PILPG Journal of Frontline Scholarship
PILPG Journal of Frontline Scholarship is guided by the belief that meaningful progress in peace and justice is driven by collaboration across generations, disciplines, and experiences. The mission of the publication is to elevate practitioner-informed, academically grounded, and forward-looking analysis that can shape real-world outcomes in conflict resolution, accountability, and international law. We aim to bridge the gap between theory and practice, while mentoring the next generation of peacebuilders and legal experts through intentional co-authorship. By centering voices from the field and providing space for emerging professionals, the publication promotes a more inclusive and dynamic vision of global legal scholarship. Upholding high standards of intellectual contribution through peer review and editorial oversight, PILPG Journal of Frontline Scholarship is committed to producing work that is both rigorous and relevant. As part of our mission to democratize knowledge, all publications are freely accessible and can be found on this page.
Submissions are by invitation only. We do not accept unsolicited articles.
Crafting Peace Under Duress: How Dayton Ended the Bosnian War by Entrenching the Structures of Dysfunctional Governance
By: Dr. Paul R. Williams & Greta Ramelli
This article analyzes the constitutional architecture established by the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement and argues that Bosnia and Herzegovina's current crisis, marked by secessionist rhetoric, defiance of state institutions, and stalled EU accession, is the predictable outcome of a constitutional order designed to end a war, not to sustain durable democratic governance. Drawing on one author's firsthand participation in the Bosnian delegation and subsequent decades of peace-process experience, it traces how the extraordinary wartime pressures of the negotiations subordinated constitutional design to military enforcement, producing a framework of territorial decentralization, ethnic power-sharing, and veto mechanisms borrowed from an inherently undemocratic Yugoslav template. The article concludes by proposing pathways for reform, including curbing veto-based obstruction, aligning change with EU accession and civic rights, and shifting from international supervision toward legitimate domestic governance.
