Prediction and reality in Bosnia: Two years after Dayton

Abstract

Geographers often rush into print with their assessments of and predictions for developing crises. The authors joined this trend with a 1996 assessment of ‘The Political Geography of the Dayton Accords’ which sought to provide analytical insights, constructive criticism, and policy recommendations. More than two years have passed, and the authors now seek to assess the accuracy of their predictions against the reality in Bosnia, and to speculate on the utility of such predictions in general. A review of the application of the three perspectives of boundary and frontier studies, peace geography, and the functional approach finds that in most cases the predictions were borne out, the policy recommendations were sound, and the criticisms valid. Based on the Bosnian case, it appears that the application of political geographic perspectives to emerging crises yields useful insights and policy prescriptions. Thus political geographers using other perspectives are urged to address current and emerging problems and make their contributions to resolving conflicts and improving people's quality of life.