Verification/Monitoring Mechanism: General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Implementations
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 1995
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
- “Bildt to Lead Rebuilding of Bosnia,” United Press International, December 8, 1995.
- “Annex, para. 18,” U.N. Security Council (S/1995/1029), December 12, 1995.
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 1996
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.1
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.2
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.3
“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).4 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.5
- “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.
- “Bosnia Peace Officials Sound Warning Over Crumbling Accords,” Agence France Presse, May 2, 1996.
- “In Bosnia, Propaganda is the News,” Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), June 9, 1996.
- “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.
- “NATO Statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina,” M2 PRESSWIRE, December 10, 1996.
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 1997
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.1 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.2 Similarly, on 16 December 1997, the OHR made a decision to impose the Law on Citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina.3“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….
- “UN Endorses Designation of New Bosnia High Represensative,” Xinhua News Agency, June 12, 1997.
- “Rough Times Ahead: Colonel E D Doyle Analyses the Military Situation in Bosnia,” The Irish Times, December 30, 1997.
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 1998
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.1
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 1999
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.1 In August 16, 1999, Wolfgang Petritsch took up the position of the High Representative.2
- “Decision imposing the Law on Citizenship of BiH.”
- “Key Events Since Dayton,” Office of the High Representative and EU’s Special Representative, accessed April 26, 2011, http://www.ohr.int/ohr-info/key-events/default.asp?content_id=35971.
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 2000
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.1
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 2001
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.1 Many decisions were related to internally displace persons (IDPs) and refugees.
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 2002
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.1 Many decisions were related to IDPs and refugees. On 27 May 2002, Paddy Ashdown became the High Representative.2
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 2003
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.1 Many decisions were related to IDPs and refugees.
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 2004
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.1 Many decisions were related to IDPs and refugees.
Verification/Monitoring Mechanism – 2005
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.1 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.