Abstract
There is no doubt that the development of the relationships between the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been very much affected by the Yugoslav crisis, both before and after the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement.1 The experience of cooperation is relevant for a better understanding of the complex relationships within the UN’s system of collective security as well as between the UN and regional organizations. There was no blueprint nor any ‘arrangement’ which regulated such mutual relationships. Furthermore, the cooperation before and after Dayton took place under fundamentally different conditions of subcontracting. This reflects the fact that the international community’s involvement in the falling apart of the former Yugoslavia made the Balkan region a testing ground for international politics that required new definitions of crises, analyses and responses. The evolving UN and NATO forms of cooperation had an experimental character. These contacts would have been unthinkable during the preceding years of the Cold War. The Atlantic Alliance chose not to identify itself as a regional organization under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, thereby excluding any Soviet infringement in NATO’s security matters. The central question is whether subcontracting, as applied in the former Yugoslavia, set precedents for future relationships between the UN and regional organizations, particularly in terms of division of labour and accountability.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a more comprehensive treatment of the subject, see Dick A. Leurdijk, The United Nations and NATO in Former Yugoslavia, 1991–1996; Limits to Diplomacy and Force (The Hague: Netherlands Atlantic Commission/Netherlands Institute of International Relations, ‘Clingendael’, 1996).
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, ‘Report on the Work of the Organization’ (New York: United Nations, September 1992), p. 44.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, A/47/277-S/24111, New York, June 1992, para. 64.
See Sir Nicholas Henderson, The Birth of NATO (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1982), pp. 101–5.
General George A. Joulwan, ‘SHAPE and IFOR: adapting to the needs of tomorrow’, NATO Review, 2, March 1996, pp. 6–9.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Supplement to An Agenda for Peace: Position Paper of the Secretary-General on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, A/50/60-S/1995/1, 3 January 1995, paras 84–9.
David Lightburn, ‘NATO and the challenge of multifunctional peacekeeping’, NATO Review, 2, March 1996, pp. 10–14.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1998 Third World Quarterly and Academic Council on the United Nations System
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leurdijk, D.A. (1998). Before and After Dayton: the UN and NATO in the Former Yugoslavia. In: Weiss, T.G. (eds) Beyond UN Subcontracting. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26263-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26263-2_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-72508-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-26263-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)