Between Ohrid and Dayton: The Future of Macedonia’s Framework Agreement
Between Ohrid and Dayton: The Future of Macedonia’s Framework Agreement

Summary/Abstract: Violent internal conflicts in the decade after the dissolution of Yugoslavia have led Bosnia and Macedonia, arguably the two most complex and contested multi-ethnic regions in the Balkans, to adopt inter-ethnic peace settlements as the basis for their internal stability and constitutional order. Despite the proximate times of their enactment, the settlements represent two opposing views on inter-ethnic peace-building: Bosnia’s Dayton Agreement is based on a territorial separation of ethnic groups into federal entities, while Macedonia’s Ohrid Agreement relies on institutional inter-ethnic integration and accommodation in a unitary state. The performance of the two models in the past proved decidedly advantageous for Macedonia; the lack of a cumbersome federal structure allowed Macedonia to swiftly conclude the stabilization phase and make important strides towards Euro-Atlantic integration. Shifting political constellations in Macedonia after the 2006 elections, however, have gradually undermined the consensus necessary to maintain the loose and flexible structure of the Ohrid Agreement operational. The article makes a comparative analysis of the advantages of the Ohrid Agreement model, and examines if the current political dynamics will allow Macedonia’s inter-ethnic peace to maintain its present shape or will necessitate an evolution into a more rigid, quasi-federal model.

• Details
• Contents