Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:16:32.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Protection of Human Rights Through the Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement on Bosnia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Paul C. Szasz
Paul C. Szasz*
Affiliation:
New York University School of Law, International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Bosnia Proximity Peace Talks at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, took place from November 1 to 21, 1995, and ended with the initialing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (GFA) and several of the annexed or related instruments by representatives of the principal states parties to the conflict in Bosnia: the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The initialing was witnessed by representatives of the European Union and the five states members of the Contact Group on Bosnia. In addition, all of the twelve instruments annexed to the GFA were also initialed or otherwise endorsed on behalf of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. The GFA and these instruments were formally signed in Paris on December 14, and thereby immediately entered into force.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 301 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The views expressed herein are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of the International Conference.

References

† Terms in italics are either taken from previous usage or were developed for use in this Note. Terms in normal print are used in die indicated sense in the Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement.

1 Definitions of the acronyms, abbreviations and other specialized terms used in this Note appear in an appendix hereto.

2 The Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement is reproduced in UN Doc. A/50/790–S/1995/999 in the form initialed on November 21, 1995, in Dayton, and appears in 35 ILM 89 (1996) in the form signed on December 14, 1995, in Paris. The two differ solely in the correction of some minor errors that appeared in the earlier text.

3 A more complete analysis of the human rights provisions of the proposals leading up to the Dayton/Paris Agreement appears in Paul C. Szasz, Protecting Human and Minority Rights in Bosnia: A Documentary Survey of International Proposals, 25 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 237 (1995).

4 Most of the following stages are described somewhat more fully in id., and also by the present author in The Quest for a Bosnian Constitution: Legal Aspects of Constitutional Proposals Relating to Bosnia, 19 Fordham Int'l L.J. 363 (1995).

5 An early version of the Treaty Provisions appears in Report by the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/23169, Ann. VII (1991). The version actually considered by the conference on November 4–5, 1991, has not been published, but most of the human rights provisions are reproduced in Addendum 1 to Szasz, supra note 3.

6 The three-page Statement of Principles agreed to on March 18, 1992, in Sarajevo, and a supplemental page on human rights agreed to on March 31, 1992, in Brussels have not been published; however, the human rights portions are reproduced in Addendum 3 to Szasz, supra note 3.

7 The full set of documents adopted at the London Conference appears in 31 ILM 1531 (1992).

8 UN Doc. S/24795, Ann. VII (1992). The principal document contains an extensive explanation of these provisions.

9 The final version of the VOP appears in UN Doc. S/25479, Anns. I–IV (1993).

10 The final Invincible Plan has not been set out in any document, but a slightly earlier version appears in UN Doc. S/26337/Add.1 (1993). The latter, however, does not include some of the texts negotiated immediately before or at the Invincible meeting on September 20, 1993. Some of these are set out in UN Doc. S/ 26486, annexes (1993).

11 33 ILM 740 (1994).

12 See N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 1995, at A4; and N.Y. Times, Sept. 27, 1995, at A9.

13 The representation of the Republika Srpska by Milosevic, the President of Serbia but acting here in his capacity as head of the FRY delegation, was pursuant to a special agreement of August 29, 1995, which is referred to in the Preamble to the GFA. In representing the RS, Milosevic's delegation included three RS officials (Momcilo Krajisnik, President of the RS Parliament; Nikola Koljevic, RS Vice President; and Aleksa Buha, RS Foreign Minister), who, in a side letter to the GFA dated November 20 and addressed to Milosevic as head of the FRY delegation, asked the FRY “to assume … the role of the guarantor that the Republika Srpska shall fulfill all the obligations it took.” These RS members of the delegation refused to participate in the initialing at Dayton on November 21, but did initial the texts in Pale on November 24 in the presence of a U.S. diplomatic representative, and RS officials did participate in the Signature Conference in Paris.

14 The Conclusions of the conference are reproduced in UN Doc. S/1995/1029, and in 35 ILM at 225. One section of that instrument (paras. 29–33) is entitled “Protection of human rights.”

15 It can be argued that, as by GFA Article VII all the parties thereto, including Croatia and the FRY, “agree to and shall comply fully with the provisions concerning human rights set forth in Chapter One of the Agreement at Annex 6,” and as that chapter is not expressly linked to Bosnia, these states have thus bound themselves to “secure to all persons within their jurisdiction” all the rights listed or referred to in that chapter.

16 Opinion on the constitutional aspects of Recommendation 1238 (1994) of the Parliamentary Assembly on the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, CoE Doc. CDL(94)53 (rev.), appended to Communication from Committee of Ministers, Eur. Pari. Ass., Doc. No. 7203, paras. A.2–3 (1994).

17 Set out in Addendum 10 to Szasz, supra note 3.

18 The “Others” include persons (1) who come from a group other than the named principal ones, such as Albanians, Slovenes, Italians, Hungarians, Jews, etc.; (2) whose origins are mixed (e.g., Muslim father and Serb mother); and (3) who, even if they could, choose not to identify themselves with any of the principal groups, defining themselves as Yugoslavs, or Bosnians. While categories 1 and 2 are basically fixed in size, category 3 could diminish or grow, according to political circumstances.

19 CoE Comm. of Ministers Res. 93(6) is reproduced in Addendum 9 to Szasz, supra note 3.

20 By SC Res. 827 (May 25, 1993), reprinted in 32 ILM 1203 (1993), the Security Council adopted the Statute of the Tribunal, UN Doc. S/25704, annex (1993), reprinted in 32 ILM at 1192. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence adopted by the Tribunal on February 11, 1994, are reproduced in 33 ILM 484 (1994), with two amendments in id. at 838 and 1620; for the most recent version of the Rules, see Doc. IT/32/Rev.6 (Oct. 6, 1995). For other Rules of the Tribunal, see 33 ILM at 1581 and 1590.

21 See 34 ILM 997 and 1013 (1995).

22 It should be noted that in these two agreements, which are the only ones relevant to the present discussion to which the FRY is a party, the term “International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia” (appearing in all other provisions cited here) is not used, but only the indicated circumlocution. Presumably, this reflects the reluctance of the FRY to accept a direct reference to the Tribunal.

23 This subject is covered at greater length by Payam Akhavan (Legal Adviser, Office of the Prosecutor, Yugoslav war crimes Tribunal) in The Yugoslav Tribunal at a Crossroads: The Dayton Peace Agreement and Beyond, 18 Hum. Rts. Q. 259 (1996).