International Intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia From the 1990\u27s Through the 2000\u27s

This study researches international intervention and what makes it successful and unsuccessful. The analysis of the Bosnian and Macedonian interventions from the 1990’s through the 2000’s provides clues as to what makes intervention more successful for other international actors considering intervention. These two interventions are a great analytic tool because of their similar situations yet divergent outcomes and studying the successes and mistakes of each intervention is helpful in deciding what should be emphasized in future interventions. Bosnia and Macedonia were the two most multiethnic republics in Yugoslavia before their independence, each had forces from the United Nations and other international actors stationed in their nations at the same time, each had heavy international involvement in their state constitutions, and each hope to become members of the European Union. Given all of these similarities, studying the actions made by the international community helps explain their divergent outcomes and make recommendations for future interventions. This study analyzes resolutions from the United Nations, failed and successful peace agreements, and state constitutions to determine what the role of the international community was supposed to be in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia and what their role actually was. This research concludes that the international intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina was a failure while the international intervention in Macedonia was a success. It also concludes that international intervention works best when actors intervene early on in a country, when sustained physical violence has not begun at the time of intervention, and when actors look at the situation as a whole without faulty preconceived notions of the reason(s) for intervention