General Framework Agreement Research Articles

Izazovi u razumijevanju raspodjele nadležnosti prema ustavu Bosne i Hercegovine u svjetlu teorije suvereniteta / Challenges in Understanding the Distribution of Competences according to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Light of the Sovereignty Theory

The paper examines the question of exercising jurisdiction based on the Constitution of BiH from 1995. The author points out that the question of competence is very often misunderstood, and the main reason for such an approach is a legally unfounded understanding of the nature of state power, the concept of sovereignty, and the concept of competence itself. The paper emphasizes that all power that can be based on the Constitution of BiH belongs to the State of BiH, and that the distribution of competences between the State of BiH and its entities does not mean the distribution or reduction of state power, but only the distribution of the authority to exercise state power. The exclusive competences of the institutions of BiH significantly exceed the number of competences that are often attributed to the institutions of the state of BiH in legal science and political practice. The author emphasizes that according to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina there are several categories of exclusive competence of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that for a legally valid determination of these competences it is necessary to analyze the entirety of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the General Framework Agreement for the Peace of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Anglo-American Elements of Constitutional Organization in the Constitutional Arrangement of Bosnia and Herzegovina: An Influence on Rule of Law through Legislative Function

The current constitutional arrangement of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as model of the constitutional regulation is the result of peace agreements – Washington Peace Agreement and General Framework Agreement for the Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (so called – Dayton Peace Agreement) that were imposed under the dominant influence of the US administration. Thanks to this influence, some elements that are close to the Anglo-American legal tradition and understanding of law have been implemented in the constitutional system of Bosnia and Herzegovina, such as the framework model of constitutional normative regulation based, in most cases, on general legal principles and framework norms of a general nature that regulate constitutional matters in a framework way and without entering into details. This paper, at the first place, contains considerations related to model of constitutional normative regulation in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as adopted centralized model of protection of constitutionality. This model of constitutional regulation, as will be seen from the following text, is not close to European-continental legal tradition and understanding of law. Second part of this paper considers implementation principles of constitutionality and rule of law – in general through performing legislative function in the condition of American model of constitutional normative regulation in Bosnia and Herzegovina as result of imposed peace agreements. The third part contains considerations regarding organization and structure of political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their influence on legislative function in the condition of actual constitutional arrangements. The results of the research and consideration contained in this paper show that the combination of elements of constitutional arrangements and regulations that belong to the Anglo-American legal tradition and understanding of law with elements that belong to the European-continental legal tradition do not give an adequate result in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the standpoint of constitutionality and the rule of law.

Aporije postojanja i djelovanja visokog predstavnika u pravnom i političkom sistemu Bosne i Hercegovine

The appointment of Mr. Christian Schmidt as the new high representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina met with great opposition from the Serbian political elite in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is supported by Russia and China. The key problem lies in the process of appointing Mr. Schmidt. According to Article I paragraph 2 of Annex 10 of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in BiH, the high representative should be appointed in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council. Of the eight high representatives, in the period from 1995 to 2023, six were appointed with the consent given by the appropriate resolution of the UN Security Council after the appointment was made by the Steering Committee of the Peace Implementation Council, and the seventh should have received this consent, but the resolution was not was adopted. Only one high representative was not appointed with the consent of the Security Council, and there was no draft resolution to give that consent. Considering that Mr. Christian Schmidt was not appointed with the consent of the Security Council given by the corresponding resolution, his challenge is justified. Despite this, there is disagreement about this position, because the US, the UK and France believe that the high representative was appointed legally without a resolution, while China and Russia dispute this position. High representatives intervened in the legal system of BiH and the entities, often through the adoption of laws and their amendments at the level of BiH and the entities, and the adoption of amendments to the constitutions of the entities. Of course, such behavior is controversial and the question has been raised as to whether the high representative has normative competences. By analyzing Article II and Article V of Annex 10, which the high representative used as a legal basis, we can conclude that his competences are not of a normative character, and by interpreting this annex it is not possible to arrive at such competences. Analyzing point XI/2 of the Conclusions of the Peace Implementation Council held in Bonn on December 9 and 10, 1997 (the so-called Bonn Powers), which the high representatives also refer to as a legal basis, it is evident that there is no authorization to enact laws either amendments to entity constitutions. Normative powers of the high representative would be contrary to the First Protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because the democratic principle of the sovereignty of the people requires that laws should be adopted by a body elected by the people. In addition, it would be contrary to Annex 4 - the Constitution of BiH and the constitutions of the entities, according to which the parliament is the body that enacts laws and amends the constitutions.

The Ethnicization of Peace Building Instruments in Bosnia and Herzegovina

"The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina was conceived with one main purpose, creating a stable, democratic and safe multi ethnic BiH for all its citizens. In order to understand why this objective was not achieved more than 25 years after its implementation, it is important to analyze two main factors: the instruments used in the peace building process and the way they were implemented. The main purpose of this article is looking at certain instruments of peace building used in BiH, which were inefficiently implemented so it further amplified the ethnic aspects instead of alleviating them. In this case, the peace building instruments that will be analyzed are the governmental structure, the election process and its implementation in post-war BiH, and finally, aspects related to human rights such as refugee return and the development of the civil society. Keywords: Bosnia and Herzegovina, peace building, instruments, implementation, ethnicization. "

General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sociological Functions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as the Basis of De / Stabilization and Dis / Functionality of the State

The author explain the importance of the conditions and circumstances under which the state constitution is adopted and their reciprocal impact on the applicability of the constitution in practice. The focus of the analysis is on considering the possibility of exercising the sociological functions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (symbolic, legitimizing and integrative function), in the context of the conditions that led to the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in connection with subsequently established and court-verified facts confirming the violation of international law. Arguments for the possibility of achieving and strengthening the sociological functions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the author finds in the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is characterized by centuries of tradition of coexistence and tolerance. The paper concludes that the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina performs sociological functions in the basic elements, but that these functions can be developed and strengthened over time. However, the author emphasizes that there is a danger of the emergence of opposite tendencies that can lead to the disintegration of society, which is confirmed by the current political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Dejtonski mirovni sporazum – Okončanje velikodržavnih pretenzija?

Dejtonski mirovni sporazum – Okončanje velikodržavnih pretenzija?

Spriječiti povratak: Provođenje Aneksa VII Dejtonskog sporazuma za mir u Bosni i Hercegovini (1995-2020)

Spriječiti povratak: Provođenje Aneksa VII Dejtonskog sporazuma za mir u Bosni i Hercegovini (1995-2020)

Research on the Optimization of the Purchasing Methods of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises from the Perspective of Supply Chain Procurement

As the backbone of China’s economic development, the procurement of state-owned enterprises has a far-reaching impact on the breadth and depth of the whole procurement field. With the rapid development of China’s economy and the accelerating pace of GPA accession, the role of procurement in the supply chain of Chinese state-owned enterprises has become more prominent. Based on the procurement dilemma of Chinese state-owned enterprises and the characteristics of procurement under the supply chain environment, this paper dialectically analyzes the relationship among supply chain management and procurement of Chinese state-owned enterprises, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the general framework agreement procurement method and the bidding framework agreement procurement method from the perspective of supply chain procurement. On this basis, it explores that the consignment bidding framework agreement procurement is an effective way to optimize the procurement method of Chinese state-owned enterprises.

Bosna i Hercegovina - država ili protektorat?

In this paper, through the analysis of the normative framework for the operation of these institutions, but also their activity, and the application of international standards in BiH, we will try to find an answer to the question of whether Bosnia and Herzegovina is a state or a protectorate. A lot has been achieved through the implementation of the Dayton Agreement, but most of it was due to the activity of the international community. According to the General Framework Agreement for Peace, this activity does not envisage a protectorate. However, especially in the first years of the functioning of post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina, many constitutional and legal theorists tried to define the legal nature of Bosnia and Herzegovina's dependence on the international community in certain elements (which later softened). The results showed no unambiguous answer. In the last fifteen years, this issue has moved to the periphery of interest in domestic and regional constitutional and legal science. But it seems the time to re-establish it has come, especially in light of the announcement of changes in the attitudes of key actors in the international community towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are also interested in the issue related to this central research, which is the degree of sovereignty of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina inside and outside, given the Dayton construct of the international community's involvement in the constitutional and political system of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“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-Herzegovina: The Role of the Judiciary in a Divided Society

This paper analyzes the role of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the promotion of social justice under the conditions of a triple transformation from war to peace and from a communist regime based on the Titoist self-management ideology to a liberal-democratic political regime and economic market system in three parts. The first section describes the political, constitutional and economic context during and after the collapse of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The second section describes and analyzes the constitutional and institutional arrangements established under the General Framework Agreement for Peace, concluded in Dayton/Ohio and Paris, 1995. The third section deals with the role of the Constitutional Court and analyzes with reference to its case law the interpretative doctrines developed in its adjudication of the right to property concerning different concepts of property and the right to work in the context of the constitutionally guaranteed right to return of refugees and restitution of property.

CRITICISM OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF B&H

The Constitution of B&H and Annex IV of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the highest legal and political act in B&H. This document ended the war, and at the same time it is the basis of polity, and a path of further development of B&H. Through analysis of constitutional norms of different types and levels of the B&H government, especially its structure, the author concludes that certain regulations about common presence of civil and national elements are not consistent. The author highlights urgency to change the Constitution, and he elaborates on different de lege ferenda suggestions for future constitutional solutions. The author especially highlights that the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is based on such premises which with its adequate application and changing should gradually enable an appropriate legal system which will affirm the sovereignty of Bosnia’s citizens, achieve equality of constitutive peoples in the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina, and adequately protect rights of national minorities.

The economic aspect of special parallel relations between the Republic Serbia and the Republic of Srpska in accordance with the Dayton peace agreement

The General Framework Agreement for Peace (Dayton Peace Agreement) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) gave the right to entities that make B&H to establish special parallel relations with adjoining countries. That possibility was so far used by the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska, as an entity within B&H. In this paper, we examine economic aspect of special parallel relations between Serbia and the Republic of Srpska. Demand structure in Serbia and the Republic of Srpska is similar, due to which we have put our analysis in the context of Linder hypothesis. Empirical analysis has confirmed that the two economies have a high level of similarity of export and that they are severe competition in the third markets. Both economies have a high level of economy diversification and a low level of export diversification. According to the logic of Linder hypothesis, economies of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska can use a relatively big potential possibilities of economic cooperation by the increase of specialization in production, i.e. by reducing economy diversification and increasing export diversification. It can be achieved by innovations in development of economies and their differentiation.

Dayton Peace Accords Two Decades After: Constitutional Settlement as Serisous Obstacle to the Creation of a Functional State

Twenty-one years after entering into force of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Dayton Agreement), it seems that the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has not significantly changed. The basic achievements of the Dayton Agreement, such as stopping the war and country’s democratization and institution building processes are evident, however the agreement failed to create a politically stable functional state and the united nation accepted by all its citizens. On the contrary, the agreement significantly contributed to the creation of divided society (and political community) composed of three ‘constituent peoples’ and others. Neither social nor political community stood the test of time. The country could not meet the requirements and standards set by the European Union, especially the constitutional reform that is claimed to be the precondition to other reforms. Then, despite agreement’s significant accomplishments in the field of human rights protection it generated State political structure based on the principle of the three constituent peoples’ exclusive ethnic representation, all at the expense of rights of individual.

Constitutional and political nature of Decision of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina / Ustavnopravnopravna i politička priroda Odluka Visokog predstavnika u Bosni i Hercegovini

Nowadays, there are divided opinions in Bosnia and Herzegovina when it comes to further mandate of the OHR and the institution of the High Representative. However, the e nd of the mandate of the High Representative is realistically expected in the near future. The need to abolish the office of the OHR and the institution of the High Representative has been mentioned increasingly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially in the Republic of Srpska. The reasons for the abolition of the function of the High Representative are different between the entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as among its constitutive peoples. The authority of the High Representative has been increasingly questioned.It is on that basis that questions arise more frequently whether his (High Representative) legal acts will be valid, in particular individual decisions, such as deprivation of certain rights to citizens, the right to work, political action and passive right to vote. Representatives of the international community are worried that the interested domestic political circles could set a thesis (and be successful at it) that all acts of the High Representative will cease to apply at the moment when Annex X of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina is ended.A number of imposed laws not yet adopted by the local legislator himself, in the event of cancellation, would actually return BiH to the original competences under the Constitution BiH, as the legal consequence. The institution of the High Representative was set up by Annex X (Agreement on Civilian Implementation of the Peaceful Solution) of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Simultaneously, bearing in mind these facts, legally speaking, Bosnia and Herzegovina can not be classified into any known form of international dependence, however, the objective situation is such that Bosnia and Herzegovina with the powers vested in the High Representative and the actions that he is taking, can be considered a state with a specific form of international dependence and a special form of guardianship.

Comparing the Impact of the Interpretation of Peace Agreements by International Courts and Tribunals on Legal Accountability and Legal Certainty in Post-Conflict Societies

AbstractThis article compares and contrasts the interpretation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement 1999 by the International Court of Justice, the Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the European Court of Human Rights. In doing so, it critically analyses the approach of the three different tribunals and attempts to explain the differences identified on the basis of the jurisdictional scope of each tribunal and the substantive law each has been tasked to apply. This comparison is both substantive and procedural. The article then examines the impact of these three tribunals on two specific aspects of the rule of law: legal accountability and legal certainty, both internationally and in the countries under examination. It is argued that, while these tribunals have enhanced legal certainty and accountability on the international level, any contribution they have made to the domestic rule of law has been questionable.

Politics and Higher Military Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Missed Opportunity

IntroductionDeveloping higher military education (HME) is embedded in the overall development of modern armed forces. This development normally reflects adaptation to changes in the external strategic environment, changes in military technology and doctrine, and changes in the societal environment of the armed forces.While this is true for armed forces with an unbroken tradition, the pattern differs when a given military's development had been interrupted by historical events. This article will focus on the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH), which constitutes a unique case in itself. The particular political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the break-up of Yugoslavia, the ensuing war of 1992-95 and the Framework Agreement on (Dayton Agreement) of December 1995 had led to a rather de-centralized state structure, with two largely autonomous political Entities that each kept the armed forces they had established during the war, leading to the de facto military division of BiH. Thus, when the West initiated a defense reform process in BiH in 2002, it aimed first at establishing state-level control over these armed forces (2003), and then at merging them into one single military force for the nation (2005), with other issues mostly put on the back burner.1This was also the case with regard to military education. While a coherent system for the training and education of the now joint state-level armed forces of BiH would have been a key element for completing defense reform, it has not yet been established. There have been serious attempts, but up to this point they have failed. Thus, this article will:\* Briefly outline the political and military situation in BiH, including the lack of a coherent system of military education* Present early initiatives within the context of defense reform as well as parallel to it* Describe the initiatives undertaken in establishing higher military education as well as the resistance they met* Assess the process with respect to its impact, including the causes of its failure.The Situation in Bosnia-HerzegovinaThe break-up of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) also meant the break-up of the former Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija, or JNA)2 and the establishment of national armed forces by the successor states. While Serbia inherited the mostly intact military system of the JNA (including its high-quality military academy), the seceding states 3 in most cases achieved their statehood through wars of independence,4 with forces mostly derived from the JNA's territorial defense system, but at least in a coherent structure.In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the war following the declaration of independence in April 1992 was both a war of secession from Yugoslavia but also between the three major ethnic groups in BiH (Bosniaks, or Bosnian Muslims; Serbs; and Croats),with ongoing intervention by neighboring Serbia and Croatia.5Fighting between Bosniaks and Croats ended when the United States brokered a between them in 1994. After Western intervention in 1995, the Serbs also accepted a cease-fire, which then led all parties involved to agree on the General Framework Agreement on Peace (the Dayton Agreement, or DPA) in late 1995. The DPA established a rather decentralized state structure,6 with two highly autonomous political entities, the (Muslim-Croat) Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the (Serbdominated) Republika Srpska.7 Furthermore, the DPA allowed the two entities to maintain their wartime forces. Thus, for ten years there were two separate armies within one state, implicitly pitched against each other, but also following different models of doctrines and education. Only in 2002 was a reform process initiated that led in stages to the creation of unified armed forces in 2006.The Lack of a Coherent System of Military Education and its Impact on the Military SituationDuring the armed conflict that lasted from 1992 to 1995, the various armies had almost no training and education systems of their own. …

How Can a Bosnia Happen?

Reviewed by: How Can a Bosnia Happen? Dina Francesca Haynes (bio) How Can a Bosnia Happen? Keith Doubt , Understanding Evil: Lessons from Bosnia ( New York, NY: Fordham University Press 2006) 184 pages, ISBN 0823227006 There are some downsides to negotiating peace. In order to bring about cessation of hostilities, negotiators bring to the table the very criminals who fomented war in the first place. In the case of Bosnia, after much dithering on the part of the heads of state around the world, Richard Holbrook was appointed by President Clinton to negotiate peace in Bosnia. In so doing, he brought Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tudjman, and Alija Izetbegović to the table in Dayton. Not only did they sign the accords, but they pounded out an entire set of plans to end the fighting and begin rebuilding Bosnia, all without publicly demanding the divvying up of the country between the newly formed independent Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The parties to the General Framework Agreement for Peace left the table in Dayton, and the international community descended upon Bosnia in the form of an international protectorate under the leadership of the High Representative of Bosnia. A war crimes tribunal was established in the Hague to bring the war criminals to justice and everyone went to work on building peace and the reconstruction of Bosnia. Critics, myself among them, have noted that negotiating a peace accord is an entirely different exercise than is setting forward a working document, such as the General Framework Agreement for Peace. The nature of peace building is such that the focus must be on reconstruction rather than on blame. It is less about transitional justice than it is about reestablishing governance and moving on. In the case of Bosnia, reconstruction meant not only repairing a country damaged by war, but also assisting it in completing the political and economic transition from communism and socialism to democracy and capitalism. Everywhere in this mix, there was effort, perhaps unconscious, perhaps not, to focus energy on not blaming the wrongdoers, but on getting on with the peacemaking, even if it meant sidelining transitional justice. Very little attention was paid during the first seven years of reconstruction, to either reestablishing the rule of law or attending to the needs of the people of Bosnia to begin a process of psychological recovery by hearing the confessions of the warmongers, as with a truth commission, or seeing them brought to justice. It was tacitly understood that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), far away in the Hague, somehow would take care of all the psychological and emotional healing and justice. The international community would focus on making the country into the sort of democracy that would make its neighbors and other states feel comfortable. Once these fomenters of genocide had signed onto the Dayton Peace Accords, they joined the international parties to the peace accords as architects of the reconstruction of Bosnia, the country which at least two of the parties, Milošević and Tudjman, had set out to destroy. The working vocabulary of the [End Page 1119] exercise in international administration and reconstruction is founded on principles of peacemaking, not on identifying the conscious choices made by those same men to willingly murder, rape, and destroy the lives of the subordinates of the others, nor on punishing them for it. The ICTY, far away in the Hague, was responsible for all of that. But as Keith Doubt powerfully reminds us, some of these moves were mistakes. In fact, it is a mistake, he says, even to characterize what happened in Bosnia as acts of aggression. [A]ggression is what animals and humans do when they think that the situation allows no alternatives. Animals are incapable of self-reflection; they do not make decisions based on reasoning and normative orientations. When we say that humans act aggressively, we conceal from ourselves and from others the choices that the actors make. We reduce action to behavior, and we only partially understand what people are doing and why they are doing it.1 In working to get to peace and a reconstructed Bosnia, the international community brought genocidal...

As Dayton Undergoes Proposals for Reform, the Status of Freedom of Movement, Refugee Returns, and War Crimes in Bosnia And Herzegovina

The Dayton General Framework Agreement for Peace of late 1995 brought a ceasefire and an end to the killings in Bosnia. More than 11 years after its signing, some of Dayton’s outlined aims for Bosnia remain unfulfilled or realized with mixed results. Late in 2005, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Dayton, leading world political figures raved about the successes of Dayton, but the immediate calls for the reform of Constitution included in the Dayton agreement, which followed the praise, are perhaps a better indicator of the Agreement’s shortfalls in transitioning the Bosnian society from war to peace and subsequently creating a functioning state since its signing. The outlined aims of Dayton were undoubtedly ambitious. This article will examine the successes and failures of Dayton, within the framework of its own aims and jurisdiction – which themselves, in the process, evolved and changed – to protect human rights with respect to the freedom of movement, the return of refugees, and the war crime indictments.

Sources and Documents

Sources and Documents Obrad Kesić Introduction Since the early days of the Dayton Peace Agreement, central issues of dispute have been the authority and powers granted to the two entities (the Republika Srpska and the Bosniak-Croat Federation). Bosniak and Croat politicians and many international politicians and diplomats hold a view that the Dayton Constitution gave the entities too many powers and that this has led to political paralysis, and an inefficient state structure. As a result, the High Representative through the "Bonn Powers" has sought for many years to "correct" this perceived Dayton flaw that has led to the forced or coerced transfer of approximately 68 powers from the entities to the joint state institutions. The government and citizens of the Republika Srpska have seen this as an illegal usurpation of powers and have come to fear that the underlying motive for this has in fact been a desire to create a centralized Bosnia state which would be dominated by state institutions controlled by Bosniaks in Sarajevo. This issue came to a head in 2009-10, when the Republika Srpska Government, with the assistance of American international lawyers, directly challenged the High Representative's use of the Bonn powers, refused to implement his decisions, and moved to re-examine many of the previous decisions made by previous High Representatives. The confrontation has significant implications for future constitutional negotiations within Bosnia and for the international protectorate which has administered the state since 1996. The Republika Srpska government has moved to organize a referendum which would directly involve its citizens in the struggle with the High Representative. The following documents show the basic positions of the two sides of this confrontation and vividly show the significance of the gap that leaves little room for a compromise. [End Page 275] Statement of the Office of the High Representative RS Referendum on Dayton Risks Going Beyond Rule of Law The planned referendum proposed by the SNSD-led RS Government to question elements of the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP, also known as the Dayton Peace Agreement) falls outside the scope of the entity's constitutional competencies, is contrary to its obligations under the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and, as the High Representative has already made clear, is a violation of the GFAP. The SNSD-led Republika Srpska Government is obliged to respect the Dayton Peace Agreement in its entirety and not challenge actions undertaken on the basis of Dayton and UN Security Council Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The SNSD-led government should therefore cease from endangering BiH's international obligations and commitments. By organizing a referendum on these issues, the SNSD is manipulating RS voters to divert attention from the real economic problems facing citizens. Such actions are in defiance of the rule of law and endanger the reputation of the Republika Srpska. During his last visit to Banja Luka the High Representative was clear that "[r]ejection of the most basic principles of the Dayton Peace Agreement as well as standards of international law, means the SNSD is setting the RS on the dangerous path of legal uncertainty." Conclusions and public statements that negate the constitutional order of the country and the legal framework regulating BiH judicial institutions, question cooperation with the ICTY, and deny facts about war crimes proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, all fly in the face of the rule of law. By resolution of the UN Security Council, all countries are obliged to cooperate with the ICTY, especially Dayton signatories. Article IX on the very first page of the Dayton Agreement obliges the Parties to Dayton to "cooperate fully with all entities involved in implementation of this peace settlement, as described in the Annexes to this Agreement, or which are otherwise authorized by the United Nations Security Council, pursuant to the obligation [End Page 276] of all Parties to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law." The Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council has repeatedly underlined that the International Community retains the necessary instruments to counter destructive tendencies and that it will not allow attempts to...