{"id":12025,"date":"2025-11-20T16:56:03","date_gmt":"2025-11-20T15:56:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/?p=12025"},"modified":"2026-01-20T21:59:21","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T20:59:21","slug":"serbia-and-croatia-are-parties-to-the-dayton-agreement-not-guarantors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/2025\/11\/20\/serbia-and-croatia-are-parties-to-the-dayton-agreement-not-guarantors\/","title":{"rendered":"Serbia and Croatia Are Parties to the Dayton Agreement, Not \u201cGuarantors\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Original article<\/a>\u00a0(in Bosnian) was published on 14\/11\/2025; Author: Mladen Laki\u0107<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The news agency Srna published an article in which former Serbian diplomat Branko Brankovi\u0107 incorrectly stated that Serbia and Croatia are \u201cguarantors\u201d of the Dayton Agreement, in the context of criticism directed at the international community for supporting the \u201cunauthorized\u201d High Representative Christian Schmidt.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The news agency Srna published an article in which former Serbian diplomat Branko Brankovi\u0107 incorrectly stated that Serbia and Croatia are \u201cguarantors\u201d of the Dayton Agreement, in the context of criticism directed at the international community for supporting the \u201cunauthorized\u201d High Representative Christian Schmidt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 9 November 2025, the Republika Srpska news agency Srna published an article<\/a> in which former diplomat and Serbia\u2019s former ambassador to the UN, Branko Brankovi\u0107<\/a>, spoke about the High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Christian Schmidt, the Dayton Agreement, and the international community, which he claimed was \u201cundermining\u201d it through its actions. He stated that the \u201cletter\u201d of the Dayton Agreement ensures that no \u201cpeople or entity\u201d in BiH is \u201charmed\u201d, but that the international community allegedly does not adhere to this, unlike the \u201cguarantors of the agreement\u201d, Serbia and Croatia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Brankovi\u0107 stated that the international factor must fully respect what it signed together with Serbia and Croatia as guarantors and with the three peoples in BiH. \u201cThe problem is not Serbia and Croatia as guarantors; they are fighting for and respecting the Dayton Agreement. The problem is the international community, which is backing this current, so-called \/Christian\/ Schmidt, who arrived without approval from the Security Council and has support only from the Muslim side\u201d, Brankovi\u0107 said.<\/em>
<\/em>(…)<\/em>
<\/em>Brankovi\u0107 emphasized that Schmidt needs to be shown where the line is and, as he put it, expelled. \u201cHe has no authority and cannot have it\u201d, Brankovi\u0107 stressed.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The article was republished without significant changes by Radio televizija Republike Srpske (RTRS)<\/a>, Provjereno<\/a>, Argumenti<\/a>, Glas Srpske<\/a>, TOK TV<\/a>, and Banjaluka (.net)<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does the General Framework Agreement for Peace in BiH Have \u201cGuarantors\u201d?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claim that Serbia, and previously Croatia, are \u201cguarantors\u201d of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina<\/a>, agreed on<\/a> 21 November 1995 in Dayton and signed in Paris on 14 December of the same year, is repeatedly made in the media, most often in statements by political officials or commentators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This agreement, commonly known as the Dayton Agreement, was signed by the then Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the Republic of Croatia, while the European Union, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States acted as witness countries. The Peace Implementation Council (PIC)<\/a>, comprising more than 50 countries and organizations, provides support for the implementation of the agreement. The Steering Board is the executive body of the PIC and provides guidance to the High Representative of the international community in BiH, who has the authority to sanction obstruction and inconsistent implementation of the Dayton Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A detailed overview of the facts about the Dayton Agreement and the current Constitution of BiH, as well as details about the countries that signed the agreement, can be found in our analysis from the \u201cprebunking\u201d series Rasvjetljavanje<\/em>, available at the following link. In that analysis, the following is stated regarding the \u201cguarantors\u201d of the agreement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Although the term \u201cguarantors\u201d of the peace agreement is not mentioned in the Dayton Peace Agreement, which exclusively uses the terms \u201cparties\u201d and \u201cwitnesses\u201d, this does not prevent political actors in BiH, as well as in countries of the region, from claiming otherwise and using this non-existent term. The most common example of its use is the frequent incorrect claim that \u201cSerbia and Croatia are guarantors of the Dayton Peace Agreement\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Our partner fact-checking platform Istinomjer has also addressed claims that Serbia or Croatia are \u201cguarantors\u201d of the Dayton Agreement. In an analysis<\/a> published in 2019, it was explained in detail that Serbia (then within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and Croatia are parties to this agreement, together with Bosnia and Herzegovina (then a republic), as stated already in the first sentence of the preamble of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in BiH.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and Croatia are mentioned in several places in the Dayton Agreement, including as \u201cparticipating countries\u201d (for example, Annex 3 \u2013 Agreement on Elections). However, nowhere is it stated that these or any other countries are \u201cguarantors\u201d of the agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schmidt and \u201cApproval\u201d by the Security Council<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since August 2021, when Christian Schmidt assumed the position<\/a> of High Representative of the international community in BiH, numerous political officials in Republika Srpska have challenged his appointment<\/a>. The main argument used to justify this position has been that his appointment was not confirmed by the UN Security Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our partner portal Istinomjer has on several occasions addressed claims by officials who dispute Schmidt\u2019s legitimacy in this manner (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 4<\/a>). In an analysis<\/a> published on 7 June 2021, Istinomjer stated that it is true that Schmidt\u2019s appointment was not confirmed by the UN Security Council, but explained that this does not make Schmidt illegitimate or \u201cillegally appointed\u201d. Simply put, such confirmation is not a requirement for the appointment of the High Representative of the international community in BiH.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Raskrinkavanje has written about numerous media claims that Schmidt is \u201cillegally appointed\u201d, \u201cillegitimate\u201d, or a \u201cfake\u201d High Representative in BiH (1<\/a> ,2<\/a>, 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To date, in most cases, the PIC has appointed High Representatives, while the Security Council subsequently expressed agreement with the appointment through a resolution. In the cases of Christian Schwarz-Schilling and Christian Schmidt, no such resolution was adopted, but this did not prevent their appointment or the performance of the duties of the office to which they were appointed. In the aforementioned analysis, Istinomjer stated the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The fact that the absence of confirmation by the UN Security Council is not unprecedented is also demonstrated by the case from 2005, when Christian Schwarz-Schilling was selected as High Representative. At that time, outgoing High Representative Paddy Ashdown informed the UN Secretary-General <\/em>in writing<\/em><\/a> that Schwarz-Schilling would assume the position as of 31 January 2006, and that he had been informed \u201cthat this information should be forwarded to the Security Council for consideration and possible agreement\u201d. Moreover, a defined procedure for selecting the High Representative does not exist, and even the first holder of this position, Carl Bildt, was not appointed by the UN Security Council. The Peace Implementation Conference held in London on 8 and 9 December 1995, in addition to establishing the PIC, stated in Conclusion 18 the designation of Bildt as High Representative \u201cafter consultations with the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina\u201d, and called on the Security Council to agree with this move.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Early elections for the President of Republika Srpska were scheduled for 23 November 2025. The elections were called after the Central Election Commission of BiH (CEC BiH) <\/em>decided<\/em><\/a>in August to terminate the mandate of RS President Milorad Dodik (SNSD), following the <\/em>confirmation<\/em><\/a>of a first-instance verdict sentencing him to one year in prison, along with a security measure banning him from performing the duties of RS President for a period of six years. Dodik was found guilty of the criminal offense of failing to implement decisions of the High Representative under Article 203a, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code of BiH.\nWe addressed disinformation regarding the details of the verdict against Dodik in an analysis available <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>. We have also written on several occasions about frequent disinformation aimed at challenging the legitimacy of the High Representative in BiH observed during this period (<\/em>1<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>2<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>3<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>4<\/em><\/a>).<\/em><\/code><\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Based on the facts, we rate the claim that Serbia and Croatia are guarantors of the Dayton Agreement as disinformation<\/strong>. Serbia and Croatia are parties that committed themselves to implementing the agreement through their signatures. The term \u201cguarantor\u201d is not mentioned in the agreement. We rate the claim that High Representative Christian Schmidt \u201chas no authority\u201d because he was not approved by the UN Security Council as manipulation of facts<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Original article\u00a0(in Bosnian) was published on 14\/11\/2025; Author: Mladen Laki\u0107 The news agency Srna published an article in which former Serbian diplomat Branko Brankovi\u0107 incorrectly stated that Serbia and Croatia are \u201cguarantors\u201d of the Dayton Agreement, in the context of criticism directed at the international community for supporting the \u201cunauthorized\u201d High Representative Christian Schmidt. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":12029,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[316],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-checks"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12025"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12025\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12030,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12025\/revisions\/12030"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12029"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}