The Role of The United Nations in Peacekeeping in The Balkans (1990-2000) and Current Challenges for Regional Stability

After Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia faced an economic crisis and growing internal tensions, exacerbated by the suppression of Kosovo’s autonomy in 1989. In 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence, followed by Bosnia in 1992, triggering the Bosnian War. Serbia and Montenegro formed a new federation, which was not internationally recognized. In 2008, Kosovo declared independence, which Serbia refused to acknowledge. In this context of crisis, the role of the United Nations must be examined more closely, as it is considered the guarantor of international peace and security. The UN played a key role by launching peacekeeping operations, deploying Blue Helmets to protect civilians and buffer zones, and providing humanitarian aid. Resolutions 743 and 824 were crucial in establishing security zones to safeguard civilians. However, despite these efforts, ethnic and religious conflicts persisted. The UN failed to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide committed by Serbs against Bosniak Muslims in 1995, leading to horrific atrocities. This raised questions about the UN's effectiveness in maintaining peace and regional stability, as well as the limitations of peacekeeping operations and international law. Following agreements such as the Dayton Accord and interventions by other actors like NATO, the EU, and state actors, the Balkans transitioned from active conflict to fragile peace. However, ethnic and religious tensions, along with disputes over sovereignty, continue to affect the region.

Keywords : Yugoslavia, autonomy, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, United Nations (UN), peacekeeping operations (PKO), international security, Blue Helmets, Resolutions 743 and 824, ethnic cleansing, genocide, Dayton Accord, NATO, EU, Balkans.

After the death of Josip Broz Tito (President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1980) in 1980, Yugoslavia entered a period of increasing tensions, marked by an economic crisis and internal conflicts. Yugoslavia was a former state in Southern Europe, covering an area of 255,800 km². Established between 1945-1946 and 1992, it was composed of six federated republics : Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia, with Belgrade as its capital¹. Primarily located in the Balkans. Yugoslavia granted significant autonomy to its republics under the 1974 Constitution, allowing them to act almost independently. However, the country's growing debt led to economic reforms imposed by the IMF and the World Bank, worsening the situation. During the 1980s, ethnic and political tensions escalated, particularly following the suppression of Kosovo’s autonomy by Slobodan Milošević in 1989. In 1990, multiparty elections were held, and all republics except Serbia and Montenegro elected pro-independence governments. Slovenia and Croatia declared independence in June 1991, sparking armed conflicts. Macedonia followed in September, and Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence in March 1992 after a referendum boycotted by Serbs.

The Bosnian War broke out in 1992, characterized by massacres and an ethnic cleansing policy carried out by Serbian forces. Meanwhile, Serbia and Montenegro formed a new federation in 1992, but it was not recognized internationally as Yugoslavia’s legitimate successor.

In 2002, Serbia agreed to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for war crime prosecutions. In 2006, Montenegro held a referendum and declared independence, followed by Serbia, marking the final dissolution of the federation. In 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence, which Serbia refused to recognize, leading to ongoing instability in the region.

In this context, the United Nations played a crucial role in peacekeeping efforts in the former Yugoslavia. The mission was initiated through Resolution 743 (1992), which established the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). Additionally, Resolution 824 (1993) created "safe zones" in Sarajevo, Tuzla, Žepa, Goražde, Bihać, and Srebrenica to maintain order and protect civilians². Despite these efforts, conflicts persisted, leading to ongoing ethnic and religious tensions. The ideal of pacification did not unfold as expected, facing numerous challenges and producing limited results. In some cases, peacekeeping efforts only managed to reduce visible tensions without achieving concrete solutions Thus, this paper seeks to examine the role of the United Nations in maintaining peace in the Balkans between 1990 and 2000, as well as the ongoing challenges to regional stability today.

1992 : Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence. In response, Bosnian Serbs proclaimed their own state, the Republika Srpska. The Bosnian War began. Meanwhile, Bosnian Croats also established Herceg-Bosna.

1995 : The Bosnian War ended with the signing of a peace agreement. Bosnia and Herzegovina merged with Republika Srpska to form the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A remnant of Krajina remained in Eastern Slavonia.

International law norms were created to promote international cooperation and establish lasting peace between different entities. These norms consist of agreements, conventions, protocols, and international treaties ratified by states. Public international law operates without specific regulations, as states are both creators and recipients of the norms. The subjects of public international law are states and international organizations, particularly the United Nations (UN). The Preamble of the UN Charter states that its goal is to "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained." Ensuring respect for international law is the UN’s main objective, which it achieves through courts, tribunals, and multilateral treaties. The UN Charter grants the Security Council powers to approve the deployment of peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions, and, if necessary, authorize the use of force when there is a threat to international peace and security. According to Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter, one of the main goals of the UN is : "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." To "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," the UN is committed to two main principles : international security and peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is carried out through UN peacekeeping operations, which help create the necessary conditions for peace in conflict-affected countries. Through unique strengths such as legitimacy, burden-sharing, and the ability to deploy troops and police, known as Blue Helmets from all over the world, the UN integrates them into the civil peacekeeping staff to carry out various mandates established by

the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly³. The UN’s peacekeeping activities are among the most effective and legitimate tools for assisting conflict-affected countries⁴. The UN follows three main principles during its operations : consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of force, except in cases of self-defense or in defense of the mandate. There are several legal bases for UN interventions, including Chapter VI of the 1945 UN Charter (Pacific Settlement of Disputes), which allows the UN to intervene to encourage negotiations, mediation, and arbitration. There is also Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the same Charter, which allows military interventions when international peace and security are threatened. Moreover, interventions are often authorized through Security Council Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, such as Resolution 1244 (1999) on Kosovo. Other sources, such as international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, peace agreements, and specific mandates, also guide the UN’s interventions.

The rise of nationalism, following economic tensions after Tito's death in 1980, led to the collapse of Yugoslavia. The federated states declared their independence one by one, resulting in violent conflicts. The European Community at the time, facing a deadlock regarding both the analysis of the conflict and the means to stop it, called on the UN as early as September 1991. Initially, this was to universalize the arms embargo against Yugoslavia (Resolution 713), then to negotiate a temporary ceasefire accompanied by a peacekeeping operation (Vance Plan)⁵.Between 1990 and 2000, the United Nations played a key role in the conflicts in the Balkans, which accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia.

The first UN intervention was the United Nations Observer Mission in Yugoslavia (UNOMY), which took place from 1991 to 1992 and was created by Security Council Resolution 721 (1991). The objective was to establish passive monitoring of a ceasefire in Croatia and observe the evolution of the conflict with a small staff.

A few months later, this intervention was replaced by the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) from 1992 to 1995, created by Resolution 743 (1992). This was a peacekeeping operation, initially aimed at maintaining peace in Croatia, which later expanded to Bosnia and Herzegovina with the deployment of Blue Helmet contingents. The UN's major role was the protection of security zones in Bosnia, such as in Sarajevo or Srebrenica, protecting civilians, and maintaining ceasefires in Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia. Except in cases of self- defense, the soldiers were armed but restricted in their use of force.

Following the failure to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, where more than 8,000 Bosniaks were killed and 25,000 displaced by Serbian forces, new stabilization missions were established. These included the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) from 1995 to 2002, which was implemented after the 1995 Dayton Accords. The objectives of UNMIBH were the reform and supervision of local Bosnian forces, the implementation of the rule of law, and the assistance in the return of refugees and displaced persons.

The last mission, established in 1999 and still ongoing, is the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). It was created after the Kosovo War (1998-1999) and NATO's intervention against Serbia, to establish a UN-administered governance in Kosovo, pending a political solution or the possible independence of the territory.

The greatest success of these UN operations was the stabilization of Bosnia and Herzegovina after 1995, the humanitarian aid provided, and the reconstruction efforts. However, there were significant failures as well, such as the inability to prevent massacres (Srebrenica) and the inefficacy in addressing ethnic violence, including ethnic cleansing.

The United Nations played a major role in the Balkans, but its interventions were marked by limited successes and criticism regarding its ineffectiveness in the face of violence. Several factors contributed to this, starting with the overly limited mandates and restrictive rules of engagement. For example, UNPROFOR was tasked with a mission of interposition and humanitarian assistance, yet it did not have real enforcement powers. The Blue Helmets were frequently unable to act in response to massive human rights violations and war crimes, due to restrictions on the use of force, which were later heavily criticized. The same issue applied to other peacekeeping missions as well. Furthermore, the mandate of UNPROFOR was ambiguous, as it was tasked with missions beyond the strict maintenance of peace. The United Nations ended up performing quasi-governmental functions in the former Yugoslavia, which came at a high financial cost. In response to this, the UN Secretary-General used the term “multifaceted peacekeeping operations“⁶ to generalize UNPROFOR and demand more from this force. This vague mandate did not help improve the crisis context. Alongside these limitations, a lack of resources and coordination further complicated matters. The missions were deficient in terms of troops, appropriate equipment, and efficient logistics. Poor coordination between the UN, NATO, and other international actors led to delayed and ineffective decisions. Moreover, one of the greatest criticisms leveled against the UN was its strong passive neutrality in the face of aggression. The UN advocated for neutrality, a stance that sometimes led to inaction in response to abuses, particularly by Serbian forces. The Srebrenica massacre (1995), where Dutch Blue Helmets failed to prevent the killing of over 8,000 Bosniaks by the Serbian army, tragically highlighted this situation. According to some sociologists, this so-called impartiality can be explained by the ethnic and religious origins of the predominantly Muslim victims. One might wonder if the United Nations had taken the conflict more seriously from the start and acted accordingly, whether there would have been fewer damages and deaths on both sides. Alongside this passive neutrality, there was also a lack of political will from the great powers. The implementation of peaceful dispute resolution was entrusted, according to Article 24(1), to two main organs : " In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf." The General Assembly had only a subsidiary role and could only make recommendations, while the primary and essential role was that of the Security Council. However, the divergent interests of the great powers within the Security Council (France, the UK, the US, and Russia) hindered prompt and effective action.