Executive summary
Recent statements by Milorad Dodik, President of Republika Srpska, regarding the status of the Brčko District and the conclusions of the Party of Democratic Action (SDA) underscore persistent challenges to the durability of the Dayton Peace Agreement. The proposal to annex Brčko to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) has triggered renewed debate over the distribution of sovereignty and the mechanisms of governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This situation highlights the fragility of the current constitutional architecture and the need for cautious, inclusive dialogue grounded in legal commitments and mutual recognition.

Background
Established under the 1995 Dayton Agreement, the Brčko District was designed as a neutral, self-governing administrative unit, reflecting the compromises necessary to end the conflict while preserving the territorial viability of both main entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. Its status remains one of the most delicate components of the post-war settlement.

The SDA’s recent position, advocating for Brčko’s integration into the Federation, has been met with firm opposition from Republika Srpska leadership. Dodik’s statements frame the proposal not merely as a local political maneuver but as a systemic threat to the foundational principles of the peace accords.

Key issues

1. Constitutional integrity and Dayton framework
   Any unilateral attempts to alter the status of Brčko would directly challenge the spirit and letter of the Dayton Agreement, risking destabilization not only at the local level but across the entire constitutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2. Legitimacy of governance structures
   The controversy surrounding the High Representative Christian Schmidt — particularly the absence of formal UN Security Council endorsement — adds an additional layer of complexity. It reflects broader concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of international oversight in Bosnia’s political development.
3. Sovereignty and entity rights
   Dodik’s rhetoric emphasizes the assertion of Republika Srpska’s rights as an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina, advocating for a model of governance based on decentralization and respect for entity sovereignty. His warnings against potential unilateral changes to Brčko’s status align with a broader skepticism towards external intervention and centralized state-building efforts.
4. Risks of political polarization
   The Brčko debate risks deepening political polarization, reducing space for compromise, and fueling narratives that question Bosnia and Herzegovina’s long-term viability as a unified state.

Recommendations

• Renewed commitment to Dayton principles
  All domestic and international actors should reaffirm their commitment to the Dayton framework, emphasizing negotiated solutions over unilateral initiatives.
• Inclusive dialogue mechanisms
  A structured dialogue involving all constituent peoples and entities is essential to address sensitive issues like Brčko’s status. Confidence-building measures should accompany any discussions to reduce tensions.
• Clarification of international roles
  Clear communication regarding the mandate and authority of international institutions, including the Office of the High Representative, would contribute to restoring trust and ensuring transparency.
• Monitoring and early warning
  International stakeholders should enhance monitoring of political developments related to territorial and constitutional issues, establishing early-warning mechanisms to prevent escalation.

The recent controversy over Brčko is a critical reminder that the sustainability of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s post-Dayton order requires constant vigilance, legal rigor, and above all, political will. Only through adherence to constitutional principles and commitment to inclusive governance can the country navigate its complex political landscape and avoid renewed instability.