by Patrick Moore ATTENTION DURING THE FIRST HALF OF JANUARY focused on two questions: whether the “warring parties” would comply with the timetable and other provisions of the Dayton agreement, and how “robustly” the Implementation Force (IFOR) would interpret its mandate. The purely military provisions of the treaty seemed to be one of the least problematic areas. There were no […]
You have reached a premium content area of Transitions. To read this entire article please login if you are already a Transitions subscriber.
Not a subscriber?
Subscribe today for access to:
Full access to the website and archive of over 26,000 articles
Exclusive monthly, members-only newsletter offering behind-the-scenes views from our contributing writers
A guest, two-month subscription to share with a friend
