Perceptions

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. However, assessing the agreement nearly three decades later is complex. Yet, the tendency to label its legacy with a single word—success or failure—oversimplifies its multifaceted nature. Should we instead view Dayton as a continuum, where its positive and negative aspects shift depending on the context?

We have 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? The experts reflect on the most important lessons learned during the negotiations and consider whether the same agreement could even be reached in today's rapidly changing geopolitical environment. Finally, they address the growing challenges for future mediation efforts in an increasingly fragmented world.

In the process, we learn that Dayton may not have blueprint potential for future negotiations, but it can offer lessons when balancing peace agreements with state-building efforts. They emphasise the critical role of timing in making agreements possible, as Bosnia's moment in 1995 demonstrated. Yet, as time passes, perspectives on the Dayton Peace Accords may evolve, revealing both the wisdom and the limitations embedded in its design. While some see it as a pragmatic framework, others critique it as unnecessarily flawed, offering a reminder that no peace agreement is perfect—but each can guide and inform the future of conflict resolution.