The Principle of Constituency of Peoples: An Obstacle to the Achievement of Popular Sovereignty in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Before the socio-political communities are posted, a very demanding task of defining the subject on whose name will behalf political power is implemented over a given state territory. However, the question about the subject of sovereignty should in no case be misunderstood as an issue of simply theoretical approach. The level of a state’s democracy, as well as its ability to realize internal and external sovereignty, depends entirely on fact: does the power belong to the People and whether it derives from the People. In other words, the issue of popular sovereignty is a substantial, constitutive element of modern democratic states. When we speak about contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, the functionality of the entire state government is often hindered by the complex decision-making processes at all state levels which lead to obstruction of the entire decision-making process. Such a dysfunctional decision-making process on the state level poses a threat and disables the Bosnian plural society to respond to the modern challenges of a democratic functioning state. The legal nature of Bosnian society is determined by the existence of constituent people who have “usurped” the entire decision-making process. There is still no end in sight to the struggle that leads to an oligarchy of the ruling elites; furthermore, there is still no appropriate socio-political mechanism that will enhance the accountability of the representatives to their voters; it is still inconceivable that decisions of state authorities are effectively and consistently implemented throughout the national territory. In other words, there is still no appropriate mechanism that will enhance the principle of popular sovereignty. It is necessary to “offer” Bosnia and Herzegovina’s pluralism and its political tradition a form of democratic authority which in no way should be a cliché. Furthermore, it may not be one of the “copy-paste” models of democratic authority. Currently, citizens of B&H are completely suspended (de facto, there are only citizens of entities). In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbs are suspended, while in the Republika Srpska, Bosniacs and Croats cannot equally participate in the decision-making process. An unfinished process of implementation of the Dayton Agreement and, in particular, Annex 4 (the Constitution of B&H), whose provisions permit discrimination against the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the impossibility of the realization of the principle of equality in the exercise of universal suffrage), as well as the non-application of the Decision of the European Court of Human Rights contributes and is conducive to further segmentation of Bosnian society.

East and West will divide over new Bosnian viceroy

Significance The summit’s avowed aim was to renew the EU-US ‘Transatlantic partnership’, including committing to upholding the international rules-based order built around the UN. It called for cooperation with Russia in areas of common interest despite its repeated “negative behaviour”. Such strains include Russia’s opposition to appointing a new high representative for Bosnia. Impacts Vucic’s call for regular reports from the high representative recognises his legitimacy while asserting Serbian interest in BiH. Croatian President Zoran Milanovic’s support for the 1995 Dayton agreement weakens outside backing for Bosnian Croat separatism. The World Bank has left its growth forecast for BiH unchanged from January, provided vaccine roll-out accelerates.

Operation Storm: Ending Humanitarian Disaster and Genocide in Southeastern Europe

Operation Storm was the single-most decisive battle of the Croatian War for Independence (1991-1995). Launched by the Republic of Croatia in August 1995, it was the largest European land battle since the Second World War. Outnumbered, outgunned, but not outmaneuvered, this tiny new democracy prevailed in a David versus Goliath encounter, a moral as well as military victory. Storm ended a massive humanitarian disaster and genocide. It led to the liberation of one third of Croatian territory, and made possible the Dayton Agreement that brought peace to the region. Based on interviews conducted with the American Ambassador to Croatia during the war years, military and political principals in the battle, noted scholars, security and intelligence agency officials, humanitarian leaders and journalists, this social scientific qualitative study examines the political and historical origins of the war and its aftermath. The article documents the events leading up to the war and surrounding this extraordinary military operation, providing strategic and political insights into the need for cooperation between democratic allies.

The Dayton Agreement and social reform: Omne principium difficile est

The Dayton Agreement rests on the principle of establishing a self-sustaining system that respects the multinational and multiconfessional structure of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, composed of entities with independent constitutive, legislative, executive and judicial functions. The organisation and functioning of the constitutionally-determined institutions of power in BiH is based on the constituent nature of the nations, enclosed in amendments to the entity constitutions made after the 2000 Decision of the Constitutional Court on the Constituency of Peoples, which regulate representation and the manner of the protection of the interests of the peoples. This article proceeds from the point that vital discussion on constitutional regulation is leading to a marginalisation of the discussion on harmonising domestic legislation with the EU acquis, conditio sine qua non in terms of fulfilling the requirements of the Stabilisation and Accession Agreement, not least in the area of labour law, and gaining admission to the EU. Above all, society is only changed through reform in which - panta rei - everything flows.

In discord or lockstep: In anticipation of the thirtieth anniversary of the dissolution of Yugoslavia

This paper gives a recapitulation of the Yugoslav crisis and considers the role of western states in the breaking up of Yugoslavia (SFRY and SRY). The author is of the opinion that the transformation of Serbian society began with the "antibureaucratic revolution" and that it concluded with the "bulldozer revolution" on October 5, 2000. The fall of Milosevic marked the final collapse of the entire political course he led during the Yugoslav crisis. The principal defeat of Serbian politics was the state split with Montenegro in 2006, while the de facto loss of Kosovo took place before the rise of Milosevic with the forced evictions of Serbs from this region. Nevertheless, the loss of Kosovo, which unilaterally declared its independence in 2008, is perceived as more painful in the national consciousness. Parallel to this, the main achievement of the Serbs during these troubled times was the creation of the Republic of Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose broad autonomy was given international recognition in 1995 after the Dayton Agreement. Tito's Yugoslavia and the states that appeared on its ruins, all their differences notwithstanding, developed and continued to evolve within the framework of general law, which applies to all the countries that occupy the vast region of Central, South-East and East Europe. Serbia is not an exception, although the process of its transformation, for the mentioned reasons, is slower and more painful than that of many of its neighbors.

The political system of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the fault lines set down in the Dayton Agreement

This article seeks to review some of the problems with the political system of Bosnia and Herzegovina as expressed through the constitutional provisions of the Dayton Agreement. While the Agreement brought an end to the physical violence, its creators must have been aware that the type of state system it envisaged, being composed of two entities, only put off the solution to the crucial cause of the problem. The entire mechanism of the political organisation of BiH is based on the fault lines set down in this Agreement, while the continuing inter-ethnic struggle in BiH is focused on the questions which it poses for constitutional government. Furthermore the moderators of the process retained the right to monitor the Agreement’s implementation, institutionalising the involvement of the international community and introducing a continuing role for NATO in the Balkans. The article considers the political system of BiH as developed under the Dayton Agreement but turns first to setting the scene by exploring the territory of the country as a whole and some of the essential characteristics of its peoples.

“The way to Dayton”: the military conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina peaceful settlement process in 1992-1995

The paper examines the preconditions for the conclusion, significance and consequences of the implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Agreement between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Four plans for peace achievement are considered, in which the International Community had consistently sought to resolve the Bosnian conflict in 1992-1995. The process of concluding a unique international document that not only put an end to the bloody interethnic confrontation and established new foundations for relations between the three Balkan countries, but defined the principles of the constitutional order of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is examined. The authors analyze the ambiguous scientific and political assessments of the Dayton Agreement, ranging from unequivocal approval to sharp criticism, and the reasons for the success of the Dayton Process, including joining the U.S. negotiation process and ensuring compliance with NATO’s commitment to violators. The risks inherent in the Dayton Agreement in the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina are also identified. The problem of the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of the Dayton Agreement is vital for the post-Yugoslav space. Despite the declared principle of equality of citizens, in fact, political human rights in the country directly depend on ethnicity, and public authorities are based on the principle of national representation. The sovereignty and independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina raise a number of issues, given their control by International bodies. An analysis of historical experience convincingly shows that the Dayton Accords can only be seen as a temporary mechanism for resolving the crisis and easing tensions, which has made it possible to achieve peace, end ethnic discord and lay the foundations for a democratic system in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Recognizing the effectiveness of the Dayton Agreement, the authors argue that some of its provisions do not comply with generally accepted principles of International Law, in particular, in terms of the territorial organization of the state and the formation of public authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This approach does not comply with the principle of equality of human rights, regardless of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other beliefs, national or social origin, property status, birth or other circumstances. It is also undeniable that the Dayton Accords did not resolve the interethnic conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The paper also seeks to identify ways to address the Bosnian crisis in the current situation in Ukraine, given the annexation of Crimea and the protracted military conflict in Donbas, and to determine the admissibility and potential limits of external intervention in military conflicts.

Bosnia and Herzegovina and changes to the international order: 25 years since the Dayton Agreement

The paper deals with the impact of changes to the international order on the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina over the period of 25 years, from the signing of the Dayton Agreement in 1995 to 2020. For a start, there is an analysis of all models of international order in that period. Furthermore, the paper analyses the unipolar international order as it existed until 2008 and its impact on the internal relations and political system in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as on the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Europe and the region of former Yugoslavia. In this respect, it particularly focuses on NATO's activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina in that period and the position of the Republic of Srpska. The second period begins after the year of 2008, and it represents the growth of a multipolar international order. It is the impact of that order on Bosnia and Herzegovina and its internal situation that is discussed in the paper, with Russia's return to the Balkans and its consequences analysed in detail. In addition, an analysis of the Chinese economic and geopolitical project entitled 'Belt and Road Initiative' and its impact on the region of former Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina included, is given. In the presentation, as well as in the paper, one of the focal points is the respective position of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska within the context of NATO enlargement. The influence of the structure of the international project (nejasno, potrebno je definisati koji projekat, iz prethodnog teksta to nije vidljivo) on the states can be seen on the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina - according to the scheme given by the theorist Kenneth Voltz. The unipolar order, influenced by the then US administration, is the creator of the Dayton Agreement in 1995, as well as of the political and legal order in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The political processes that took place after 1995 were also affected by the unipolarity and power of the United States. This power was focused on efforts to turn Bosnia and Herzegovina into a unitary socio-political structure, that is. to change its Dayton design. The culmination of the power of unipolarity and the United States in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the acceptance by political elites of Bosnia and Herzegovina of the NATO integration process in the period of 2005-2009. The emergence of a multipolar order is blocking the process of Bosnia and Herzegovina joining NATO, with the Republic of Srpska stopping the transfer of competences to the state level.

Twenty five years of the Dayton Agreement: peace project or difficult journey towards a functional state

Twenty-five years since the establishment of peace in BiH as a result of the Dayton Agreement is the opportunity not only to remind ourselves of the socio-political context, but also to review the development of BiH within the framework set out under Dayton. This article deals with concerns such as whether Dayton has created the possibility for the development of BiH as a functional state or only the assumptions needed for peace; it also deals with the problems of BiH citizens in a post-Dayton BiH, with a particular reflection on those experienced by workers and their trade unions. Meeting the requirements for joining the European Union is an imperative for BiH. Responsibility on this path to the EU, however, lies equally with the political leaders of this country who, unfortunately, do not work towards strengthening the state of BiH; with the Peace Implementation Council, which is insufficiently decisive about fulfilling its commitments; and finally also with BiH citizens who have allowed their domination by ethnic parties and who would rather leave the country than oppose the growing hopelessness.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s eroding Dayton constitutional order

On the 25th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement, this article assesses the current state of Euro-Atlantic integration in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its starting point is that Dayton represented not a breach but a continuation of the politics which destroyed Yugoslavia and that salvaging the country’s democratic potential requires a paradigmatic break from virtually all its socio-political practices and institutions. In these contexts, the article’s central focus on the ‘Bosnian Spring’ which took place right across the country in (and in the run-up to) 2014 provides a salutary reminder of the ability of ordinary people to come together to demand socio-economic justice and, in doing so, to step out of the ethno-nationalist rigidities imposed by Dayton. While those protests ran out of steam, such events are the only ones by which elites can historically be persuaded to concede democratic ground. Dismantling the ethno-nationalist narrative remains the challenge and, when it becomes clear that change will not come from within the system, it becomes the task of ordinary citizens to create democratic institutions that are worth the label.