This paper focuses on the creation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which has significantly shaped the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina in its post-war period. Nearly thirty years after the drafting of the Dayton Peace Agreement, Bosnia and Herzegovina is characterized by weak, corrupt, and arguably undemocratic governance typical of the post-war period. This has resulted in the inability to build a democratic state where political elites pursue the same goals in peace as they did during the war. While nationalism played a major role in the outbreak of the Yugoslav crisis, particularly in the onset of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, various authors also point to international, economic, and historical reasons for the war's eruption. Ethnic and political leaders with manipulative intentions persist in renewing tensions among the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These tensions, further intensified by the media, continually jeopardize peace and significantly hinder the country's progress as an independent state. Nationalism appears to have infiltrated every facet of Bosnia and Herzegovina's political landscape, leaving little room for leaders to prioritize shared interests and work towards eliminating discrimination among citizens. The unsustainable approach of the international community towards Bosnia and Herzegovina during and after the conflict, the prolonged conflicts that were a direct result of this approach, and the insistence that Bosnia and Herzegovina's leaders reach an agreement on necessary constitutional reforms within the framework of the Dayton Peace Agreement have proven to be a mission impossible. The primary way to resolve these issues in post-war societies is to perfect the peace agreements that end such conflicts. It is important to swiftly stop violence and humanitarian disasters, but it is also crucial to negotiate agreements that promote justice and efficiency within a country's legal and political system. Additionally, it is important to create an implementation program that includes priorities for addressing issues, a timeline, and a clearly defined role for international actors in enforcing the key provisions of the agreement.