Prologue

The Dayton Peace Accords - initialled on 21 November 1995 at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton and formally signed in Paris on 14 December 1995 - remain a pivotal milestone in modern conflict resolution, ending the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For nearly three decades, it kept the peace but failed to address the drivers of conflict and allow for tangible political reconstruction. Its legacy remains contested, defying simple categorisations as a success or failure. Instead, Dayton can be observed as a multifaceted milestone, offering lessons and limitations for contemporary and future conflict mediation.

This edition of the Knowledge Transfer Module focuses on the lessons learned by providing a structured analysis of its multidimensional framework. We do so by mirroring content categories from our 2023 KTM-Dayton edition (how the events unfolded) by applying a new layer of knowledge in the form of 100 lessons learned for each section. We draw on insights from multiple sources focusing on the key lessons from five key stages of the negotiations: background, turning points, US shuttle diplomacy, 21 days of peace talks in Dayton, and early stages of implementation. The lessons are clustered into broader themes, each contributing to a deeper understanding of the complexities of peace negotiations and the interplay between politics, diplomacy, and leadership.

The Dayton Peace Accords did not emerge in a vacuum; they were the culmination of years of complex dynamics shaped by historical events, geopolitical manoeuvring, and failed attempts to end the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The road to peace was marked by critical turning points that redefined the trajectory of the war and international responses. In the summer of 1995, the Srebrenica genocide and the Markale market massacre in besieged Sarajevo catalysed a shift in international responses, highlighting the interplay of humanitarian crises, shifting military dynamics, and evolving political strategies.

The negotiations themselves embodied a delicate balance between formality and adaptability. On the one hand, the US Shuttle diplomacy was instrumental, leveraging military advances and symbolic gestures to build trust among adversaries. On the other hand, Dayton's 21 days of proximity talks exemplified structured problem-solving, employing innovative tools and strategic concessions to transform entrenched disputes into enforceable commitments. These efforts showcased the critical role of timing, coordination, and creativity in conflict resolution. The early stages of the implementation revealed the true test of Dayton's provisions. A robust international presence ensured initial compliance, but the framework's structural flaws posed long-term challenges. The lessons of implementation highlight the necessity of sustained oversight, adaptability, and the balance between peacekeeping and state-building.

Dayton emerges as a pragmatic framework through these reflections—neither perfect nor universally replicable. Its achievements in keeping the peace contrast with its struggles in fostering sustainable functionality. The Accords illuminate the complexities of post-war reconstruction, reminding us that peace agreements are dynamic, evolving alongside the geopolitical landscapes in which they operate.

We have also asked international experts to share their perceptions of Dayton's legacy, its successes and limitations, and its relevance for future conflict mediation. Through these interviews, we explore a spectrum of critical questions. Most importantly, how to reconcile the ongoing tension when discussing its future and legacy. Was Dayton a success or a failure—or something in between? Does it stand as a testament to skilful diplomacy, or could it serve as a blueprint for resolving future conflicts? As conflicts grow more fragmented and global challenges intensify, Dayton offers enduring relevance, guiding the pursuit of stability in an uncertain world.