1. The Parties agree that the implementation of the civilian aspects of the peace settlement will involve a wide range of activities, including the continuation of humanitarian assistance efforts for as long as necessary; infrastructure rehabilitation and economic reconstruction; the establishment of political and constitutional institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina; promoting respect for human rights and the return of displaced persons and refugees; and the holding of free and fair elections in accordance with the timetable set out in Annex 3 to the General Framework Agreement. A significant number of international organisations and agencies will be called upon to provide support. 5. The Parties invite the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in close coordination with countries of asylum and Parties, to develop a return plan for the rapid, peaceful, orderly and gradual return of refugees and displaced persons, which may include priorities for specific areas and certain categories of returnees. The Parties agree to implement such a plan and to align their international agreements and national legislation with it. They therefore call on States that have received refugees to promote the early return of refugees in accordance with international law. The situation improved until the third report of the Office of the High Representative (OHR). The report states: “Due to the significant progress previously made in adapting the Inter-Entity Demarcation Line (IEBL), the parties signed a formal agreement on 17 July that resolves most of the practical issues that were still outstanding at the time of the signing of the peace agreement.
Discussions under the auspices of IFOR on the last remaining sections of the IEBL and in particular on the sensitive district of Dobrinja in Sarajevo will continue. 1Ibid. “The Washington Agreement covered the three dimensions of power-sharing – it provided for the integration of rebels into the army (military power-sharing), contained provisions for comprehensive power-sharing in the new government (political power-sharing) and called for the division of the Territory which was fought into autonomous cantons to establish the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (territorial power-sharing). Within the framework of the Dayton Agreement, two dimensions of power-sharing were included: political – the political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina were agreed (the first elections were scheduled for 1996) and territorial – the specifications for the establishment of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina as the Confederation of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska”.1 Taking into account that the reconstruction of infrastructure and the functioning of the Transport and Transport and The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (the “Parties”) agreed as follows: The situation regarding the expulsion of foreign fighters from Bosnia and Herzegovina was unclear. NATO Secretary General Javier Solana confirmed that the fighting groups had completed the withdrawal of their forces from the agreed ceasefire separation zone3 in order to meet the requirement to withdraw from Phase II of the agreement. According to one report, on January 19, 1996, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian government forces completed the withdrawal of most of their troops and heavy weapons.4 NATO`s 60,000 troops were deployed to enforce peace throughout the country even before foreign fighters withdrew. This was one of the first cases in which the Court had to address the question of the legal nature of the Constitution. By making this remark in the manner of an obiter dictum in relation to Annex IV (the Constitution) and the rest of the peace agreement, the Court in fact created “the basis of the legal unity”[9] of the entire peace agreement, which further implied that all annexes are included in hierarchical equality.
In subsequent decisions, the Court confirmed this by using other annexes to the Peace Agreement as a direct basis for the analysis, and not only in the context of the systematic interpretation of annex IV. However, since the Court rejected the applicants` application, it did not specify the controversial issues of the legality of the procedure by which the new Constitution (Annex IV) entered into force and replaced the old Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The court used the same reasoning to dismiss the similar action in a later case. [10] The General Framework Agreement with 11 annexes was officially signed in Paris on 14 December by the parties and witnesses of President Clinton, French President Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister John Major, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. The agreement called on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to commit themselves to full respect for the sovereign equality of others and to the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. In addition, the parties agreed to fully respect human rights and the rights of refugees and displaced persons. Finally, the parties agreed to cooperate fully with all entities, including those authorized by the United Nations Security Council, in the implementation of the peace settlement and in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law. “As the situation on the ground has improved, IFOR has begun to support organizations involved in monitoring the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement, including the Office of the High Representative, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the United Nations( NATO).
[4] After the conclusion of the post-conflict elections in September 1996, IFOR`s objectives were achieved in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As the situation remained volatile, NATO agreed in December 1996 to the deployment of a new stabilization force (SFOR). SFOR supports the civilian aspect of peace implementation.5 a. create secure conditions for the performance of other peace settlement tasks by others, including free and fair elections; The General Framework Agreement stipulated that all foreign forces must be withdrawn within 30 days of the signing of the agreement. The Bosnian government agreed to deport about 2,000 foreigners from Iran and Afghanistan who were fighting with Bosnian Muslim forces.1 There was no information on the implementation of this provision. (Examiner`s Notes: The provision has never been fully implemented. Despite US pressure, a number of Islamist militants in central Bosnia remained near the towns of Zenica and Tuzla, as well as in the village of Maoca. .