Bosna i Hercegovina i međnarodni sistem u kontekstu 20-godišnjice Dejtonskog sporazuma
Bosnia-Herzegovina and The International System in the Context of the 20th Anniversary of Dayton Agreement

Author(s): Dejan Jović
Subject(s): International relations/trade, Inter-Ethnic Relations
Published by: Fakultet političkih nauka Univerziteta u Beogradu
Keywords: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Dayton Peace Agreement; sovereignty; international system; dissolution of Yugoslavia
Summary/Abstract: Twenty years after the Dayton Peace Agreement peace has been preserved in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although there is a strong feeling of discontent with the internal structure established in Dayton. This paper explains why Dayton Agreement constructed Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state with absolute external, but considerably limited internal sovereignty. The limitation of internal sovereignty is a consequence of the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina did not manage to preserve its stability during the dissolution of Yugoslavia (1991–1992) and consequently ended in a war (1992–1995) threathening regional and international security. This war challenged the establishment of the unilateral order, therefore the United States of America had to intervene in order to save its hegemonic status. Bosnia and Herzegovina was only to some degree constructed as a state – without full internal sovereignty. It was constructed also as a framework within which an international intervention is necessary in order to prevent a renewal of hostilities. Therefore, even 20 years after 1995, survival and structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina are highly dependent on the character of international system and the continuity of hegemonic position of the United States of America in the Balkans. The paper analyses options which Bosnia and Herzegovina would have if international system changes. Reasons for which major internal changes are impossible are also analysed. Bosnia and Herzegovina lacks sufficient consensus between main domestic actors, while the chances for a construction of common identity (Bosnian-Herzegovinian Us) are small due to essential weakness of the concept of Other in this case. Furthermore, prospects for more significant changes – even those which would lead to greater stability or integration – remain limited because Bosnia and Herzegovina was not meant to be a state with internal sovereignty.

• Details
• Contents