stated that “the substantial progress achieved earlier in adjusting the Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL), on 17 July the parties signed a formal agreement resolving most of the practical issues that had been outstanding at the time of the signing of the Peace Agreement. Discussions continue under IFOR auspices on the last remaining sections of the IEBL and in particular on the sensitive Sarajevo district of Dobrinja."3

To complete the agreement on the territory of Brcko, on 15 July 1996 the President of the International Court of Justice appointed Roberts B. Owen as third arbitrator and presiding officer of the Tribunal. After his appointment, Mr. Owen called for a preliminary conference that would be held in Sarajevo on 7 August 1996.4

1997

Full Implementation

The tribunal’s hearing on Brcko continued in 1997. Inter-ethnic boundary demarcation was largely completed in 1996.

1998

Full Implementation

No information was available on the Brcko tribunal.

1999

Full Implementation

On 5 March 1999, the Brcko arbitration tribunal delivered its verdict and decided to create the Brcko district of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be held in condominium by both entities. The UN Secretary General lauded the decision.5 The United States called the decision the “right one” and asked both parties not to obstruct implementation. If one of them should obstruct the implementation of the award, the arbitration panel said that it could award Brcko to the other.6

  • 5. “U.N. Chief Lauds Decision to Set Up Brcko District in Bosnia,” Xinhua News Agency, March 5, 1999.
  • 6. “US calls Bosnia decision on Serb-held area 'right one',” Agence France Presse, March 5, 1999.
2000

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Electoral/Political Party Reform

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 3

Agreement on Elections

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

No information was available.

1996

Minimum Implementation

According to the Dayton Accord, on 30 January 1996, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) set up the Provisional Election Commission.1 According to the Peace Agreement, elections should be held between 14 June and 14 September. The OSCE monitored the elections.

Elections took place on 14 September 1996, which set up most of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The new parliament was expected to work on election law, which did not happen in 1996. Also, the establishment of the permanent election commission was yet to take place.

1997

Minimum Implementation

No election law was passed. The permanent election commission had not yet been established. The municipal elections took place in 1997.

1998

Minimum Implementation

No election law was passed. The permanent election commission had not yet been established.

1999

Minimum Implementation

The Office of the High Representative (OHR) was very much involved in drafting electoral law. It was reported that the draft law was supported by the Serbian government but the major Muslim party called it legalizing cleansing.2 No election law was adopted in 1999.

  • 2. “Government supports Bosnia's draft election law 'in principle,' Bosnia's main Muslim party says draft election law legalizes ethnic cleansing,” BBC Monitoring Europe, December 16, 1999.
2000

Minimum Implementation

No election law was passed in 2000, but the political party financing law was adopted in July 2000.3 Parties again failed to establish the permanent election commission.

However, the OSCE altered the electoral rules in the Federation of BiH a month before the 2000 elections, resulting in the revolt of the Croat political parties and proclamation of Croat interim autonomy until the changes were revised.4

  • 3. Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina, accessed May 4, 2011, http://www.izbori.ba/documents/ENG/Law/Law_on_Political_Party_Financing.pdf.
  • 4. Roland Kostic, “Ambivalent Peace: External Nation-building, Threatened Identity and Reconciliation in Bosnia-Herzegovina,” (PhD diss., Uppsala University, 2007), p. 85; Roland Kostic, “Reconciling the Past and the Present: Evaluating Dayton Peace Accords 1995,” Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University and the Mediation Support Unit, United Nations Department of Political Affairs (2009): 30-40.
2001

Full Implementation

The Parliamentary Assembly of BiH, in the session of the House of Representatives on 21 August 2001 and in the session of the House of People on 23 August 2001, adopted election law.5 The election commission was established by this law. Once the election commission was established, the Provisional Election Commission (PEC) ceased to exist. Election law was adopted and the election commission was established in 2001.

  • 5. “Bosnia: Speaker of upper house says adoption of Election Law very important,” BBC Monitoring Europe, August 23, 2001.
2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Territorial Powersharing

GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

Article X

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina recognize each other as sovereign independent States within their international borders. Further aspects of their mutual recognition will be subject to subsequent discussions.

Implementation History
1995

Intermediate Implementation

In 1995, most of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina were not set up. Nevertheless, the Federation and the Republika Srpska were recognized as separate entities and enjoyed powers and responsibilities as a federal entity. Yet, the difference is that while RS is a very centralized entity in the Federation BiH, most responsibilities such as taxation, education, police force, etc. have been placed on the level of cantons comprising the federation. Cantons, five Bosniak, three Croat, and two mixed cantons were created as a result of the Washington Agreement in January 1994. The Washington agreement was baked in and is thus essential part of the Dayton Peace Agreement.

1996

Intermediate Implementation

Once the post-conflict elections took place on 14 September 1996, it can be said that the institutional set up of confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was completed. Institutions were set up at the federal, entities, and canton levels. 

1997

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

1998

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

1999

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

2000

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Intermediate Implementation

No further developments observed.

Decentralization/Federalism

GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 4

Article III: Responsibilities of and Relations Between the Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Entities

1. Responsibilities of the Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The following matters are the responsibility of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina:

a. Foreign policy.

b. Foreign trade policy.

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

In 1995, no institutions were established.

1996

Full Implementation

Once the post-conflict elections took place on 14 September 1996, the institutional set up of the confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was completed. Institutions were set up at the federal, entities, and canton levels with most responsibilities, such as taxation, education, and police force, assigned to the canton level. The cantons (five Bosniak, three Croat, and two mixed) were created as a result of the Washington Agreement.

Pospieszna and Schneider (2011) describe the complexity of the federal arrangements which included multiple levels of powersharing:

"The Washington agreement included all three dimensions of power sharing—it provided for the integration of rebels into the army (military power sharing), included provisions for extensive power-sharing in the new government (political power sharing), and called for the division of the territory that was combated into autonomous cantons, establishing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (territorial power sharing). Under the Dayton Agreement, two power sharing dimensions were included: political—the political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina was agreed upon (with the first elections scheduled for 1996), and territorial—specifications were given regarding the creation of the State of Bosnia Herzegovina as a confederation of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and of the Republika Srpska".1

  • 1. Paulina Pospieszna and Gerald Schneider, "Power Sharing Provisions and Long-Term Success of Mediation in Internal Conflicts," (paper prepared for presentation at the 2011 APSA Annual Meeting Seattle, WA. September 1-4, 2011).
1997

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1998

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1999

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2000

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Dispute Resolution Committee

GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 1-A

Article VIII: Establishment of a Joint Military Commission

1. A Joint Military Commission (the "Commission") shall be established with the deployment of the IFOR to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2.The Commission shall:

Implementation History
1995

Full Implementation

The Accord had provisions for two sets of dispute resolution commissions: the establishment of the Joint Military Commission (under Annex 1-A) and the establishment of a Civilian Implementation Commission (under Annex 10). On 8 December 1995, Carl Bildt was appointed as the “High Representative” in charge of coordinating civilian implementation of the peace agreement in Bosnia. He was appointed unanimously by representatives of more than 40 nations at a two day peace implementation conference in London.1

Both of these bodies were established quickly and worked to resolve disputes within the implementation setting and the military aspects of implementation.

According to one report:

“On 15 December 1995, the Commander, Implementation Forces (COMIFOR), issued a Statement of Procedures that defined the Joint Military Commission (JMC) process and further defined the implied military tasks. The Statement of Procedures established the JMC as the central body for commanders of military factions to coordinate and resolve problems."2

As such, the Joint Military Commission was established immediately as the central body for commanders of military factions to coordinate and resolve problems. The first meeting of the JMC took place in Sarajevo on 21 December.3

These dispute resolution mechanisms worked to resolve disputes within the civilian aspect as well as the military aspect of the peace implementation.

1996

Full Implementation

The responsibility of the Implementation Force (IFOR) was transferred to the Stabilization Force (SFOR) by Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996 and the JMC continued as a mechanism to resolve disputes related to military aspects of the implementation of the Dayton Accord.

1997

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1998

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1999

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2000

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

The Civilian Implementation Commission, as of 2005, was still operational.

Prisoner Release

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 1-A

Article IX: Prisoner Exchanges

1. The Parties shall release and transfer without delay all combatants and civilians held in relation to the conflict (hereinafter "prisoners"), in conformity with international humanitarian law and the provisions of this Article.

Implementation History
1995

Intermediate Implementation

As required by the Dayton Accord, 245 Serb and Muslim prisoners of war were exchanged on a bridge in northern Bosnia on 25 December 1995. Other prisoners of war remained in both Entities. Under the agreement, the deadline of 19 January 1996 was set for the release of prisoners.

1996

Full Implementation

As the deadline of 19 January for the release of prisoners approached, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had been optimistic regarding the release of 900 prisoners of war in Bosnia, but this did not happen. Only 225 prisoners were released as of the 19 January deadline.1 Part of the delay was related to the government’s insistence on the whereabouts of 24,742 people whose names were handed to Serbs. The Bosnian government official in charge of POW exchange said that 4,000 on the list of those missing were expected to be prisoners.2 On 16 January 1996, the Bosnian government called off the release of prisoners by charging that Bosnian Serbs had failed to provide information of about 24,000 people.

On 23 January 1996, the U.S. threatened to cut off aid if the prisoners were not released.3 Following the US threat, Bosnia agreed to free its political prisoners. 

On 28 January 1996, 250 Bosnian Serb prisoners were released by Croatian and Bosnian government forces.4

Even though the process of releasing prisoners moved forward, the Serb, Croats, and Bosniaks/Muslims did not completely comply. Therefore, on 5 April 1996, the U.N. Security Council demanded that all parties release the remaining prisoners. It was believed that there were still 88-90 prisoners held by Bosnian Serb, Muslim, and Croat forces.5

The High Representative reported to the U.N. Secretary General that “Intensive pressure, including the possible sanction of non-complying Parties, resulted in the release of most prisoners registered by the ICRC who were detained in relation to the conflict."6 However, there was an issue related to some prisoners detained in 1995 who were not registered by the ICRC, but those cases were referred to the Hague for review. Most prisoners were released in 1996, though none of the parties met the deadline.

  • 1. “Prisoner Swap Begins in Bosnia,” Toronto Star, January 20, 1996.
  • 2. “Planned Prisoner Exchange in Bosnia Falls Through,” Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), January 16, 1996.
  • 3. “Threatens Bosnia With Aid Cutoff If Prisoners Are Not Exchanged,” January 23, 1996.
  • 4. “BOSNIA: Trade of prisoners resumes; Rival factions bow to world pressure,” Ottawa Citizen, January 28, 1996.
  • 5. “Security Council Demands Prisoner Release in Bosnia,” Associated Press, April 5, 1996.
  • 6. “2nd Report of the High Representative for Implementation of the Bosnian Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” OHR, 1996, accessed May 3, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/hr-reports/default.asp?content_id=3664#3.8.
1997

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1998

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1999

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2000

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Paramilitary Groups

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX I-B

Agreement on Regional Stabilization

Article II: Confidence- and Security-Building Measures in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Article II: Confidence- and Security-Building Measures in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Implementation History
1995

Intermediate Implementation

Armed civilian groups or militias were a characteristic feature of the civil war; these groups generally disbanded after the ceasefire. According to a UN Secretary General’s report,1 as soon as the cease fire agreement entered into force, the security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina improved significantly. Compliance with provisions under the cease-fire agreement was much better and neither side was found engaging in offensive activities. The report further suggested that all parties were participating in joint military commissions. The cessation of organized violence was not observed after October 1995, although sporadic communal violence did continue.

  • 1. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 981 (1995), 982 (1995) and 983 (1995),” U.N. Security Council (S/1995/987), November 23,  1995.
1996

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

1997

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

1998

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

1999

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2000

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2001

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2002

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2003

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2004

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

2005

Intermediate Implementation

No hostilities of major scale were reported.

Human Rights

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 6 AGREEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (the "Parties") have agreed as follows:

Chapter One: Respect for Human Rights: Article I: Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

Implementation History
1995

Intermediate Implementation

The Accord called for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission and the monitoring of human rights conditions by the United Nations (UN). The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and other agencies immediately went into action.

The Dayton Accord specifically required the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, which consisted of two parts: the Office of the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Chamber. These two entities were created on 10 December 1995.1

According to the provisions in the Accord, the Ombudsman would issue a report following any investigations related to human rights issues and would facilitate a settlement or refer the case to the Human Rights Chamber. The Chamber was a 14-member court of Bosnian, Croat, and Serb membership, but eight of its jurists came from outside of Bosnia and were appointed by the Council of Europe.

  • 1. “Ombudsman and Human Rights Chamber Appointed in Bosnia,” NPR, December 10, 1995.
1996

Intermediate Implementation

The Chamber’s hearings on human rights violations started in March 1996.

1997

Intermediate Implementation

Allegation cases were registered with the Chamber.

1998

Intermediate Implementation

Allegation cases were registered with the Chamber.

1999

Intermediate Implementation

Allegation cases were registered with the Chamber.

2000

Intermediate Implementation

Allegation cases were registered with the Chamber.

2001

Intermediate Implementation

Allegation cases were registered with the Chamber.

2002

Intermediate Implementation

Allegation cases were registered with the Chamber.

2003

Intermediate Implementation

From 1996 to December of 2003, there were 15,191 allegation cases registered with the Chamber; 6,242 of these cases were resolved. The Human Rights Chamber’s mandate expired on December 31, 2003.2

2004

Intermediate Implementation

The Chamber's mandate expired.

2005

Intermediate Implementation

The Chamber's mandate expired.

Amnesty

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 7

Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons

Article VI: Amnesty

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

No information was found for 1995.

1996

Intermediate Implementation

The High Representative for the implementation of the civilian aspect of the peace accords informed the UN Secretary General in his first report that he had encouraged “both the Federation BiH (sic) and Republika Srpska (sic) to adopt amnesty laws covering all crimes except war crimes as defined by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia or crimes unrelated to the conflict.” According to the High Representative, the law would “help both reconciliation and freedom of movement."1

On 12 February 1996 members of the parliament (Federation level) passed the new law following a two hour debate. Under the law "all individuals who committed criminal acts (related to the conflict) except those who committed acts of violation of international humanitarian law as defined by the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia will be subject to amnesty."2 As of 23 March, according to the Office of the High Representative (OHR), the Republika Srpska was yet to adopt the amnesty law.3

In his December 10th report, OHR High Representative informed the UN Secretary General that the amnesty law in the Republika Srpska was passed, but there was a fundamental flaw, as it excluded persons who deserted or avoided military conscription, which he suggested “must be corrected."4

1997

Intermediate Implementation

The OHR High Representative informed the UN Secretary General that the Republika Srpska was yet to amend its amnesty law to extend coverage to persons who deserted or avoided military conscription. According to the report, such delays would “pose a substantial obstacle to return of refugees and displaced people and contribute to ethnic division (sic)."5

1998

Intermediate Implementation

It was reported that the establishment of Entity Mine Action Centers as bodies within the Entity governments resulted in the Mines, Ordnance and Other Warlike Materials Amnesty, which supported an amnesty specifically aimed to those who voluntarily gave up their weapons. In one report, the OHR High Representative urged the Bosnia and Herzegovina Authorities “to enact legislation so that such an amnesty can be implemented by the Entities in conjunction with SFOR and the UN IPTF.”6

In his report, the OHR High Representative mentioned that the Republika Srpska avoided introducing politically sensitive legislation, such as amnesty legislation, to the National Assembly before election.7

1999

Full Implementation

The OHR High Representative reported to the UN Secretary General that “On 24 December 1998, the Republika Srpska National Assembly passed a Law on Amnesty which amends the previous Law on Amnesty's exclusion of deserters and draft dodgers from legal protection. It also extends the amnesty period to the point at which the conflict ended de facto, and makes the amnesty explicitly retroactive. This is an improvement on the previous legal regime and a major step by Republika Srpska towards fulfilling its obligations under Annex 7, Article 6. My Office is still working with the Republika Srpska Ministry of Justice to draft an amendment which would clear up some minor outstanding issues.”8 In the subsequent report to the UN Secretary General, the High Representative stated that President Poplasen refused to sign the law; therefore, the law did not come into force.9

The RS national assembly readopted the amnesty law on 23 July, overriding the earlier veto by the President.10 As of 1999, the amnesty law was adopted and implemented in both Entities.

2000

Full Implementation

There were no further reports; the Amnesty provision in the accord was fully implemented in 1999.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Refugees

ANNEX 7: AGREEMENT ON REFUGEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Republika Srpska (the "Parties") have agreed as follows:

Chapter One: Protection: Article I: Rights of Refugees and Displaced Persons

Implementation History
1995

Intermediate Implementation

In his report on 13 December 1995 to the Security Council, the U.N. Secretary General stated that there were 1.2 million displaced persons inside Bosnia and Herzegovina and 900,000 outside the country. He stated that accurate planning was difficult because of the future security situation as well as uncertainties related to the wishes of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees. IDPs and refugees had the option to return to their homes or settle elsewhere.1 However, the institutional mechanisms to implement the provisions of the accord were not in place and international organizations, like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other agencies, were working on the issue.

Refugees started to return voluntarily. According to a UNHCR report, 815 refugees had returned.2 It was not clear whether the Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees was set up in 1995 as mandated by the peace accord.

  • 1. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1026 (1995),” U.N. Security Council (S/1995/1031), December 13, 1995.
  • 2. “2002 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook - Bosnia and Herzegovina,” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 2002, accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.unhcr.org/414ad5707.html.
1996

Intermediate Implementation

The U.N. Secretary General informed the Security Council that the UNHCR had developed an operational plan to support the return of more than 2 million refugees and displaced persons. The UNHCR plan was presented to the Humanitarian Issues Working Group of the Peace Implementation Council on 16 January and strongly endorsed at a subsequent high-level working meeting in Oslo on 8 March 1996. The estimated figures of returnees in 1996 were 500,000 IDPs and 370,000 refugees. The report further suggested that more than 50,000 refugees and displaced persons returned home in spontaneous and organized movements assisted by the UNHCR, but that those who returned were mostly refused “on grounds of lack of security guarantees or clear instructions from the leadership concerned” (United Nations, 1996). According to the report, “an independent Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees was established on 20 March 1996 with its main base in Sarajevo. Its function is to receive and decide any claims for real property in Bosnia and Herzegovina where the property has not voluntarily been sold or otherwise transferred since 1 April 1992, and where the claimant does not enjoy possession of the property. The Commission consists of four members appointed by the Federation, two members appointed by the Republika Srpska and three members appointed by the European Court of Justice. Given the close link between repatriation and property, UNHCR will be associated with the work of the Commission."3 It was said that the successful return of refugees and IDPs would depend on sustained security provided by the parties, massive physical and economic reconstruction, and mine clearing efforts in those areas where IDPs and refugees would return.

By the end of 1996, the U.N. Secretary General reported that “some 250,000 refugees and displaced persons have returned to their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (U.N., 1996). Most of the returnees returned to their homes where their community was in majority. The report further suggested, “Of an estimated 84,000 houses requiring repair, work has been completed on 24,000 so far. Other key community infrastructure activities, such as the repair of 100 schools, 50 clinics and hospitals, 60 water systems and 50 power systems, have been undertaken. It is estimated that up to 100,000 people, mainly displaced persons, will benefit from these activities."4

The amnesty law was passed in both entities in 1996, but there was a fundamental flaw as it excluded persons who deserted or avoided military conscription. The Office of the High Representative (OHR) suggested that this “must be corrected.”5

  • 3. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Resolution 1035 (1995),” U.N. Security Council (S/1996/210), March 29, 1996.
  • 4. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Resolution 1035 (1995),” U.N. Security Council (S/1996/1017), December 9, 1996.
  • 5. “4th Report of the High Representative for Implementation of the Bosnian Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Office of the High Representative (OHR), 1996, accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/hr-reports/default.asp?content_id=3667.
1997

Intermediate Implementation

The Secretary General reported to the U.N. Security Council that some 90,000 refugees and IDPs returned to their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Half of them were from asylum countries. The UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as UNHCR provided repatriation related assistance and supported the local authorities in both entities in their efforts to provide assistance to displaced persons in collective centers.6

  • 6. “Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” U.N. Security Council (S/1997/694), September 8, 1997.
1998

Intermediate Implementation

From January to September 1998, some 90,000 refugees and IDPs returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Among those, 50,000 returned under the German Government’s return program. Of the total number of those who returned, 2,440 persons returned to the Republika Srpska. Some 9,340 returned to their pre-war homes. A total of 6,063 refugees and IDPs returned to minority areas. The UNHCR continued to promote minority returns with the declarations of new “Open Cities”. Minority returns was a particularly important issue, since they get to the heart of whether multi-ethnicity could be regenerated in Bosnia, or whether the country would remain de facto partitioned among its three constituent peoples. The UNHCR, together with the Office of the High Representative, provided assistance to those returned. Both entities also monitored the implementation of the new property legislation passed by the Federation in April 1998.7

According to a UNHCR yearbook report, some 129,073 refugees and 29,570 IDPs returned by the end of 1998.8 The Republika Srpska did not meet the deadline to adopt the property law consistent with the Peace Agreement. The deadline of 31 August was set at Luxembourg.9

On 24 December 1998, the Republika Srpska National Assembly passed a Law on Amnesty, which amended the previous Law on Amnesty's exclusion of deserters and draft dodgers from legal protection. The president refused to sign the law. The amnesty laws were readopted by the RS national assembly on 23 July, overriding the earlier veto by the president.10

1999

Intermediate Implementation

According to the U.N. Secretary General’s report, “in the first ten months of 1999, the UNHCR registered the return of 43,830 refugees and 32,695 internally displaced persons. Of these, 18,604 individuals were members of ethnic minorities returning to the Federation, while 9,522 individuals (sic) members of ethnic minorities were recorded returning to the Republika Srpska."11 Part of the reason was related to the political and administrative obstruction at the local level to implementing the property law. As a step forward, however, the RS assembly “passed amended legislation in December that will allow former residents to reclaim socially-owned 'abandoned' property.”12

  • 11. “Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” U.N. Security Council (S/1999/1260), December 17, 1999.
  • 12. “12th Report of the High Representative for Implementation of the Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” OHR, 1999, accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/hr-reports/default.asp?content_id=3675.
2000

Intermediate Implementation

The repatriation of refugees and return of IDPs remained unsatisfactory. According to the UNHCR, some 18,715 refugees and 59,347 IDPs resettled in 2000.13

  • 13. “2002 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook- Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
2001

Intermediate Implementation

The Secretary General reported to the UN Security Council the results of the re-registration of IDPs. This exercise was carried out in support of the UNHCR through both entities. According to the report, 518,252 persons applied for the IDP status (231,732 applied in Republika Srpska, 263,375 in the Federation, and 23,145 in the Brcko District) at the end of 2000. Approximately 845,000 were registered as IDPs in 1996.14 The report also suggested that 25 percent of the 254,333 individual property claims had been resolved and 50 percent had been decided upon, which represented an important benchmark in the implementation of the property legislation.

According to the UNHCR report, some 18,665 refugees and 80,172 IDPs returned in 2001,15 92,061 of whom returned to their pre-war homes.

  • 14. “Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” U.N. Security Council (S/2001/571), June 7, 2001.
  • 15. “2002 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook- Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
2002

Intermediate Implementation

According to the OHR report of 13 October 2003, “the number of refugees returning continues to be strong, exceeding 102,000 in 2002. According to UNHCR statistics, the total of registered returns to and within BiH has risen to nearly 1 million people, including some 390,000 so-called minority returns.”16 With respect to property implementation law, approximately 40,000 claims remain unresolved in both entities according to the OHR report. The UNHCR report stated that some 41,705 refugees and 70,775 IDPs returned in 2002.17

2003

Full Implementation

According to an OHR report from 2003, “by the end of last year the total number of registered returns to and within BiH had risen to nearly 1 million people, including some 430,000 so-called minority returns. Approximately 350,000 refugees and DPs, as estimated by the BiH Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR), still had not returned to their pre-war homes, although many among them still expressed the desire to do so”.18 The UNHCR reported that some 14,012 refugees and 40,303 IDPs returned in 2003.19

2004

Full Implementation

In November 2004, the OHR reported that “the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities successfully assumed responsibility for annex VII implementation” (OHR, 2004). The report suggested that “the property repossession rate rose to 93 percent, the State Law on Refugees and Displaced Persons (amended in September 2003) is gradually being implemented.”20According to a UNHCR report, some 2,447 refugees and 17,948 IDPs returned in 2004.21

2005

Full Implementation

The Annex VII of the framework agreement was implemented in 2004. According to the UNHCR, however, 1,273 refugees and 5,164 IDPs returned in 2005.22

  • 22. “2005 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook - Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
Internally Displaced Persons

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 7 AGREEMENT ON REFUGEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Republika Srpska (the "Parties") have agreed as follows:

Chapter One: Protection

Article I: Rights of Refugees and Displaced Persons

Implementation History
1995

Intermediate Implementation

In his 13 December 1995 report to the Security Council, the U.N. Secretary General stated that there were 1.2 million displaced persons inside Bosnia and Herzegovina and 900,000 refugees outside the country. He acknowledged that the accurate planning of the return of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees was difficult because of the future security situation as well as uncertainties related to their wishes. IDPs and refugees had the option to return to their homes or settle elsewhere.1 The institutional mechanisms to implement the provisions of the accord were not in place. International organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other agencies were working on the issue.

Refugees started to return voluntarily. According to a UNHCR report, 815 refugees had returned.2 It was not clear whether the peace accord mandated that the Commission for Displaced Persons and Refugees be set up in 1995.

  • 1. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1026 (1995),” U.N. Security Council (S/1995/1031), December 13, 1995.
  • 2. “2002 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook - Bosnia and Herzegovina,” UNHCR, 2002, accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.unhcr.org/414ad5707.html.
1996

Intermediate Implementation

The U.N. Secretary General informed the Security Council that the UNHCR had developed an operational plan to support the return of more than 2 million refugees and IDPs. The UNHCR plan was presented to the Humanitarian Issues Working Group of the Peace Implementation Council on 16 January and was strongly endorsed at a subsequent high-level working meeting in Oslo on 8 March 1996. It was estimated that 500,000 IDPs and 370,000 refugees would return in 1996. The report further suggested that more than 50,000 refugees and IDPs returned home in spontaneous and organized movements assisted by the UNHCR. However, those who returned were mostly refused “on grounds of lack of security guarantees or clear instructions from the leadership concerned” (United Nations, 1996). According to the report, “an independent Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees was established on 20 March 1996 with its main base in Sarajevo. Its function is to receive and decide any claims for real property in Bosnia and Herzegovina where the property has not voluntarily been sold or otherwise transferred since 1 April 1992, and where the claimant does not enjoy possession of the property. The Commission consists of four members appointed by the Federation, two members appointed by the Republika Srpska and three members appointed by the European Court of Justice. Given the close link between repatriation and property, UNHCR will be associated with the work of the Commission.”3 It was said that the successful return of refugees and IDPs would depend on sustained security provided by the parties’ massive physical and economic reconstruction, and mine clearing efforts in those areas where IDPs and refugees would return.

By the end of 1996, according to the U.N. Secretary General’s report, “some 250,000 refugees and displaced persons have returned to their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Most of the returnees returned to their homes where their community was in majority. The report further suggests that “Of an estimated 84,000 houses requiring repair, work has been completed on 24,000 so far. Other key community infrastructure activities, such as the repair of 100 schools, 50 clinics and hospitals, 60 water systems and 50 power systems, have been undertaken. It is estimated that up to 100,000 people, mainly displaced persons, will benefit from these activities.”4

An amnesty law was passed in both entities in 1996, but it had a fundamental flaw: it excluded persons who deserted or avoided military conscription.  According to the U.N. Secretary General’s report, correction of this flaw was necessary.5

  • 3. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Resolution 1035 (1995),” U.N. Security Council (S/1996/210), March 29, 1996.
  • 4. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Resolution 1035 (1995),” U.N. Security Council (S/1996/1017), December 9, 1996.
  • 5. “4th Report of the High Representative for Implementation of the Bosnian Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Office of the High Representative (OHR), 1996, accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/hr-reports/default.asp?content_id=3667.
1997

Intermediate Implementation

The Secretary General reported to the U.N. Security Council that some 90,000 refugees and IDPs returned to their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Half of them were from asylum countries. The UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as UNHCR provided repatriation-related assistance. Also, the local authorities in both entities were supported in their efforts to provide assistance to displaced persons in collective centers.6

  • 6. “Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” U.N. Security Council (S/1997/694), September 8, 1997.
1998

Intermediate Implementation

From January to September 1998, some 90,000 refugees and IDPs returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Among those, 50,000 returned under the German Government’s return program. Of the total number of those who returned, 2,440 persons returned to the Republika Srpska. Some 9,340 returned to their pre-war homes. A total of 6,063 refugees and IDPs returned to minority areas. The UNHCR continued to promote minority returns with declarations of new “Open Cities”. The UNHCR, together with the Office of the High Representative (OHR), provided assistance to those who returned. Both entities also monitored the implementation of the new property legislation passed by the Federation in April 1998.7

According to a UNHCR yearbook report, some 129,073 refugees and 29,570 IDPs returned by the end of 1998.8 The Republika Srpska did not meet the deadline of 31 August to adopt property law set by the Peace Agreement at Luxembourg.9

On 24 December 1998, the Republika Srpska National Assembly passed a Law on Amnesty, which amended the previous Law on Amnesty's exclusion of deserters and draft dodgers from legal protection. The president refused to sign the law. The amnesty laws were readopted by the RS national assembly on 23 July, overriding the earlier veto by the president.10

1999

Intermediate Implementation

According to the U.N. Secretary General’s report, “in the first ten months of 1999, the UNHCR registered the return of 43,830 refugees and 32,695 internally displaced persons. Of these, 18,604 individuals were members of ethnic minorities returning to the Federation, while 9,522 individuals (sic) members of ethnic minorities were recorded returning to the Republika Srpska.”11 Part of the reason was related to the political and administrative obstruction at the local level to implementing the property law. As a step forward, however, the RS assembly “passed amended legislation in December that will allow former residents to reclaim socially-owned 'abandoned' property."12

  • 11. “Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” U.N. Security Council (S/1999/1260), December 17, 1999.
  • 12. “12th Report of the High Representative for Implementation of the Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” OHR, 1999, accessed May 2, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/hr-reports/default.asp?content_id=3675.
2000

Intermediate Implementation

The repatriation of refugees and return of IDPs remained unsatisfactory. According to the UNHCR, some 18,715 refugees and 59,347 IDPs resettled in 2000.13

  • 13. “2002 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook- Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
2001

Intermediate Implementation

The Secretary General reported to the UN Security Council the results of the re-registration of IDPs. This exercise was carried out in support of the UNHCR through both entities. According to the report, 518,252 persons applied for the IDP status (231,732 applied in Republika Srpska, 263,375 in the Federation, and 23,145 in the Brcko District) at the end of 2000. Approximately 845,000 were registered as IDPs in 1996.14 The report also suggested that 25 percent of the 254,333 individual property claims had been resolved and 50 percent had been decided upon, which represented an important benchmark in the implementation of the property legislation. According to the UNHCR report, some 18,665 refugees and 80,172 IDPs returned in 2001,15 92,061 of whom returned to their pre-war homes.

  • 14. “Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” U.N. Security Council (S/2001/571), June 7, 2001.
  • 15. “2002 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook- Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
2002

Intermediate Implementation

According to the OHR report of 13 October 2003, “the number of refugees returning continues to be strong, exceeding 102,000 in 2002. According to UNHCR statistics, the total of registered returns to and within BiH has risen to nearly 1 million people, including some 390,000 so-called minority returns."16 With respect to property implementation law, approximately 40,000 claims remain unresolved in both entities according to the OHR report. The UNHCR report stated that some 41,705 refugees and 70,775 IDPs returned in 2002.17

2003

Full Implementation

According to an OHR report from 2003, “by the end of last year the total number of registered returns to and within BiH had risen to nearly 1 million people, including some 430,000 so-called minority returns. Approximately 350,000 refugees and DPs, as estimated by the BiH Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR), still had not returned to their pre-war homes, although many among them still expressed the desire to do so”.18 The UNHCR reported that some 14,012 refugees and 40,303 IDPs returned in 2003.19

2004

Full Implementation

In November 2004, the OHR reported that “the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities successfully assumed responsibility for annex VII implementation." The report suggested that “the property repossession rate rose to 93 percent, the State Law on Refugees and Displaced Persons (amended in September 2003) is gradually being implemented."20 According to a UNHCR report, some 2,447 refugees and 17,948 IDPs returned in 2004.21

2005

Full Implementation

The Annex VII of the framework agreement was successfully implemented in 2004. According to the UNHCR, however, 1,273 refugees and 5,164 IDPs returned in 2005.22

  • 22. “2005 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook - Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
Citizenship Reform

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT

Annex 4 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina

7. Citizenship. There shall be a citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to be regulated by the Parliamentary Assembly, and a citizenship of each Entity, to be regulated by each Entity, provided that:
All citizens of either Entity are thereby citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

No information was available on the implementation of the citizenship provisions in the Dayton Accord.

1996

Minimum Implementation

The Office of the High Representative (OHR) facilitated the proper initiation for the functioning of government institutions. This consisted of establishing the minimal legislative basis for the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to operate, which included citizenship and passport regulations.1 Further information was not available.

1997

Minimum Implementation

In May, the International conference in Sintra, Portugal, established the deadline of Friday, August 1 for Bosnia and Herzegovina to agree on common citizenship, passports, and common ambassadors. Parties failed to reach an agreement by the stipulated deadline. When the deadline was not met, the High Representative extended the deadline until Monday, August 4. If the parties did not meet this deadline, they would face possible international penalties. As Bosnia's ruling Council of Ministers failed to reach an agreement, International High Representative Carlos Westendorp announced on August 4 that he had recommended a series of new penalties.2 To avoid these penalties, the Council of Ministers met on Tuesday to try to agree on common citizenship policies, but failed.3

In a press conference organized by the OHR on 1 October 1997, the High Representative suggested that no progress had been made on issues related to common citizenship and passports.4

The High Representative reported to the UN Secretary General that the Council of Ministers had finalized the draft laws on travel documents and forwarded them to the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Parliament, however, failed to reach a consensus on the draft law on citizenship. Because of this failure, the High Representative took action to bring this law into force as of 1 January 1998.5 The High Representative promulgated the law on citizenship on 18 December. The law was not adopted by the Bosnia-Hercegovina Parliament. As soon as the law was promulgated, a member of the Bosnia-Hercegovina Presidency Momcilo Krajisnik had described the High Representative’s decision as a bad move, dictated by the behavior of the Muslim side.6

  • 2. “Last chance for Bosnia to agree citizenship and passports,” Agence France Presse, August 4, 1997.
  • 3. “Bosnia's leaders try to escape sanctions by agreeing common citizenship,” Agence France Presse, August 5, 1997.
  • 4. “Press Conference by the High Representative, Mr. Carlos Westendorp and the Principal Deputy High Representative, Amb. Jacques Paul Klein following the Meeting of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council,” Office of the High Representative (OHR), accessed April 29, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/pressb/default.asp?content_id=4855.
  • 5. “8th Report of the High Representative for Implementation of the Bosnian Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Office of the High Representative (OHR), 1998, accessed April 29, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/hr-reports/default.asp?content_id=3671.
  • 6. “Leader says citizenship law is dangerous for future of Bosnia,” BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, December 19, 1997.
1998

Full Implementation

It was reported that the Yugoslav government approved a bill on January 29, 1998, “ratifying an accord on citizenship between Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Hercegovina." The ratification of the accord would enable citizens of Bosnia, in particular Serbs and Montenegrins, to request Yugoslav citizenship as well.7 The citizenship agreement was then ratified by the Yugoslavia Parliament on 3 March 1998.8 Bosnian Croats also had dual citizenship rights with Croatia.

In a report to the UN Secretary General dated 14 October 1998, the High Representative said that “a draft Law on Citizenship of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been finalised (sic) and is to be adopted. A similar procedure will be used for drafting the equivalent law for the RS."9

  • 7. “Government approves bill on citizenship accord with Bosnia,” BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, January 31, 1998.
  • 8. “Assembly ratifies dual citizenship law with Bosnia,” BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, March 5, 1998.
  • 9. “11th Report of the High Representative for Implementation of the Peace Agreement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Office of the High Representative (OHR), 1998, accessed April 29, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/hr-reports/default.asp?content_id=3674.
1999

Full Implementation

The citizenship law was adopted in 1998. No further developments were reported.

2000

Full Implementation

The citizenship law was adopted in 1998. No further developments were reported.

2001

Full Implementation

The citizenship law was adopted in 1998. No further developments were reported.

2002

Full Implementation

The citizenship law was adopted in 1998. No further developments were reported.

2003

Full Implementation

The citizenship law was adopted in 1998. No further developments were reported.

2004

Full Implementation

The citizenship law was adopted in 1998. No further developments were reported.

2005

Full Implementation

In cooperation with an OHR expert, the Bosnia and Herzegovina government amended the citizenship bill and forwarded it to the state parliament on adoption by urgent procedure. The revised law set up “a state commission for revision of decisions on naturalization of foreign citizens” (BBC Monitoring Europe, 2005).10

  • 10. “Bosnia government sends amended citizenship law for approval,” BBC Monitoring Europe, October 28, 2005.
Cultural Protections

ANNEX 8 AGREEMENT ON COMMISSION TO PRESERVE NATIONAL MONUMENTS

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (the "Parties") have agreed as follows:

Article I: Establishment of the Commission

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

No developments on the establishment of the commission were reported.

1996

Intermediate Implementation

The Commission to Preserve National Monuments was established and operated by UNESCO from 1996 to 2000. Under the tenure of UNESCO, the Commission created a “provisional list” of thousands of historical sites that came under government protection.1

1997

Intermediate Implementation

No developments observed this year.

1998

Intermediate Implementation

No developments observed this year.

1999

Intermediate Implementation

No developments observed this year.

2000

Intermediate Implementation

No developments observed this year.

2001

Intermediate Implementation

In 2001, the Commission was transferred from UNESCO to the Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Government. On 21 December 2001, legislation was signed by President Jozo Križanović establishing the Commission to Preserve National Monuments. Five Members of the Commission were also appointed on 21 December 2001.2

What follows is the text of the 2001
legislation:

DECISION ON THE COMMISSION TO PRESERVE
NATIONAL MONUMENTS

Article 1.

This Decision sets out the basic principles and aims and regulates the
organizational issues required to perform the tasks of the Commission to
Preserve National Monuments (hereinafter: the Commission), sets out its primary
tasks and authority, stipulates the term for which members of the Commission
are appointed, and defines other issues of importance for the Commission.

Article 2.

The Commission is an institution of Bosnia and Herzegovina established by Annex
8 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Article 3.

The Commission's headquarters are in Sarajevo. The Commission may arrange to
carry out some of its functions elsewhere than at its headquarters.

Article 4.

The Commission shall receive and rule on applications to designate property as
a national monument because of its cultural, historic, religious or ethnic
importance, as provided for by Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement for
Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Article 5.

The Presidency of BiH shall appoint five members of the Commission without open
competition. Members of the Commission shall be appointed for a term of five
years and may be reappointed. Persons who are highly qualified, corroborated by
scholarly work and other activities, including involvement in the preservation
and protection of the cultural, historical, religious and other material
civilizational heritage, shall be eligible for appointment as members of the
Commission. Members of the Commission, and their families, who are not citizens
of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be accorded the privileges and immunities
stipulated by Article III para. 3 of Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement
for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Article 6.

The Commission shall have appropriate facilities and a professional competent
staff, generally representative of the ethnic groups comprising Bosnia and
Herzegovina, to assist it in carrying out its functions. The staff shall be
headed by an executive officer, who shall be appointed by the Commission.

Article 7.

The Commission shall promulgate rules and regulations governing appropriate
cooperation with the relevant organs of BiH and the entities.

Article 8.

The Commission shall be financed from the Budget of the institutions of BiH.
Additional methods of financing shall be provided for by separate internal acts
of the Commission which shall be approved by the Council of Ministers of BiH.
The material and financial affairs of the Commission shall be governed by a
Rulebook which shall be adopted by the Commission subject to the prior approval
of the Council of Ministers of BiH. Provisions governing the salaries and
expenses of the Commission and its staff shall form an integral part of the
said Rulebook.

Article 9.

The Commission's internal organization shall be prescribed by a Rulebook on
internal organization adopted by the Commission subject to the prior approval
of the Presidency of BiH within 60 days of the date of entry into force of this
Decision. The Commission's international cooperation shall be governed by a
separate act moved by the Commission and adopted by the Presidency of BiH.

Article 10.

The procedure for the adoption of the individual acts specified in Article V of
Annex 8 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
with reference to Article 4 of this Decision, shall be prescribed by Rules of
Procedure to be adopted by the Commission.

Article 11.

This Decision enters into force on the date of its adoption and shall be
published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina.3

  • 2. “Decision of BiH Presidency on Commission to Preserve National Monuments.”
  • 3. "PRESIDENCY OF BiH Jozo Križanović MSc. Sarajevo, 21 December 2001," (No.: 1-02-01-484/02 ).
2002

Full Implementation

Operated by the Government of BiH, the Commission worked to actively preserve thousands of historical sites in the country.4

  • 4. “Bosnia and Herzegovina Commission to Preserve National Monuments.”
2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Economic and Social Development

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 9 AGREEMENT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA PUBLIC CORPORATIONS

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

There was no information available on the setting up of the mentioned public corporations.

1996

Minimum Implementation

On 14 March 1996, the High Representative for the implementation of the civilian aspect of the Dayton Accord submitted his first report to the Secretary of the U.N. In the report, he mentioned that all parties had nominated representatives to the Commission on Public Corporations.

In a June Office of the High Representative (OHR) Bulletin, it was reported that the EBRD decided to establish its representative office in Sarajevo to closely follow progress in the work of the Commission on Public Corporations.1 The chairperson position of the commission was held by EBRD.

As of September 1996, the Commission on Public Corporation had held five sessions and set up two working groups, on electricity and railways. According to a report, “The task of the working groups is to identify problems that ought to be solved within the framework of a public commission. The public commission in question would be the regulating agency for respective companies from both entities addressing issues such as tariffs and norms.”2

1997

Minimum Implementation

In early February of 1997, “the Commission for Public Corporations established a Railways Commission and four Working Groups to address the different aspects of the problem. Progress has however floundered on the differing concepts of the railways structure.” According to the report of High Representative to the UN Secretary General, the Commission on Public Corporations had not reached any agreement on possible institutional structures for joint public facilities. Also, “the Commission has refused to give any guidance to the technical working groups which have been created to examine specific operational problems in some areas.”3

Because the Commission on Public Corporations did not help technical working groups, the High Representative’s legal office issued a legal opinion on the status of public corporations. Following this, the Commission on Public Corporations agreed that railway inter-entity traffic be promptly re-established. It was reported that the commission was set to examine the energy sector, and the working group would work on creating a body between the two entities in order to increase coordination and devise a joint policy in the field.4 As of December 1997, there were no functioning public corporations in Bosnia.

1998

Minimum Implementation

In his 8th report to the U.N. Secretary General, the High Representative said that the establishment of the Transportation Corporation was dead in paper. It was said that the OHR called upon the authorities of both entities to implement the recommendation on railroads by 31 March 1998 and urged entities to establish their joint corporations. In this regard, the OHR was very much involved.5

By the end of March 1998, however, a consensus was reached in creating a joint railway public corporation. In a meeting held on 19 March, railway experts from both entities suggested that trains could run in a major part of the network, despite some technical difficulties.6 Finally on April 6, the Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Railway Public Corporation was established by the Prime Ministers of both Entities.7

In the telecommunication sector, the High Representative decided to impose the telecommunication law of BiH. The representative was said to monitor the situation, and would take whatever actions necessary to ensure full cooperation between three operators. It was expected that the relevant parties would reach an agreement on a Framework Memorandum of Understanding concerning the reorganization of the telecommunication sector.8

It was reported that the Commission met on 6 July 1998, in the presence of the ministers of energy of both the Federation and the RS, to discuss the possible creation of a Public Corporation for electric power transmission.9

The three existing Elektoprivedas signed an agreement to establish a Joint Power Coordination Center for the transmission of electric power, effective on 3 November 1998, and reached agreement on the successive implementation phases.10

1999

Intermediate Implementation

On July 30, 1999, the High Representative made a decision on the restructuring of the public Broadcasting system in BiH and on freedom of information and the decriminalization of libel and defamation.11 As of 1999, the railway and electricity corporations were functioning well.

2000

Intermediate Implementation

The Commission on Public Corporations (CPC) met on 14 February 2000 to consider and approve the agreement establishing a Joint Road Infrastructure Public Corporation for BiH. In the meeting, Working Groups on Public Corporation on Posts, Public Corporation for the Gas Sector, and Public Corporation for Ports presented progress reports.12

In October 2000, it was reported that the CPC had recommended the establishment of three further joint public corporations – for natural gas transmission, broadcasting transmission infrastructure (TRANSCO), and power transmission. Additional proposals under investigation included posts, ports, and waterways.13

2001

Intermediate Implementation

The five-member CPC met on 17 April 2001 after a five-month hiatus and agreed to move forward with work on the analysis and design of new public corporations in the fields of gas transportation, power transmission, radio transmission infrastructure, and posts.14

2002

Full Implementation

By 2002, as mandated by Annex 9 of the General Framework Agreement, public corporations were established. Along with establishing public corporations, privatization was also initiated. Also, a $5 billion priority reconstruction plan (World Bank as lead) was implemented.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Detailed Implementation Timeline

The Framework includes measures that should be carried out within a specified number of days, usually 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 or 180 days.

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

No information available.

1996

Minimum Implementation

The deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

1997

Minimum Implementation

The deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

1998

Minimum Implementation

The deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

1999

Intermediate Implementation

The deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

2000

Intermediate Implementation

The deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

2001

Intermediate Implementation

The deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

2002

Full Implementation

The holding of post-conflict elections and the deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

2003

Full Implementation

The holding of post-conflict elections and the deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

2004

Full Implementation

The holding of post-conflict elections and the deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

2005

Full Implementation

The holding of post-conflict elections and the deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) and the UN mission generally fell within the timeline; other provisions were delayed.

Verification/Monitoring Mechanism

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 10

Agreement on Civilian Implementation

The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Republika Srpska (the "Parties") have agreed as follows:

Article I: High Representative

Implementation History
1995

Minimum Implementation

On 8 December 1995, Carl Bildt was appointed as the “High Representative” in charge of coordinating the civilian implementation of the Peace Agreement in Bosnia. He was appointed unanimously by representatives of more than 40 nations at a two-day peace implementation conference in London.1 Annex 10 of the civilian implementation of the Peace Agreement gave the High Representative authority to monitor the implementation of the Peace Agreement and, additionally, to mobilize, give guidance to, and coordinate the activities of the civilian organizations and agencies involved. The appointment of Carl Bildt was endorsed by the Security Council.2

  • 1. “Bildt to Lead Rebuilding of Bosnia,” United Press International, December 8, 1995.
  • 2. "Annex, para. 18," U.N. Security Council (S/1995/1029), December 12, 1995.
1996

Intermediate Implementation

The High Representative's office, immediately after the appointment of the representative, established a human rights task force to coordinate civilian human rights work in Bosnia. However, there was concern that the civilian implementation team moved too slow. The establishment of formal structures - committees, commissions, and human rights chambers - in itself would not bring about the successful implementation of the civilian aspect of the accord. These civilian structures would not be effective unless the former rival groups were determined to build a lasting peace.3

The Dayton Accord was on the verge of collapse due to the efforts of accused Bosnian Serb war criminals to block the peace process. It was said that three Muslims were killed while trying to return to visit their former homes in Serb-held territory. Officials involved in the civilian aspect of the peace implementation were concerned about each party’s commitment to supporting the peace process.4

In June 1996, the Office of the High Representative (OHR) for the civilian implementation of the Peace Accord and the Vienna-based organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe started to raise funds to set up an independent radio and television network in Sarajevo to counter TV and radio stations that were feeding Serb propaganda.5

“As the situation on the ground improved, IFOR began providing support to organizations involved in overseeing the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, including the Office of the High Representative, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations” (NATO).6 Once post-conflict elections were completed in September 1996, IFOR’s goals were realized in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because the situation was still unstable, NATO agreed to deploy a new Stabilization Force (SFOR) in December 1996. The SFOR provided support to the civilian aspect of peace implementation.7

  • 3. “Keeping Bosnia in One Peace; The Military Mission is Going Well, It's the Civilian Reforms That Need Help,” The Washington Post, March 31, 1996.
  • 4. “Bosnia Peace Officials Sound Warning Over Crumbling Accords,” Agence France Presse, May 2, 1996.
  • 5. “In Bosnia, Propaganda is the News,” Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), June 9, 1996.
  • 6. “Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), accessed April 19, 2011, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52122.htm.
  • 7. “NATO Statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina,” M2 PRESSWIRE, December 10, 1996.
1997

Intermediate Implementation

In June, Carl Bildt was succeeded by Carlos Westendrop from Spain as High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UN Security Council endorsed this appointment.8 It was reported that in the last week of December 1997, the UN High Representative, responsible for the civilian implementation of the accord, was given additional powers known as Bonn power, which gave the HR the power to impose legislation and sack obstructionist officials.9 Similarly, on 16 December 1997, the OHR made a decision to impose the Law on Citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina.10

  • 8. “UN Endorses Designation of New Bosnia High Represensative,” Xinhua News Agency, June 12, 1997.
  • 9. “Rough Times Ahead: Colonel E D Doyle Analyses the Military Situation in Bosnia,” The Irish Times, December 30, 1997.
  • 10. “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH,” Office of the High Representative and EU’s Special Representative, 1997, accessed April 26, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/decisions/statemattersdec/default.asp?content_id=343.
1998

Full Implementation

In 1998, the Office of the High Representative, which was responsible for the implementation of the civilian aspect of the peace process, made some progress. The OHR made 29 different decisions on issues related to state symbols, state-level matters, and constitutional issues, as well as decisions on the removal and suspension of elected officials from public office.11

  • 11. “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH.”
1999

Full Implementation

The Office of High Representative made ninety decisions on issues related to the removal and suspension of elected officials from public office, property laws, the return of displaced persons and refugees, and reconciliation. The OHR also made decisions relating to state symbols, state-level matters, and constitutional issues.12 In August 16, 1999, Wolfgang Petritsch took up the position of the High Representative.13

2000

Full Implementation

The civilian aspect of peace implementation continued to be the priority, and the Office of the High Representative made 86 decisions on issues related to the removal and suspension of elected officials from public office, property laws, the return of displaced persons and refugees, and reconciliation, as well as decisions relating to state symbols, state-level matters, and constitutional issues.14

  • 14. “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH.”
2001

Full Implementation

The civilian aspect of peace implementation continued to be the priority, and the OHR made 86 decisions on issues related to the removal and suspension of elected officials from public office, property laws, the return of displaced persons and refugees, and reconciliation, as well as decisions relating to state symbols, state-level matters, and constitutional issues.15 Many decisions were related to internally displace persons (IDPs) and refugees.

  • 15. “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH.”
2002

Full Implementation

The Office of the High Representative made 153 decisions on issues related to the removal and suspension of elected officials from public office, property laws, the return of displaced persons and refugees, and reconciliation, as well as decisions relating to state symbols, state-level matters, and constitutional issues.16 Many decisions were related to IDPs and refugees. On 27 May 2002, Paddy Ashdown became the High Representative.17

  • 16. “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH.”
  • 17. “Key Events Since Dayton.”
2003

Full Implementation

The OHR made 96 decisions on issues related to the removal and suspension of elected officials from public office, property laws, the return of displaced persons and refugees, and reconciliation, as well as decisions relating to state symbols, state-level matters, and constitutional issues.18 Many decisions were related to IDPs and refugees.

  • 18. “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH.”
2004

Full Implementation

The Office of the High Representative made 158 decisions on issues related to the removal and suspension of elected officials from public office, property laws, the return of displaced persons and refugees, and reconciliation, as well as decisions relating to state symbols, state-level matters, and constitutional issues.19 Many decisions were related to IDPs and refugees.

  • 19. “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH.”
2005

Full Implementation

The OHR made 91 decisions on issues related to the removal and suspension of elected officials from public office, property laws, the return of displaced persons and refugees, and reconciliation, as well as decisions relating to state symbols, state-level matters, and constitutional issues.20 Many decisions were related to IDPs and refugees. Ten years after beginning the peace process, the Office of the High Representative for the civilian implementation of the peace process was still in operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  • 20. “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH.”
International Arbitration

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 5

Agreement on Arbitration

Implementation History
1995

No Implementation

The Dayton Accord required the parties to select a third-party within 30-days of the signing of the accord. Annex 2 of the Dayton Accord called for a Tribunal decision "no later than one year from the entry into force" of the agreement — i.e., by 14 December 1996. Parties failed to reach an agreement on a third-party arbitrator within the required time of 30-days.1  The tribunal was set up to decide on the issue of the Brcko area. At the time of the agreement, the RS controlled some 48% and the Federation controlled some 52% of the area.

1996

Minimum Implementation

As parties failed to reach an agreement on the arbitrator, the President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) appointed Roberts B. Owen on 15 July 1996, as the third-party arbitrator and presiding officer of the Tribunal. After his appointment, Mr. Owen called for a preliminary conference to be held in Sarajevo on 7 August 1996. The purpose of the preliminary conference was to decide on procedural issues, including the scheduling of future proceedings. The conference took place as scheduled. There was no one representing the Republic of Srpska. The procedural rules required the entities to submit and respond to the first and second statements of each party. However, the Arbitration Commission did not receive a written statement from the Republic of Srpska. Later on, the deadline for the RS's submission of papers was extended to 22 November at the request of the RS counsel. On 27 November 1996, both sides consented to extend the date of the Tribunal to 15 February 1997.2

  • 2. “Brcko Arbitral Tribunal for Dispute Over the Inter-Entity Boundary in Brcko Area Award.”
1997

Intermediate Implementation

The Tribunal’s hearing started on 8 January 1997 in Rome. All arbitrators were present in the hearing, which lasted nine days. The hearing included opening statements by the counsel, testimony by 19 witnesses (eight called by the Federation, nine by the RS, and two by the Tribunal itself), and closing arguments. The Tribunal conducted its deliberation in Washington D.C. following the Rome hearing, but arbitrators representing the Federation and the RS refused to sign the award.3

The award called for the implementation of the Dayton Accord or the establishment of an interim supervisory regime in the contested territory in order to allow former Brcko residents to return to their home, to provide freedom of movement and other human rights throughout the area, and to lay the foundation for local representative democratic government, among other provisions. Neither party signed the award. The arbitration was postponed until March 1997. In March 1997, the area was awarded to the Serbs depending upon their level of cooperation with the international administrator for Brcko area in the future. Nevertheless, the final deliberation still was not made. In June 1997, the size of the International Police Task Force was increased from 1,721 to 2,027 in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1103 (1997) of 31 March 1997, relating to the implementation of the Brcko arbitration award as well as other requirements.4

  • 3. “Brcko Arbitral Tribunal for Dispute Over the Inter-Entity Boundary in Brcko Area Award.”
  • 4. “NATO: Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations mission in Bosnia & Herzegovina (UNMIBH),” M2 PRESSWIRE, June 20, 1997.
1998

Intermediate Implementation

No further information was available except for the holding of local elections.

1999

Full Implementation

On 5 March 1999, the Brcko arbitration tribunal decided to create the Brcko district of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be held in condominium by both entities. The UN Secretary General lauded the decision.5 The United States called the decision a “right one” and asked both parties not to obstruct implementation. If one of them should obstruct the implementation of the award the arbitration panel could award the Brcko area to the other.6

  • 5. “U.N. Chief Lauds Decision to Set Up Brcko District in Bosnia,” Xinhua News Agency, March 5, 1999.
  • 6. “US calls Bosnia decision on Serb-held area 'right one',” Agence France Presse, March 5, 1999.
2000

Full Implementation

The arbitration tribunal had been established as provisioned in the accord and delivered its final verdict in 1999. The whole process, however, was delayed and the deliberation did not come as agreed in the original agreement.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

UN Peacekeeping Force

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 1-A

Article VI: Deployment of the Implementation Force

Implementation History
1995

Intermediate Implementation

On 15 December 1995, UN Security Council authorized the deployment of the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) in Resolution 1031.1 IFOR was deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in December 1995 with a one-year mandate. The resolution authorized a deployment of 60,000 troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement peace.2 Eighteen non-NATO countries, including Russia, former members of the Warsaw Pact, and the Arab League, contributed troops to the IFOR.3 “This gave it a mandate not just to maintain peace, but also, where necessary, to enforce it.”  The main aim of IFOR was to oversee the implementation of the military aspects of the Dayton Accord. Its main task was to guarantee the end of hostilities and separate the fighting forces of the Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Muslims.4

As mandated in the Dayton Accord, the mandate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was terminated on 20 December 1995, leading to the deployment of IFOR. UN Security Council Resolution 1035 of 21 December 1995 transferred the peacekeeping mandate from the UN to the NATO-led IFOR.

  • 1. “Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1026,” U.N. Security Council (S/1995/1031), December 13, 1995.
  • 2. “SFOR Fact Sheet - SFOR Restructuring,” Stabilization Force (SFOR), 2004, accessed April 19, 2011, http://www.nato.int/sfor/factsheet/restruct/t040121a.htm.
  • 3. Lawrence Kaplan, NATO Divided, NATO United: The Evolution of an Alliance, (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 121.
  • 4. “Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), accessed April 19, 2011, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52122.htm.
1996

Full Implementation

Once IFOR was deployed on the ground, it “oversaw the transfer of territory between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, the demarcation of the inter-entity boundary, and the removal of heavy weapons into approved containment sites. “As the situation on the ground improved, IFOR began providing support to organizations involved in overseeing the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, including the Office of the High Representative, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations.”5 Once post-conflict elections were completed in September 1996, IFOR’s goals were realized in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because the situation was still unstable, NATO agreed to deploy a new Stabilization Force (SFOR) in December 1996. SFOR operated under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, deriving its authority from the UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996. The main aim of SFOR was to contribute to a safe and secure environment for the post-conflict reconstruction.

  • 5. “Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
1997

Full Implementation

SFOR was a multinational task force engaged in various activities, including providing security and keeping peace, reforming defense establishments, arresting war-crime suspects, and contributing to reconstruction.6 Throughout the year, SFOR was engaged in these various activities. SFOR originally was comprised of 31,000 troops.7

  • 6. “Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
  • 7. “SFOR Fact Sheet - SFOR Restructuring.”
1998

Full Implementation

SFOR was a multinational task force engaged in various activities including providing security and keeping peace, reforming defense establishments, arresting war-crime suspects, and contributing to reconstruction.8 Throughout the year, SFOR was engaged in these various activities.

  • 8. “Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
1999

Full Implementation

SFOR was a multinational task force engaged in various activities including providing security and keeping peace, reforming defense establishments, arresting war-crime suspects, and contributing to reconstruction.9 Throughout the year, SFOR was engaged in these various activities.

  • 9. “Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
2000

Full Implementation

SFOR was a multinational task force engaged in various activities including providing security and keeping peace, reforming defense establishments, arresting war-crime suspects, and contributing to reconstruction.10 Throughout the year, SFOR was engaged in these various activities.

  • 10. “Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
2001

Full Implementation

SFOR was a multinational task force engaged in various activities including providing security and keeping peace, reforming defense establishments, arresting war-crime suspects, mine clearance, and contributing to reconstruction.11 Throughout the year, SFOR was engaged in these various activities. By early 2001, it had been reduced to 19,000 troops.12

  • 11. "Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina."
  • 12. "SFOR Fact Sheet, SFOR Restructuring."
2002

Full Implementation

SFOR was a multinational task force engaged in various activities including providing security and keeping peace, reforming defense establishments, arresting war-crime suspects, mine clearance, and contributing to reconstruction.13 Throughout the year, SFOR was engaged in these various activities. In spring of 2002, the decision was made to reduce troops to 12,000 by the end of the year.14

  • 13. "Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina."
  • 14. "SFOR Fact Sheet, SFOR Restructuring."
2003

Full Implementation

SFOR was a multinational task force engaged in various activities including providing security and keeping peace, reforming defense establishments, arresting war-crime suspects, mine clearance, and contributing to reconstruction.15 Throughout the year, SFOR was engaged in these various activities.

  • 15. "Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina."
2004

Full Implementation

SFOR was a multinational task force engaged in various activities including providing security and keeping peace, reforming defense establishments, arresting war-crime suspects, mine clearance, and contributing to reconstruction.16 Throughout the year, SFOR was engaged in these various activities. By 2004, SFOR had 7,000 troops on the ground.17 On 2 December 2004, the European Union (EU) launched the EU-led military operation EUFOR replacing SFOR. The operation was a part of the Common Security and Defence Policy in support of BiH. The operation was recognized as the legal successor of SFOR. EUFOR deployed 7,000 troops with the aim of contributing to a safe and secure environment, reducing conditions that would lead to the resumption of violence, and managing any residual aspects of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in BiH.18

2005

Full Implementation

EUFOR was deployed in BiH. Its mandate was extended by UN Security Council Resolution 1948 (2010) to November 2011. As of mid-2011, about 1,600 EUFOR troops from 21 EU member states and 5 non-EU nations were on the ground.19

  • 19. “EUFOR Fact Sheet.”
Withdrawal of Troops

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT: ANNEX 1-A

Article III: Withdrawal of Foreign Forces

Implementation History
1995

Full Implementation

The General Framework Agreement required all foreign forces to be withdrawn within 30 days of the signing of the agreement. The Bosnian government agreed to evict some 2,000 foreigners from Iran and Afghanistan fighting with Bosnian Muslim forces.1 Information was not available on whether this provision was implemented. (Reviewer’s Comments: The provision was never fully implemented. Despite pressure from the U.S., a number of Islamist militants remained in Central Bosnia around the towns of Zenica and Tuzla, and in the village of Maoca. Some of the leading figures had been directly linked to organizing events leading to 11 September 2001 (for more on these links see US Congressional hearings regarding the events of September 11). In late 2001, eleven Algerians (former Army BiH soldiers) were arrested by the Government in Sarajevo, handed over to US forces, and incarcerated in Guantanamo. Nonetheless, a fairly small foreign Wahhabi community had remained active in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) up to this point.

However, the Muslim-led Bosnian government and Bosnian Serbs withdrew soldiers and weapons from 38 key points along the cease-fire line. The withdrawal was the first major test of compliance with the peace accord and the first test of NATO’s ability to enforce the agreement.2This complied with the withdrawal requirement of the agreement as mentioned in Phase I of the plan.

  • 1. “Price of Bosnia peace increases,” St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 1, 1995.
  • 2. “Bosnia's warring parties pull back from Sarajevo,” USA TODAY, December 28, 1995.
1996

Full Implementation

On 7 February 1996, the US Senate passed Resolution 225 related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, calling for the compliance of Bosnia’s Moslem government to the provision which required the expulsion of all foreign volunteer fighters.3

The withdrawal of Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat troops continued from their front-line and bunkers across central and northern Bosnia. The withdrawal came five days before Friday's deadline (19 January 1996) for the creation of a 4-kilometre buffer zone along the former front lines throughout Bosnia. However, the withdrawal was said to have continued until Friday.4

The situation surrounding the eviction of foreign fighters from Bosnia and Herzegovina was not clear. NATO Secretary General Javier Solana confirmed that fighting groups completed the withdrawal of their forces from the agreed upon cease-fire zone of separation,5 complying with the Phase II withdrawal requirement of the accord. According to a news report, both Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian government forces completed pullback of most of their troops and heavy weapons on 19 January 1996.6 NATO’s 60,000 troops were deployed to enforce peace throughout the country even before foreign fighters withdrew.

  • 3. “Congressional Record,” Senate Resolution 225—Relative to Bosnia and Herzegovina (Senate – 7 February 1996), accessed April 16, 2011, http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/s960207a.htm, page S1085.
  • 4. “Withdrawal in Bosnia beats treaty deadline,” The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), January 15, 1996.
  • 5. “Bosnia Pullback on Time, But Prisoner Release Lags,” The Washington Post, January 20, 1996.
  • 6. “Bosnia Foes Finish Pullback but Fail on P.O.W. Release,” The New York Times, January 20, 1996.
1997

Full Implementation

Withdrawal of both Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat troops took place. Once withdrawal was completed, IFOR troops were deployed to maintain peace.

1998

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

1999

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2000

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2001

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2002

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2003

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2004

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

2005

Full Implementation

No further developments observed.

Please always cite: Peace Accords Matrix (Date of retrieval: (08/23/2017),
http://peaceaccords.nd.edu/accord/general-framework-agreement-peace-bosnia-and-herzegovina,
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.