Today is the 25th anniversary of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Agreement. The pioneering agreement between Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia, which officially ended the deadliest conflict on European soil since World War II, was negotiated by the United States at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, about three weeks before its signing on December 14, 1995, in Paris, France. In late August 1995, following an attack by Bosnian Serbs in Sarajevo, NATO carried out airstrikes against Serb positions. On 1 September, Holbrooke announced that all parties would meet in Geneva to discuss. When the Bosnian Serbs did not meet all NATO conditions, NATO airstrikes resumed. On 14 September, Holbrooke successfully concluded an agreement signed by Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadsai and Ratko Mladis to end the siege of Sarajevo and oversee final peace talks to begin in Dayton, Ohio. The immediate objective of the agreement was to freeze the military confrontation and prevent its resumption. It was therefore defined as a “construction of necessity.” [11] After the initials in Dayton, Ohio, on 21 November 1995, the full and formal agreement was signed on 14 December 1995 in Paris[4] and was signed with the lives of Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez, French President Jacques Chirac, US President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister John Major, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Tscheryrnomdin. This was one of the first cases in which the Court of Justice had to deal with the legal nature of the Constitution. In making a remark of the nature of the obiter dictum concerning Annex IV (Constitution) and the rest of the peace agreement, the Court effectively “created the ground for the legal unity”[9] of the entire peace agreement, which further implied that all annexes were in hierarchical equality. In subsequent decisions, the Court confirmed that it was using other annexes of the peace agreement as a basis for direct analysis, and not only in the systematic interpretation of Schedule IV.

However, since the Court rejected the applicant, it did not address the issues relating to the legality of the procedure in which the new Constitution (Annex IV) came to power and replaced the old Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Comments