Negotiating Peace Under Fire: How Dayton Informs Ukraine’s Path to a Durable Settlement
By: Dr. Paul R. Williams* and Sindija Beta**
The Dayton Peace Agreement of 1995 is often celebrated as a diplomatic breakthrough. It ended nearly four years of brutal conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, halting atrocities and stabilizing the Balkans. Yet Dayton’s compromises were not neutral; they reflected the urgency of stopping violence rather than building a durable state. The agreement froze wartime territorial divisions, entrenched ethnic power-sharing, and created a constitutional framework that was more a ceasefire mechanism than a blueprint for governance. Bosnia survived, but its institutions remained fragile, dependent on international oversight, and prone to paralysis. The lesson for Ukraine is sobering: compromise can end war, but if it undermines sovereignty or institutional coherence, it risks producing a peace too brittle to endure.
Territorial Integrity: The Perils of Codifying Loss
Dayton’s territorial settlement effectively legitimized wartime gains by recognizing the Republika Srpska as one of two constituent entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina, alongside the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This arrangement embedded ethnic separation into the constitutional fabric and rewarded territorial conquest achieved through ethnic cleansing and genocide. The result was a peace that was stable on paper but contested in practice. Republika Srpska’s leadership has repeatedly threatened secession, undermining Bosnia’s sovereignty and fueling nationalist rhetoric that obstructs reform. The territorial division also entrenched displacement: hundreds of thousands of Bosniaks and Croats did not return to their pre-war homes, leaving the promise of multiethnic coexistence hollow.
For Ukraine, the stakes are even higher. Any negotiation that concedes sovereignty over occupied territories would not only weaken Ukraine’s national survival but also erode the principle of territorial integrity that underpins international law and global stability. Just as Dayton’s recognition of Republika Srpska entrenched ethnic partition and legitimized wartime atrocities, conceding Ukrainian territory would normalize aggression and occupation. The precedent of rewarding force would reverberate beyond Ukraine, emboldening other actors to pursue annexation and undermining global norms designed to protect sovereignty.
Political Stability: Avoiding Institutional Paralysis
Dayton’s power-sharing arrangements sought to balance ethnic representation, but they produced a system prone to deadlock. The tripartite presidency, requiring consensus among Bosniak, Croat, and Serb members, became a symbol of paralysis. Ethnic vetoes embedded in the constitution blocked reforms, while the Office of the High Representative (OHR) was repeatedly forced to impose laws and dismiss officials to keep the state functioning. Bosnia’s institutions became arenas of obstruction rather than vehicles of progress, with international actors forced to intervene repeatedly to break political stalemates.
Ukraine must avoid replicating such institutional fragility. While inclusivity and representation are vital, political arrangements should strengthen rather than weaken state capacity. Stability cannot rest on institutional fragmentation; it requires a resilient constitutional order capable of adapting to future challenges. Bosnia’s experience shows how constitutional rigidity can stall reform and obstruct integration into the European Union. For Ukraine, this means designing institutions that are inclusive but not immobilized, representative but not hostage to vetoes, and flexible enough to evolve as the country rebuilds after war.
Security Guarantees: Balancing External Support and Domestic Resilience
Dayton relied heavily on international military presence to enforce peace, beginning with NATO’s Implementation Force (IFOR) and later Stabilization Force (SFOR), before responsibility shifted to the EU’s mission (EUFOR Althea). This external enforcement prevented renewed conflict but also revealed Bosnia’s fragility. Its armed forces remained fragmented for years, only gradually unified under international supervision, and the state continued to depend on foreign troops. Even today, Bosnia’s stability is contingent on international actors, raising questions about the durability of a peace that never fully transitioned into self‑sufficiency.
Ukraine’s trajectory is different. The war has already compelled the country to build a strong, unified military capable of defending its territory, while also relying on external support to deter further Russian aggression. NATO’s involvement is not a substitute for Ukraine’s resilience but a necessary complement, given the scale and persistence of Russia’s attacks. The lesson from Bosnia is that peace enforced externally without internal consolidation risks dependency and stagnation. Ukraine’s security architecture is emerging as a blend of self‑reliance and credible international guarantees, where domestic defense capacity anchors sovereignty and NATO’s deterrence provides the external shield against renewed aggression.
Toward Durable Peace in Ukraine
The Dayton Peace Process demonstrates both the necessity and the peril of compromise. It ended the war but entrenched divisions, secured stability but undermined governance, and provided security but fostered dependency. In Bosnia, the compromises that brought immediate calm also embedded fragility into the state’s foundations, leaving institutions vulnerable to paralysis and sovereignty dependent on external oversight.
Ukraine’s situation carries echoes of these dilemmas but also important differences. Negotiators face immense pressure to deliver peace quickly, from domestic constituencies exhausted by war and international actors eager for stability. Yet Dayton reminds us that the quality of peace matters as much as its speed. A settlement that trades away territorial integrity, weakens institutions, or leaves security reliant on external enforcement risks becoming a temporary pause rather than a lasting resolution. Bosnia’s experience shows how compromises that appear pragmatic in the moment can generate long‑term instability.
For Ukraine, the central question is how to balance the urgency of ending violence with the durability of the settlement that follows. The lessons of Dayton suggest that peace is most resilient when it reinforces sovereignty, strengthens governance, and combines domestic resilience with credible international support. Bosnia’s stalled EU accession illustrates how rigid constitutional compromises can obstruct integration, while Ukraine’s path toward EU membership offers an opportunity to embed peace within a broader European framework. If Bosnia illustrates the dangers of a peace built on dependency and division, Ukraine’s path will be judged by whether it can secure a settlement that avoids those pitfalls and lays the foundation for a stable, democratic, and sovereign future.
* Dr. Paul R. Williams is the Co-Founder and Director of the Public International Law & Policy Group and Rebecca Grazier Professor of Law and International Relations at American University
** Sindija Beta is the Legal Officer and Program Manager at the Public International Law & Policy Group