Content uploaded by Alija Kozljak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alija Kozljak on Nov 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Odgovornost medjunarodne zajednice za rat i mir u Bosni mi Hercegovini
Abstract
This book is based on the PhD disertetion of the author, and it analyses the involvement and responsibility of international community for preventing the war and providing a peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The conceptual context is based on political and international relations theories, streamlining the understanding of developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina during and after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. The methodology used for this analysis is mainly a qualitative research, by means of numerous primary and secondary sources. Also, a few hundred of UN documents has been analysed and statistically processed, underpinning the testing of the premises and of the overall study.
Consequently, the book contributes to debates whether international community was successful in creating and implementing peace plans for Yugoslavia.
Henceforth, it examines the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, focusing on the period from the beginning of 1990’s until the Dayton peace agreement. Also, it elaborates attempts of international community to prevent a war, and then to establish a peace in the situation of terrible killings and devastation of the country.
Correspondingly, the book further examines to what extent, using all available resources, international community succeeded in it’s efforts.
In that regard, after some preliminary arguments, the book offers an explanation of the post-Cold war international order. It also reminds on the role of the UN as a global security forum. The book minutely describes the dissolution of Yugoslavia, focusing then on the international recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has been followed by an aggression. In the fourth part, it elaborates the role of the UN Security Council on the creation and outcomes of the peace plans for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Then, the book attempts to provide a short illustration of the influence of the permanent members of the UN Security Council on the policy of the UN towards aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina. In it’s sixth part, it includes critics of the efficiency of the UN SC in preserving and establishing a peace. The book concludes that, despite all elaborated efforts, international community acting under strong influence of powerful countries, seriously suffered to provide efficient solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
“Never again” we said after the Holocaust. And after the Cambodian Ngenocide in the 1970s. And then again after the Rwandan genocide in 1994. And then, just a year later, after the Srbrenica massacre in Bosnia. And now we’re asking ourselves, yet again, in the face of more mass killing and dying in Darfur, whether we really are ever going to be capable, as an international community, of stopping nation-states from murdering their own people. How many more times will we look back wondering, with varying degrees of incomprehension, horror, anger, and shame, how we could have let it all happen?
Civil wars pose some of the most difficult problems in the world today and the United Nations is the organization generally called upon to bring and sustain peace. Lise Morje Howard studies the sources of success and failure in UN peacekeeping. Her in-depth 2007 analysis of some of the most complex UN peacekeeping missions debunks the conventional wisdom that they habitually fail, showing that the UN record actually includes a number of important, though understudied, success stories. Using systematic comparative analysis, Howard argues that UN peacekeeping succeeds when field missions establish significant autonomy from UN headquarters, allowing civilian and military staff to adjust to the post-civil war environment. In contrast, failure frequently results from operational directives originating in UN headquarters, often devised in relation to higher-level political disputes with little relevance to the civil war in question. Howard recommends future reforms be oriented toward devolving decision-making power to the field missions.
