Can the peace agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina serve as a model for lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia?
- Matthew Parish
- Mar 18
- 3 min read
The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (GFAP), commonly known as the Dayton Agreement, has been a crucial template for conflict resolution, particularly in ethno-political conflicts. Given its comprehensive approach to military withdrawal, civilian governance, and peace enforcement, it may serve as a valuable pro forma for a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. However, due to the distinct nature of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, several modifications would be required to adapt the GFAP to the Ukraine-Russia scenario.
Overview of the GFAP and Its Key Provisions
The GFAP, signed in December 1995, was designed to bring an end to the Bosnian War by providing a framework for military disengagement, political restructuring, and civilian governance. Key components include:
Annex 1A (Military Aspects of the Peace Settlement): Stipulates the withdrawal of military forces from conflict zones, the establishment of a ceasefire line, and the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to oversee compliance.
Annex 1B (Regional Stabilization): Requires all parties to commit to arms control measures, including the limitation of heavy weaponry and the withdrawal of foreign military personnel.
Annex 2 (Inter-Entity Boundary Line and Related Issues): Defines administrative boundaries and provides for the deployment of international monitors to supervise the maintenance of peace.
Other Key Provisions:
The protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
An "open borders" policy for civilians to allow the free movement of people and goods.
The establishment of a "High Representative" to oversee civilian implementation and ensure compliance with the agreement.
Adaptation of the GFAP to the Ukraine-Russia Conflict
While the GFAP provides a useful framework, several key adaptations would be necessary:
Military Withdrawal and Ceasefire Line
The GFAP’s provisions on military disengagement could be applied to Ukraine, with clear stipulations for the withdrawal of Russian and Ukrainian forces to agreed positions.
A demilitarised buffer zone would likely be necessary, similar to the Inter-Entity Boundary Line in Bosnia, to prevent further hostilities.
An international peacekeeping force could and probably would need to be deployed to enforce the ceasefire, though the composition of such a force would need to be carefully negotiated to ensure neutrality and effectiveness.
Regional Stabilisation and Arms Control
Unlike Bosnia, where internal factions required demilitarisation, the Ukraine conflict involves an external power (Russia), necessitating additional guarantees from the international community to ensure compliance.
An agreement on arms reductions, particularly regarding heavy artillery and missile systems in the region, would be crucial for long-term stability.
Open Borders and Civilian Governance
The GFAP’s provision for open civilian movement would be particularly relevant, ensuring that Ukrainians displaced by war could return and that economic activity could resume across the conflict zone.
Establishing civilian oversight mechanisms, including an international High Representative or similar entity, would be critical in ensuring compliance with the agreement and preventing re-escalation.
Political and Territorial Considerations
Unlike Bosnia, which was internally divided, Ukraine is dealing with external occupation. A lasting peace agreement would need to address the status of occupied territories and whether they would be reintegrated, federalised, or granted a special autonomous status.
Provisions for internationally monitored elections in disputed areas might be necessary to ensure that local populations have a say in their future governance.
The Role of the High Representative
One of the most innovative aspects of the GFAP was the appointment of a High Representative to oversee civilian implementation. A similar role could be established in Ukraine, tasked with:
Monitoring adherence to the ceasefire and military withdrawal terms.
Overseeing civilian governance and reconstruction efforts.
Ensuring that human rights provisions, including the rights of displaced persons and minorities, are upheld.
Facilitating negotiations for longer-term political settlements.
Challenges and Considerations
Negotiating a peace agreement modelled on the GFAP would be an intricate process requiring:
Multilateral Diplomacy: Involving not only Ukraine and Russia but also key international stakeholders such as the United States, European Union, and United Nations.
Security Guarantees: Ensuring that both sides have credible assurances of territorial integrity and political stability.
Economic Reconstruction: Establishing frameworks for rebuilding war-torn infrastructure and ensuring economic cooperation between Ukraine and Russia.
Compliance Mechanisms: Creating an enforcement framework that prevents violations and enables swift corrective action in the event of breaches. In Bosnia and Herzegovina this was done under the purview of the High Representative, who could issue unilateral decisions to enforce non-compliance with the provisions of the GFAP.
Conclusion
The GFAP provides a valuable precedent for structuring a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, particularly regarding military withdrawal, regional stabilization, and civilian oversight. However, the unique nature of the Ukraine conflict necessitates key modifications, particularly concerning external military involvement, territorial reintegration, and economic reconstruction. If successfully adapted, such an agreement could lay the groundwork for a federalised Ukraine that maintains its sovereignty while cooperating with Russian authorities where necessary. The involvement of an international High Representative and robust enforcement mechanisms would be essential to ensuring long-term peace and stability.
