HOME
The Info List - Dayton Agreement


--- Advertisement ---



The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Agreement, Dayton Accords, Paris
Paris
Protocol or Dayton– Paris
Paris
Agreement, (Bosnian: Dejtonski mirovni sporazum, Serbian: Dejtonski mirovni sporazum, Croatian: Daytonski sporazum) is the peace agreement reached at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
near Dayton, Ohio, United States, in November 1995, and formally signed in Paris, France, on 14 December 1995. These accords put an end to the ​3 1⁄2-year-long Bosnian War, one of the Yugoslav Wars.

Contents

1 Negotiation and signature 2 Content

2.1 Constitutional Court decision

3 Territorial changes

3.1 Control of Republika Srpska 3.2 Control of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

3.2.1 Cantons

4 Analysis 5 Criticism 6 Disappearance of original document 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links

Negotiation and signature[edit] Though basic elements of the Dayton Agreement
Dayton Agreement
were proposed in international talks as early as 1992,[2] these negotiations were initiated following the unsuccessful previous peace efforts and arrangements, the August 1995 Croatian military Operation Storm
Operation Storm
and its aftermath, the government military offensive against the Republika Srpska, conducted in parallel with NATO's Operation Deliberate Force. During September and October 1995, world powers (especially the United States and Russia), gathered in the Contact Group, applied intense pressure to the leaders of the three sides to attend the negotiations in Dayton, Ohio. The conference took place from 1–21 November 1995. The main participants from the region were the President of the Republic of Serbia Slobodan Milošević
Slobodan Milošević
(representing the Bosnian Serb interests due to the absence of Karadžić), President of Croatia
Croatia
Franjo Tuđman, and President of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Alija Izetbegović with his Foreign Minister Muhamed Šaćirbeg. The peace conference was led by U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and negotiator Richard Holbrooke
Richard Holbrooke
with two Co-Chairmen in the form of EU Special
Special
Representative Carl Bildt
Carl Bildt
and the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia
Russia
Igor Ivanov. A key participant in the US delegation was General Wesley Clark
Wesley Clark
(later to become NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) in 1997). The head of the UK team was Pauline Neville-Jones, political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK military representative was Col Arundell David Leakey
David Leakey
(later to become Commander of EUFOR
EUFOR
in 2005). Paul Williams, through the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) served as legal counsel to the Bosnian Government delegation during the negotiations. The secure site was chosen in order to remove all the parties from their comfort zone, without which they would have little incentive to negotiate; to reduce their ability to negotiate through the media; to securely house over 800 staff and attendants. Curbing the participants' ability to negotiate via the media was a particularly important consideration. Richard Holbrooke
Richard Holbrooke
wanted to prevent posturing through early leaks to the press.

Signing of the full and formal agreement in Paris.

After having been initialled in Dayton, Ohio, on 21 November 1995, the full and formal agreement was signed in Paris
Paris
on 14 December 1995[3] and witnessed by French president Jacques Chirac, U.S. president Bill Clinton, UK prime minister John Major, German chancellor Helmut Kohl and Russian prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. Content[edit] The agreement's main purpose is to promote peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
and to endorse regional balance in and around the former Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia
(Article V, annex 1-B), thus in a regional perspective.[4] The present political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
and its structure of government were agreed upon, as part the constitution that makes up Annex 4 of the General Framework Agreement concluded at Dayton. A key component of this was the delineation of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line
Inter-Entity Boundary Line
to which many of the tasks listed in the Annexes referred. The State of Bosnia Herzegovina was set as of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and of the Republika Srpska. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a complete state, as opposed to a confederation; no entity or entities could ever be separated from Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
unless by due legal process. Although highly decentralised in its entities, it would still retain a central government, with a rotating State Presidency, a central bank and a constitutional court.[4] The agreement mandated a wide range of international organizations to monitor, oversee and implement components of the agreement. The NATO-led IFOR
IFOR
(Implementation Force) was responsible for implementing military aspects of the agreement and deployed on 20 December 1995, taking over the forces of the UNPROFOR. The Office of the High Representative was charged with the task of civil implementation. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
was charged with organising the first free elections in 1996.[4] Constitutional Court decision[edit] On 13 October 1997, the Croatian 1861 Law Party and the Bosnia-Herzegovina 1861 Law Party requested the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
to annul several decisions and to confirm one decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, more importantly, to review the constitutionality of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina since it was alleged that the agreement violated the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
in a way that it undermined the integrity of the state and could cause the dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court reached the conclusion that it is not competent to decide the dispute in regards to the mentioned decisions since the applicants were not subjects that were identified in Article VI.3 (a) of the Constitution on those who can refer disputes to the Court. The Court also rejected the other request:

(...) the Constitutional Court is not competent to evaluate the constitutionality of the General Framework Agreement as the Constitutional Court has in fact been established under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina
in order to uphold this Constitution (...) The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina
was adopted as Annex IV to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and consequently there cannot be a conflict or a possibility for controversy between this Agreement and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[5]

It was one of the early cases in which the Court had to deal with the question of the legal nature of the Constitution. By making the remark in the manner of obiter dictum concerning the Annex IV (the Constitution) and the rest of the peace agreement, the Court actually "established the ground for legal unity"[6] of the entire peace agreement, which further implied that all of the annexes are in the hierarchical equality. In later decisions the Court confirmed that by using other annexes of the peace agreement as a direct base for the analysis, not only in the context of systematic interpretation of the Annex IV. However, since the Court rejected the presented request of the appellants, it did not go into details concerning the controversial questions of the legality of the process in which the new Constitution (Annex IV) came to power and replaced the former Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court used the same reasoning to dismiss the similar claim in a later case.[7] Territorial changes[edit]

Territorial changes.

Political division of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
after the Dayton Agreement.

Before the agreement, Bosnian Serbs
Bosnian Serbs
controlled about 46% of Bosnia and Herzegovina (23,687 km2), Bosniaks
Bosniaks
28% (14,505 km2) and Bosnian Croats
Bosnian Croats
25% (12,937 km2). Bosnian Serbs
Bosnian Serbs
got large tracts of mountainous territories back (4% from Bosnian Croats
Bosnian Croats
and some small amounts from Bosniaks), but they had to surrender Sarajevo
Sarajevo
and some vital Eastern Bosnian/Herzegovian positions. Their percentage grew to 49% (48% by excluding the Brčko District, 24,526 km2) from a little bit more than 46% prior to Dayton.[citation needed] Bosniaks
Bosniaks
got most of Sarajevo
Sarajevo
and some important positions in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
while they lost only a few locations on Mount Ozren and in western Bosnia. Their percentage grew from 28%, prior to Dayton to 30%, and they greatly improved the quality of the land. Large tracts of prewar Bosniak
Bosniak
(and Bosnian Croat) inhabited lands remained under Bosnian Serb control.[citation needed] Bosnian Croats
Bosnian Croats
gave most (4% of BiH territories) back to the Bosnian Serbs (9% of today's RS) and also retreated from Una-Sana Donji Vakuf (in Central Bosnia) afterward. A small enlargement of Posavina
Posavina
(Odžak and parts of Domaljevac) have not changed the fact that after Dayton Bosnian Croats
Bosnian Croats
controlled just 21% of Bosnia and Herzegovina (10,640 km2), especially when compared to more than 25% prior to Dayton. One of the most important Bosnian Croat territories (Posavina with Bosanski Brod, Bosanski Šamac, Derventa) was left out of Bosnian Croat control.[4] Control of Republika Srpska[edit]

About 89.5% (22,059 km2) was under control of Bosnian Serbs About 9% (2,117 km2) of today's territories of Republika Srpska was controlled by Bosnian Croat forces; mainly in municipalities of Šipovo, Petrovac, Istočni Drvar, Jezero, Kupres (RS) and part of Banja Luka
Banja Luka
municipality About 1.5% (350 km2) of today's territories of Republika Srpska was controlled by Bosniak
Bosniak
forces, mainly some villages in Ozren (Doboj and Petrovo), western Bosnia ( Krupa na Uni
Krupa na Uni
and parts of Novi Grad and Oštra Luka).

Control of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

About 53% (13,955 km2) of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was under Bosniak
Bosniak
control. About 41% (10,720 km2) of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was under the control of Bosnian Croats. About 6% (1,435 km2) was under control of Bosnian Serbs.

Cantons[edit] Main article: Cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Canton 10:

was almost completely under control of Bosnian Croats
Bosnian Croats
(4,924 km2) Bosniaks
Bosniaks
controlled some points east of Kupres (10 km2)

Una-Sana Canton:

was almost completely under control of Bosniaks
Bosniaks
(3,925 km2) Bosnian Croats
Bosnian Croats
controlled some mountain passes on the southern parts of Bosanski Petrovac
Bosanski Petrovac
and Bihać municipalities (200 km2)

West Herzegovina Canton:

was completely under Bosnian Croat control (1,362 km2)

Herzegovina-Neretva Canton:

was divided, more than half was under Bosnian Croat control (2,525 km2) northern and central parts were under Bosniak
Bosniak
control (1,666 km2) eastern mountains were under Bosnian Serb control (210 km2)

Central Bosnia Canton:

was divided, a bit more than a third was under Bosnian Croat control (1,099 km2) rest was under control of Bosniaks
Bosniaks
(2,090 km2)

Zenica- Doboj
Doboj
Canton:

was largely under Bosniak
Bosniak
control (2,843 km2) there were some small enclaves like Žepče, Usora under Bosnian Croat control (400 km2) eastern mountains were under Bosnian Serb control (100 km2)

Tuzla Canton:

was largely under Bosniak
Bosniak
control (2,544 km2) there were some villages in Gradačac
Gradačac
municipality under Bosnian Croat control (5 km2) and some villages in Doboj
Doboj
and Gračanica municipalities under Bosnian Serb control (100 km2)

Posavina
Posavina
Canton:

was mostly under Bosnian Croat control (205 km2) Bosnian Serbs
Bosnian Serbs
controlled Odžak
Odžak
and parts of Domaljevac
Domaljevac
municipalities (120 km2)

Bosnian Podrinje Canton:

was mostly under Bosniak
Bosniak
control (405 km2) Bosnian Serbs
Bosnian Serbs
controlled areas which linked it with Sarajevo (100 km2)

Sarajevo
Sarajevo
Canton:

was mostly under Bosnian Serbs
Bosnian Serbs
control (800 km2) while Bosniaks
Bosniaks
controlled some southern suburbs and most of the city itself (477 km2)

Brčko District
Brčko District
was divided;

Bosniaks
Bosniaks
controlled most of its southern parts (200 km2) Bosnian Serbs
Bosnian Serbs
its northern parts (193 km2) While Bosnian Croats
Bosnian Croats
controlled the rest, part near Orašje municipality and two enclaves on southern parts of municipality (100 km2)

Analysis[edit] The immediate purpose of the agreement was to freeze the military confrontation and prevent it from resuming. It was thefore defined as a "construction of necessity".[8] Still, the Dayton Agreement
Dayton Agreement
proved to be a highly flexible instrument, allowing Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
to move from an early post-conflict phase through reconstruction and consolidation, passing from a consociationalist approach to a more integrationist one.[4] Many scholars refer to it as "the most impressive example of conflict resolution".[9] Wolfgang Petritsch, OHR, has argued that the Dayton framework has allowed the international community to move "from statebuilding via institutions and capacity-building to identity building", putting Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
"on the road to Brussels".[10] Criticism[edit] The Dayton Agreement
Dayton Agreement
has come across much criticism since its inception, including: A complicated government system - As part of the Dayton agreement, Bosnia was divided into 2 entities and a government structure was created to appease all sides. However, by creating such a dissolved government, Bosnia has stalled in moving forward as every important issue is deadlocked within the central government as each party is championing opposing priorities that are based on ethnic policies and not shared ideals [11]. Dependency and control of international actors - Dayton was very much an international vision, led by the United States
United States
who supported an end to the war, but that didn't allow Bosnian leaders to negotiate an ending to the war, therefore leaving no incentive in the afterward peacebuilding process and no area for leaders to discuss the underlying root causes of the conflict. International actors also played an extensive role in shaping the postwar agenda in Bosnia, including enacting punishment over local political actors [12]. The influx of NGOs and international actors to kick start investment in the country post war also failed to kick start the economy, with Bosnia suffering from poor economic growth (2% in 2015). The lack of economic development has been attributed to poor coordination between international actors and lack of consideration for local capacity [13] Ending the war but not promoting peace - The primary aims of Dayton was to stop the war, but the agreement was only meant to be a temporary measure while a long term plan was developed. While Dayton has halted the conflict and there has not been an resurgence of violence, the stability in the conflict does not give an accurate assessment of peace. There is still currently a large military presence to mitigate any chance of violence and to enforce peace in the country [14]. Enforcing such peace can be seen as highlighting the still deep rooted tensions in the country, with Dayton covering the cracks of a fractured society that could be plunged back into conflict as soon as military forces left. Disappearance of original document[edit] On 13 February 2008, the head of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina Željko Komšić
Željko Komšić
said that the original Dayton Agreement
Dayton Agreement
was lost from the Presidency's archive. High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina Miroslav Lajčak
Miroslav Lajčak
said: "I don't know whether the news is sad or funny".[15] On 16 November 2009 the French Foreign Ministry delivered the certified copy of the Dayton agreement to the French embassy in Sarajevo. The copy was later transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia-Herzegovina.[16] See also[edit]

Bosnia and Herzegovina

This article is part of a series on the politics and government of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Constitution

Dayton Agreement

Peace Implementation Council

High Representative: V. Inzko

Presidency

Bosniak
Bosniak
member

Bakir Izetbegović

Croat member

Dragan Čović
Dragan Čović
(Chairman)

Serb member

Mladen Ivanić

Parliament Executive

Parliament

House of Peoples House of Representatives

Council of Ministers

Chairman: Denis Zvizdić

Recent elections

General: 2006 2010 2014 2018

Political parties

Foreign relations

EU accession NATO accession

Political divisions

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

President (list): Marinko Čavara Government

Prime Minister: Fadil Novalić

Parliament

House of Representatives House of Peoples

Cantons

Republika Srpska

President (list): Milorad Dodik Government

Prime Minister: Željka Cvijanović

National Assembly

Speaker: Nedeljko Čubrilović

Brčko District

International Supervisor: B. Berton (Suspended) Mayor: Siniša Milić

Other countries Atlas

v t e

Washington Agreement Peace plans offered before and during the Bosnian War Proposed secession of Republika Srpska Constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina

References[edit]

^ "Summary of the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia-Herzegovina". www1.umn.edu. 30 November 1995. Retrieved 16 January 2016.  ^ Munich All Over Again?, Time Magazine, 31 August 1992 ^ "Dayton Accords". US Department of State. 30 March 1996. Retrieved 5 May 2014.  ^ a b c d e Cannon, P., The Third Balkan War and Political Disunity: Creating A Cantonal Constitutional System for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Jrnl. Trans. L. & Pol., Vol. 5-2 ^ Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, U-7/97, p. 2 and 3, Sarajevo, 22 December 1997 ^ Vehabović, Faris (2006). Odnos Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine i Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda. Sarajevo: ACIPS, 24. ISBN 9958-9187-0-6 ^ Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, U-1/03, Sarajevo, 25 July 2003. ^ Rory Keane, Reconstructing sovereignty. Post-Dayton Bosnia uncovered, London: Ashgate 2001, p. 61 ^ Charles-Philippe David, "Alice in Wonderland meets Frankenstein: Constructivism, Realism and Peacebuilding in Bosnia", Contemporary Security Policy 22, No.1, 2001 ^ Wolfgang Petritsch, "My lessons learnt in Bosnia and Herzegovina", Sarajevo, 2006 ^ Yourdin, C (2003). "Society Building in Bosnia: A Critique of Post-Dayton Peacebuilding Efforts'". Journal of Diplomacy and international Relations. 4 (2): 59–74.  access-date= requires url= (help) ^ Chandler, David (2005). "From Dayton to Europe". International Peacekeeping. 12 (3): 336–349. Retrieved 28 January 2018.  ^ Kell, Kudlenko, S, A (2015). " Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
20 years after Dayton, complexity born of paradoxes". International peacekeeping. 22 (5): 471–489.  access-date= requires url= (help) ^ Berdal, M; Collantes-Celador, G. "Post-War Violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina". Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding: 75–94.  ^ "Izgubljen original Dejtonskog sporazuma". Blic
Blic
(in Serbian). 13 February 2008. Retrieved 21 November 2012.  ^ "Francuska dostavila BiH kopiju Dejtonskog sporazuma". Politika
Politika
(in Serbian). 16 November 2009. Retrieved 21 November 2012. 

Further reading[edit]

Belloni, Roberto (2009). "Bosnia: Dayton is dead! long live dayton!". Nationalism and Ethnic Politics. 15 (3-4): 355–375.  Bieber, Florian (2001). "Croat Self-Government in Bosnia: A Challenge for Dayton?". European Centre for Minority Issues.  Caplan, R., 2000. Assessing the Dayton Accord: The structural weaknesses of the general framework agreement for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 11(2), pp. 213–232. Chandler, David (2000). Bosnia: Faking Democracy After Dayton. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-1689-5.  Chivvis, Christopher S. (2010). "The Dayton Dilemma". Survival. 52 (5): 47–74.  Daalder, I.H., 2014. Getting to Dayton: the making of America's Bosnia policy. Brookings Institution Press. Donais, Timothy (2002). "The politics of privatization in post-Dayton Bosnia". Southeast European Politics. 3 (1): 3–19.  Goodby, J.E., 1996. When war won out: Bosnian peace plans before Dayton. International Negotiation, 1(3), pp. 501–523. McMahon, Patrice C.; Western, Jon (2009). "The death of Dayton: How to stop Bosnia from falling apart". Foreign Affairs: 69–83.  Parish, M., 2007. The Demise of the Dayton protectorate. Inside the Bosnian Crisis: Documents and Analysis. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 1, pp. 11–23. Tuathail, Gearóid Ó.; O'Loughlin, John; Djipa, Dino (2006). "Bosnia-Herzegovina ten years after Dayton: Constitutional change and public opinion". Eurasian Geography and Economics. 47 (1): 61–75.  Woodward, Susan L. (1996). "Implementing Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina: a post-Dayton primer and memorandum of warning". Foreign Policy Studies Program. Brookings Institution.  Adriana Camisar, Boris Diechtiareff, Bartol Letica, Christine Switzer (2005). "An Analysis of the Dayton Negotiations and Peace Accords" (PDF). The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Dayton Agreement.

General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina Encyclopædia Britannica, Dayton Accords Full text of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Peacemaker Text of all peace agreements for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Peacemaker The Dayton Agreements: A Breakthrough for Peace and Justice?, a Symposium at the European Journal of International Law Bosnia: a single country or an apple of discord?, Bosnian Institute, 12 May 2006 Beyond Dayton: The Balkans and Euro-Atlantic Integration U.S. Institute of Peace Event, November 2005 (Audio & transcripts) All Peace Agreements in Bosnia, UN Peacemaker

v t e

Bosnian War

Part of the Yugoslav Wars

Belligerents

Bosnian side

Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1st Corps 2nd Corps 3rd Corps 4th Corps 5th Corps 6th Corps 7th Corps

Paramilitary

Patriotic League Green Berets Black Swans Mujahideen Croatian Defence Forces

Croat side

Croatian Defence Council

1OZ 2OZ 3OZ 4OZ

Paramilitary

Croatian Defence Forces Knights

Serb side

Army of Republika Srpska

1st Krajina Corps 2nd Krajina Corps 3rd Corps East Bosnia Corps Herzegovina Corps Sarajevo-Romanija Corps Drina Corps

Paramilitary

Wolves of Vučjak White Eagles Serb Volunteer Guard Scorpions Yellow Wasps

Prelude

Karađorđevo meeting Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement RAM Plan Serb Autonomous Regions

Bosanska Krajina Herzegovina North-East Bosnia Romanija

Establishment of Republika Srpska Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
independence referendum Sarajevo
Sarajevo
wedding shooting Declaration of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Battle of Bosanski Brod Sijekovac killings Bijeljina massacre 1992 anti-war protests in Sarajevo

1992

Battle of Kupres Siege of Sarajevo Foča massacres Siege of Srebrenica Zvornik massacre Doboj Snagovo massacre Prijedor ethnic cleansing Sarajevo
Sarajevo
column incident Siege of Goražde Graz agreement Glogova massacre Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing Tuzla column incident Zaklopača massacre Vilina Vlas Siege of Doboj Bijeli Potok massacre Pionirska Street fire Operation Jackal Višegrad massacres

Bosanska Jagodina Paklenik Barimo Sjeverin

Čemerno massacre Siege of Bihać Ahatovići massacre Croat– Bosniak
Bosniak
War Operation Vrbas '92 Operation Corridor 92  Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia Agreement on Friendship and Cooperation between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia Korićani Cliffs massacre

1993

Kravica attack Duša killings Skelani massacre Štrpci Siege of Mostar Srebrenica shelling Ahmići massacre Trusina killings Sovići and Doljani massacres Vranica case Dobrinja mortar attack Battle of Žepče

Operation Irma Operation Neretva '93 Grabovica massacre Mokronoge massacre Stupni Do massacre Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia Operation Deny Flight Križančevo Selo killings

1994

Operation Tvigi 94 First Markale massacre Banja Luka
Banja Luka
incident Washington Agreement  Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Operation Bøllebank Attack on Spin magazine journalists Operation Tiger Battle of Kupres Operation Amanda Operation Spider Operation Winter '94

1995

Operation Leap 1 Battle of Orašje Operation Leap 2 Split Agreement Operation Summer '95 Pale air strikes Tuzla shelling Battle of Vrbanja Bridge Srebrenica massacre

Kravica

Battle for Vozuća Operation Miracle Operation Storm Second Markale massacre NATO bombing campaign Operation Mistral 2 Operation Sana Operation Una Operation Southern Move Exodus of Sarajevo
Sarajevo
Serbs Dayton Agreement  Bosnia and Herzegovina

Internment camps

Silos Manjača Liplje Luka Omarska Keraterm Trnopolje Sušica Čelebići Batković Dretelj Uzamnica Heliodrom Gabela Vojno

Aspects

Ethnic cleansing and massacres

Bosnian genocide

Internment camps Rape Peace plans NATO intervention Foreign support Foreign fighters

Timeline of the Bosnian War
Bosnian War
(Timeline of the Croat– Bosniak
Bosniak
War)

Category Commons

v t e

Yugoslavia articles

History

Timeline Creation Kingdom

6 January Dictatorship

World War II

Invasion Partisans Chetniks Belgrade Offensive

SFR Yugoslavia

Tito–Stalin Split Balkan Pact

Yugoslavism

Yugoslavs

in Serbia

Yugoslav irredentism Yugoslav Committee

Breakup

Yugoslav Wars
Yugoslav Wars
(1991–1999) Croatian independence

War (1991–1995)

Slovenian independence ( Ten-Day War
Ten-Day War
(June–July 1991) Brijuni Agreement) Macedonian independence (1991) Bosnian independence (War (1992–1995) Dayton Agreement) Serbia and Montenegro
Serbia and Montenegro
(1992–2006)

Politics

Administrative divisions

Kingdom

Constitution

1921 1931 1946 1953 1963 1974

Elections Federal Executive Council

Prime Minister

Foreign relations ( Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia
and NAM) Governments Heads of state Human rights

LGBT

Parliament

Titoism Đilasism Rankovićism

Political parties

League of Communists

Presidency Security

counterintelligence

Military

History Army (1918–1945 1945–1992 ranks (Marshal)) Navy (1918–1945 1945–1992) Air Force (1918–1945 1945–1992) Territorial Defense

Economy

Agriculture Computer systems (SFRY) Dinar (currency) Energy Industry Krone (currency) Mining National Bank

governors

Services Stock Exchange Telecommunications

Internet domain

Tourism Transport

Society

Demographics (SFRY) Education (SFRY) Healthcare Minorities Postal codes Public holidays Yugoslavs

list

Languages

Macedonian Serbo-Croatian

Bosnian Croatian Montenegrin Serbian

Slovene (Slovenian)

Culture

Academy Architecture Art Cinema

films

Drama Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia Folklore Music

composers

National costume Philosophy Religion Sport

football

Yugoslav Radio Television

Cuisine

Bosnian Croatian

wine

Macedonian

wine

Montenegrin

wine

Serbian

wine

Slovenian

wine

Literature

Bosnian Croatian Macedonian Montenegrin Serbian Slovene Poets

Symbols

Anthem (1918–1945 1945–1992) Coat of arms Flag of Yugoslavia

List

Motto Orders, decorations, and medals of SFR Yugosla

.