The Dayton Agreement: Ethnic prevention or provention?

In December 1995, the US managed to organize a succesful peace negotiation meeting in Dayton, Ohio, where the adversaries from the former Yugoslavia agreed to a peace settlement that almost encompassed all problems. Although many people were sceptic about the agreement and its possible follow-up, some steps forward have been made since then. But what about the most crucial of all issues: the issue of ethnic conflict management, where can we classify the Dayton agreement and what follows from theory with regard to the Dayton agreement and its implementation? Is Dayton based on theoretical (inductive or deductive) findings and if not, if Dayton wants to become a succes, what has to be altered? What are the determinants, the means, instruments, philosophies and goals of the ethnic conflict management and prevention parts of the Dayton agreement? How feasible are they? Are they relevant and applicable to other situations (like Burundi, Sierra Leone, and Sudan)? Is democracy the real answer or does it need more? Theories on the democratic peace and on proportional or majoritarian ethnic conflict management in democracies will be used to analyse, describe and explain the Dayton agreementin its ethnic conflict prevention context.