The Bosnian peace plan was fought hard, but it ended four bloody years that claimed the lives of more than 250,000 people and caused more than two million people to flee. The final agreement was a tribute to the skills of Holbrooke and his negotiating team; Foreign Minister Christopher, who, at critical times, played a crucial role in keeping bosniaks on board and in achieving the agreement; Anthony Lake, who helped sell the peace initiative to the parties involved and lobbied Holbrooke for the final talks to take place in the United States; the Deputy National Security Adviser, Samuel Berger, who chaired the meetings of the Committee of Representatives, who briefed participants in other countries` national security operations on what was happening without allowing too much interference; and to the United Nations ambassador, Madeleine Albright, who effectively advocated for the strong position of the United States in the world organization. But that`s not what happened. As the table below shows, Bosnian Serbs are tacitly in favour of the Dayton agreement: 42% of them would certainly vote for Dayton, and only 9% would vote against. The war in Croatia lasted until January 1992, when an unconditional ceasefire established a restless peace between the Croatian government and ethnic Serbs. The war between Croats and Bosniaks ended with the signing of the Washington Agreement in March 1994, establishing an uncomfortable alliance known as the Bosnian-Croat Federation. Meanwhile, fighting continued between Bosnian Croat forces and Serbs, despite international efforts to achieve a permanent ceasefire, including a no-fly zone, a fire-free zone around Sarajevo and humanitarian operations. In February 1994, during NATO`s first use of force, NATO fighters shot down four Serbian planes that violated the no-fly zone. Later, in May 1995, NATO carried out airstrikes on the Serbian stronghold of Pale. “Banja Luka was really a tough call for both of us,” Galbraith recalls. “You could have had 300,000 or 400,000 people trying to flee, and that would have been a huge humanitarian catastrophe. And then there was the question of Tudjman`s behavior.
You have to wonder what would have happened if he had caught Banja Luka. This was one of the first cases in which the Court had to ask itself the question of the legal nature of the Constitution. By making this remark in the manner of an obiter dictum concerning Annex IV (the Constitution) and the rest of the peace agreement, the Court in fact created “the basis of the legal unity” of the entire peace agreement, which further implied that all annexes are in hierarchical equality. In subsequent decisions, the Court confirmed this by using other annexes to the Peace Agreement as a direct basis for the analysis, and not only in the context of the systematic interpretation of annex IV. However, since the Court rejected the applicants` application, it did not address the controversial issues of the legality of the procedure by which the new Constitution (Annex IV) came to power and replaced the old Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The General Court used the same reasoning to dismiss the similar action in a subsequent case.  The Bosnian Serbs were originally against dayton`s constitutional structures – but even they have supported them today. Across all ethnic groups, a minority — only 28 percent — say they would have voted definitively or likely against Dayton in 2013. Bosnian Serbs are seven times more likely to say they would vote for the deal than they would reject it.
The agreement required a large number of international organizations to monitor, supervise and implement the elements of the agreement. THE NATO-led IFOR (Implementation Force) was responsible for implementing the military aspects of the agreement and was deployed on 20 December 1995 and took over the forces of UNPROFOR. .