Owen–Stoltenberg plan

Owen–Stoltenberg plan The Owen–Stoltenberg plan was a proposed territorial settlement for Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War drawn up in 1993 and 1994 by international mediators David Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg. The proposal mapped a three-entity partition intended to resolve fighting among Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, and Bosniaks and was debated in diplomatic forums including the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the United States Department of State. It never became law but shaped subsequent accords such as the Dayton Agreement and influenced discussions at the Contact Group and within the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Background

The plan emerged amid complex conflict dynamics that followed the breakup of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and competing claims after the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the conduct of the 1992 Bosnian independence referendum. Fighting between forces aligned with the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Army of Republika Srpska, and the Croatian Defence Council intensified around strategic locations including Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Mostar, and Banja Luka. International responses involved the United Nations Protection Force, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and diplomatic missions led by figures such as Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s successor envoys. Efforts like the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, the Z-4 Plan, and negotiations at Copenhagen and Geneva preceded Owen and Stoltenberg’s involvement.

Negotiation and Proposals

Mediators David Owen, a British politician and former European Commission representative, and Thorvald Stoltenberg, a Norwegian diplomat and former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees official, produced successive maps and texts in a series of rounds that involved representatives from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Serbian Krajina, Republika Srpska, and the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia. The plan’s drafting was discussed at sessions of the United Nations Security Council, in meetings with envoys from the United States, Russia, France, Germany, United Kingdom, and Italy, and at gatherings of the Contact Group. Negotiations referenced earlier frameworks such as the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, the Carrington–Cutileiro plan, and the policies of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Proposals were transmitted to leaders including Alija Izetbegović, Radovan Karadžić, Franjo Tuđman, Slobodan Milošević, and foreign officials like Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright.

Terms of the Plan

The Owen–Stoltenberg texts delineated a three-part territorial division allocating majority areas to entities aligned broadly with Bosnian Serb control in the east and north, Bosnian Croat control in parts of the west and south, and a rump Bosniak unit encompassing parts of Sarajevo and central regions. Maps proposed canton-like arrangements near Mostar, delineated corridors near Nevesinje and Goražde, and specified borders adjacent to Croatia and Serbia. The plan included provisions touching on the status of refugees and internally displaced persons, arrangements for police and judiciary responsibilities, and mechanisms for international supervision possibly involving the United Nations Protection Force and eventual NATO guarantees. It proposed transitional measures for property restitution and minority rights referencing instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights and frameworks used in Kosovo and Cyprus negotiations.

International Reactions and Implementation

Responses varied: Bosnian Serb authorities expressed selective acceptance while Bosnian Croat and Bosniak leaders offered conditional rejections or amendments; political leaders including Radovan Karadžić, Mate Boban, and Alija Izetbegović engaged with the text amid domestic pressures. International actors such as the United States, Russia, European Union, United Nations, and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe debated enforcement options. The United Nations Security Council deliberated resolutions referencing the plan alongside sanctions regimes involving the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committees and measures linked to Slobodan Milošević’s policies. Ultimately, military developments, including operations by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and intervention dynamics involving NATO air operations and the Srebrenica massacre aftermath, influenced the shift toward the Dayton Agreement at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Legacy and Historical Assessment

Historians and analysts from institutions like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the International Crisis Group, and universities including Oxford University, Harvard University, and Yale University have debated the plan’s legal, moral, and practical dimensions. Commentators such as Ralph M. Sami, Noam Chomsky, and scholars publishing in journals tied to Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press have contrasted the plan with alternatives like the Carrington–Cutileiro plan and assessed its impact on subsequent arrangements embodied in the Dayton Peace Accords and the postwar institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina including the Office of the High Representative and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The plan remains a focal point in discussions of partition as a conflict resolution method, comparisons made with resolutions in Cyprus, Sudan, Iraq, and Kosovo, and evaluations by legal scholars examining minority protections, ethnic cleansing adjudications at the ICTY, and the evolution of international humanitarian law.

Category:Bosnian War