Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.250
Vedad Gurda, Dževad Mahmutović, Maja Iveljić
The armed conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period from 1992 to 1995, which ended with the conclusion of the so-called The Dayton Peace Agreement was marked by serious violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms and the commission of horrific war crimes. Prosecution of defendants for these crimes takes place at several levels, ie before: a) the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), b) domestic courts and c) courts of certain foreign states. The paper analyzes certain indicators related to the prosecution of these crimes, their scope and structure, as well as the ratio of convictions and acquittals for certain war crimes, the scope of application of conventional and summary forms of ending criminal cases and court policy of sanctioning perpetrators. It was learned that by the end of 2020, hundreds of criminal proceedings against approximately a thousand defendants had been completed. Most of the accused were prosecuted before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Court of B&H), followed by the ICTY, and a slightly smaller number before the courts of the former SFRY and some Western European countries. The research established that before the ICTY, out of the total number of accused for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as many as 90.2% were convicted of some of these crimes, while the rate of convicted in relation to accused before the Court of B&H was 67.2% , and before the courts in the Republic of Serbia 70.2%. It is interesting that before the ICTY as many as 24.3% of the accused were convicted in summary proceedings on the basis of a plea agreement, while before the Court of B&H 13,3% of the accused were convicted using a plea bargaining as a consensual model for ending criminal cases. So far, 22 people have been convicted of the crime of genocide as the most serious crime before the ICTY, the Court of B&H and German courts, and all convictions related to the activities of the Army of Republika Srpska during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Court of B&H, inherited a relatively mild policy of punishing war crimes. Finally, it was found that certain courts, especially Court of B&H, inherited a relatively mild policy of punishing war crimes.
{"title":"The post-Dayton search for justice: War crimes trials in Bosnia and Herzegovina before competent courts","authors":"Vedad Gurda, Dževad Mahmutović, Maja Iveljić","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.250","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.250","url":null,"abstract":"The armed conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period from 1992 to 1995, which ended with the conclusion of the so-called The Dayton Peace Agreement was marked by serious violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms and the commission of horrific war crimes. Prosecution of defendants for these crimes takes place at several levels, ie before: a) the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), b) domestic courts and c) courts of certain foreign states. The paper analyzes certain indicators related to the prosecution of these crimes, their scope and structure, as well as the ratio of convictions and acquittals for certain war crimes, the scope of application of conventional and summary forms of ending criminal cases and court policy of sanctioning perpetrators. It was learned that by the end of 2020, hundreds of criminal proceedings against approximately a thousand defendants had been completed. Most of the accused were prosecuted before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Court of B&H), followed by the ICTY, and a slightly smaller number before the courts of the former SFRY and some Western European countries. The research established that before the ICTY, out of the total number of accused for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as many as 90.2% were convicted of some of these crimes, while the rate of convicted in relation to accused before the Court of B&H was 67.2% , and before the courts in the Republic of Serbia 70.2%. It is interesting that before the ICTY as many as 24.3% of the accused were convicted in summary proceedings on the basis of a plea agreement, while before the Court of B&H 13,3% of the accused were convicted using a plea bargaining as a consensual model for ending criminal cases. So far, 22 people have been convicted of the crime of genocide as the most serious crime before the ICTY, the Court of B&H and German courts, and all convictions related to the activities of the Army of Republika Srpska during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Court of B&H, inherited a relatively mild policy of punishing war crimes. Finally, it was found that certain courts, especially Court of B&H, inherited a relatively mild policy of punishing war crimes.","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48429891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.338
Sead Bandžović
The three key conditions for the existence of a state, according to the theory of state and law, are geographical territory, population and organized political power in that area. However, during the twentieth century in some African and Asian countries, due to various political, economic and other factors, problems began to appear in performance of their basic functions: ensuring public order and peace, providing health services, education. Modern science has introduced the term failed states to describe such countries. This scientific phenomenon has been the subject of numerous researches, and international organizations have been publishing annual indices of fragile, failed or unsuccessful world states for years. The first index of its kind was created in 2005 by the American non-profit organization The Fund for Peace in cooperation with the magazine Foreign Policy, which initially included 76 countries. The original term failed state was considered politically extremely incorrect, even when it referred to countries like South Sudan or Somalia, noting that such a term originated in the political terminology of developed countries by which all other countries at a lower level of development were considered to be failed ones. Therefore, in 2014, a new notion of a fragile state was created, and accordingly the existing index was renamed the Fragile State Index (FSI). This parameter determines the degree of fragility for each country on an annual basis, assessing four basic indicators: cohesion (functionality of the state apparatus), economic (overall economic situation), political (legitimacy of the state, availability of public services, respect for human rights and freedoms) and social (demographic structure of the community, number of displaced persons and refugees, external interventions). Based on the values of these indicators, countries are positioned in four groups: sustainable, stable, endangered and alarming. The paper also discusses Bosnia and Herzegovina as a potentially fragile state. Although it enjoys sovereignty and political independence, the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement still provides for the strong participation of the international community in the performance of its basic state functions. Examples include the presence of international military and police forces from the early post-war years to the present (EUFOR), with a special emphasis on the position of High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The peace agreement gave him the status of his supreme interpreter, as well as the well-known Bonn powers that he used on several occasions to remove Bosnian political officials and the imposition of laws (Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Law on the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina) due to the inability of domestic parliamentary bodies to pass them independently. In addition to the extremely complicated constitutional structure, the functioning of Bosnia and Herze
{"title":"The phenomenon of fragile states: Bosnia and Herzegovina","authors":"Sead Bandžović","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.338","url":null,"abstract":"The three key conditions for the existence of a state, according to the theory of state and law, are geographical territory, population and organized political power in that area. However, during the twentieth century in some African and Asian countries, due to various political, economic and other factors, problems began to appear in performance of their basic functions: ensuring public order and peace, providing health services, education. Modern science has introduced the term failed states to describe such countries. This scientific phenomenon has been the subject of numerous researches, and international organizations have been publishing annual indices of fragile, failed or unsuccessful world states for years. The first index of its kind was created in 2005 by the American non-profit organization The Fund for Peace in cooperation with the magazine Foreign Policy, which initially included 76 countries. The original term failed state was considered politically extremely incorrect, even when it referred to countries like South Sudan or Somalia, noting that such a term originated in the political terminology of developed countries by which all other countries at a lower level of development were considered to be failed ones. Therefore, in 2014, a new notion of a fragile state was created, and accordingly the existing index was renamed the Fragile State Index (FSI). This parameter determines the degree of fragility for each country on an annual basis, assessing four basic indicators: cohesion (functionality of the state apparatus), economic (overall economic situation), political (legitimacy of the state, availability of public services, respect for human rights and freedoms) and social (demographic structure of the community, number of displaced persons and refugees, external interventions). Based on the values of these indicators, countries are positioned in four groups: sustainable, stable, endangered and alarming. The paper also discusses Bosnia and Herzegovina as a potentially fragile state. Although it enjoys sovereignty and political independence, the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement still provides for the strong participation of the international community in the performance of its basic state functions. Examples include the presence of international military and police forces from the early post-war years to the present (EUFOR), with a special emphasis on the position of High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The peace agreement gave him the status of his supreme interpreter, as well as the well-known Bonn powers that he used on several occasions to remove Bosnian political officials and the imposition of laws (Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Law on the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina) due to the inability of domestic parliamentary bodies to pass them independently. In addition to the extremely complicated constitutional structure, the functioning of Bosnia and Herze","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49352154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.206
Sead Selimović
The armed aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement), initialed in Dayton on November 21, 1995, and signed on December 14, 1995 in Paris „in Bosnian, Croatian, English and the Serbian language“. The Dayton Agreement confirmed the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had real control (power) over the so-called Republika Srpska. Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement determined the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are two entities in the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consists of 10 cantons, and the Republika Srpska. Apart from the two entities, there is also the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was created by the Decision of the International Arbitration Court. It was established on March 8, 2000. According to the Dayton Agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose official name became „Bosnia and Herzegovina“, continues its legal existence under international law as a state with its internationally recognized borders. It remains a member of the United Nations, and as Bosnia and Herzegovina may retain membership or request membership in organizations within the United Nations system and in other international organizations. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement) guarantees human rights and „fundamental freedoms“. Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Entities, according to the Constitution, will ensure „the highest degree of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.“ For this purpose, the formation of the Commission for Human Rights is also envisaged, as provided for in Annex 6 of the General Framework Agreement. The issue of the return of refugees and displaced persons is addressed in Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement, entitled „Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons“. According to Annex 7, all refugees and displaced persons have the right to return freely to their homes and have the right to restitution of property confiscated from them during hostilities since 1991 and to receive compensation for all property that cannot be returned to them. The „Agreement“ states that the return of refugees and displaced persons is an important goal of resolving the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period 1995-2020. The authorities of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity of Republika Srpska did not give up on the project of „separation of peoples“. The implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement has been obstructed in various ways: by killings, beatings, intimidation, attacks on religious buildings and in other ways. Obstructions in the implementation of Annex 7 were also carried out in the entity of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, this was not as pronounced as in Republika Srpska. The first return of displaced persons (refugees and displa
{"title":"Preventing return: Implementation of annex VII of the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995-2020)","authors":"Sead Selimović","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.206","url":null,"abstract":"The armed aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement), initialed in Dayton on November 21, 1995, and signed on December 14, 1995 in Paris „in Bosnian, Croatian, English and the Serbian language“. The Dayton Agreement confirmed the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had real control (power) over the so-called Republika Srpska. Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement determined the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are two entities in the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consists of 10 cantons, and the Republika Srpska. Apart from the two entities, there is also the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was created by the Decision of the International Arbitration Court. It was established on March 8, 2000. According to the Dayton Agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose official name became „Bosnia and Herzegovina“, continues its legal existence under international law as a state with its internationally recognized borders. It remains a member of the United Nations, and as Bosnia and Herzegovina may retain membership or request membership in organizations within the United Nations system and in other international organizations. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement) guarantees human rights and „fundamental freedoms“. Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Entities, according to the Constitution, will ensure „the highest degree of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.“ For this purpose, the formation of the Commission for Human Rights is also envisaged, as provided for in Annex 6 of the General Framework Agreement. The issue of the return of refugees and displaced persons is addressed in Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement, entitled „Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons“. According to Annex 7, all refugees and displaced persons have the right to return freely to their homes and have the right to restitution of property confiscated from them during hostilities since 1991 and to receive compensation for all property that cannot be returned to them. The „Agreement“ states that the return of refugees and displaced persons is an important goal of resolving the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period 1995-2020. The authorities of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity of Republika Srpska did not give up on the project of „separation of peoples“. The implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement has been obstructed in various ways: by killings, beatings, intimidation, attacks on religious buildings and in other ways. Obstructions in the implementation of Annex 7 were also carried out in the entity of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, this was not as pronounced as in Republika Srpska. The first return of displaced persons (refugees and displa","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42646655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.135
Meldijana Arnaut Haseljić
The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Peace Agreement) accepted in Paris on December 14, 1995 was signed by: for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović, for the Republic of Croatia dr. Franjo Tudjman and Slobodan Milosevic for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There are good reasons why the international community has demanded that these people be signatories to the Dayton Peace Agreement. Namely, after unsuccessful attempts to establish an agreement on constitutional solutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting with Cutileiro's plan (cantonization of Bosnia and Herzegovina on ethnic grounds), on which talks in Sarajevo began in February 1992, until the conference in London on 26 and On August 27, 1992, it was obvious that the positions of the Serb and Croat sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina were being harmonized with the positions of Belgrade and Zagreb, that is, the policies previously agreed and agreed upon on the Milosevic-Tudjman route. Three delegations participated in the conference in London. On behalf of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government were President Alija Izetbegović, Minister of Foreign Affairs Haris Silajdžić, Ejup Ganić and General Sefer Halilović. The Bosnian Serb delegation included Radovan Karadzic, RS President Momcilo Krajisnik, RS Vice President and VRS General Ratko Mladic, who were in direct consultations with Belgrade throughout the negotiations. Representatives of Bosnian Croats were the President of HZ HB Mate Boban, then the Prime Minister of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mile Akmadžić (although he was a member of the Government of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, he participated as a member of the Croatian delegation) and General Milivoj Petković. Croatian President Franjo Tudjman also took part in the negotiations and was the unofficial but de facto head of the Croatian delegation. Following the London Conference and the failure of the previous negotiations, the European Community Conference on Yugoslavia was expanded to include the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, chaired by Cyrus Vance (US diplomat on behalf of the UN) and Lord David Owen (on behalf of the EC / U). a new era of peace negotiations. Vance-Owen's plan foresaw the decentralization of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the existing borders with a constitutional order based on federal principles contained in a number of constitutive elements - regions (ten cantons formed on ethnic principles) and with the Sarajevo district where the central government would be located. This plan, after the refusal of the Serbian Assembly from Pale to ratify it, was definitely rejected. This was followed by the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan (Constitutional Agreement on the Alliance of the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina) which offered a confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina composed of three republics made up of ethnicity, but this plan also proved unacceptable. The Contact Group's plan follow
{"title":"The Dayton peace agreement – The end of greater state claims?","authors":"Meldijana Arnaut Haseljić","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.135","url":null,"abstract":"The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Peace Agreement) accepted in Paris on December 14, 1995 was signed by: for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović, for the Republic of Croatia dr. Franjo Tudjman and Slobodan Milosevic for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There are good reasons why the international community has demanded that these people be signatories to the Dayton Peace Agreement. Namely, after unsuccessful attempts to establish an agreement on constitutional solutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting with Cutileiro's plan (cantonization of Bosnia and Herzegovina on ethnic grounds), on which talks in Sarajevo began in February 1992, until the conference in London on 26 and On August 27, 1992, it was obvious that the positions of the Serb and Croat sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina were being harmonized with the positions of Belgrade and Zagreb, that is, the policies previously agreed and agreed upon on the Milosevic-Tudjman route. Three delegations participated in the conference in London. On behalf of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government were President Alija Izetbegović, Minister of Foreign Affairs Haris Silajdžić, Ejup Ganić and General Sefer Halilović. The Bosnian Serb delegation included Radovan Karadzic, RS President Momcilo Krajisnik, RS Vice President and VRS General Ratko Mladic, who were in direct consultations with Belgrade throughout the negotiations. Representatives of Bosnian Croats were the President of HZ HB Mate Boban, then the Prime Minister of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mile Akmadžić (although he was a member of the Government of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, he participated as a member of the Croatian delegation) and General Milivoj Petković. Croatian President Franjo Tudjman also took part in the negotiations and was the unofficial but de facto head of the Croatian delegation. Following the London Conference and the failure of the previous negotiations, the European Community Conference on Yugoslavia was expanded to include the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, chaired by Cyrus Vance (US diplomat on behalf of the UN) and Lord David Owen (on behalf of the EC / U). a new era of peace negotiations. Vance-Owen's plan foresaw the decentralization of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the existing borders with a constitutional order based on federal principles contained in a number of constitutive elements - regions (ten cantons formed on ethnic principles) and with the Sarajevo district where the central government would be located. This plan, after the refusal of the Serbian Assembly from Pale to ratify it, was definitely rejected. This was followed by the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan (Constitutional Agreement on the Alliance of the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina) which offered a confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina composed of three republics made up of ethnicity, but this plan also proved unacceptable. The Contact Group's plan follow","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46893784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Prikaz//Review: Hikmet Karčić, Derviš M. Korkut: A Biography, El-Kalem i Institut za islamsku tradiciju Bošnjaka, Sarajevo 2020, 85 str.","authors":"Omer Meržić","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.390","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.390","url":null,"abstract":"Prikaz//Review: Hikmet Karčić, Derviš M. Korkut: A Biography, El-Kalem i Institut za islamsku tradiciju Bošnjaka, Sarajevo 2020, 85 str.","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43110928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.395
Emir Šečić
Izvještaj//Conference Report:Izvještaj sa Naučne konferencije Alimi Srebrenice i njihova uloga u duhovnom i društvenom životu Bošnjaka, Srebrenica, 6. juli 2021. godine
{"title":"Izvještaj//Conference Report:Izvještaj sa Naučne konferencije Alimi Srebrenice i njihova uloga u duhovnom i društvenom životu Bošnjaka, Srebrenica, 6. juli 2021. godine","authors":"Emir Šečić","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.395","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.395","url":null,"abstract":"Izvještaj//Conference Report:Izvještaj sa Naučne konferencije Alimi Srebrenice i njihova uloga u duhovnom i društvenom životu Bošnjaka, Srebrenica, 6. juli 2021. godine","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49172199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.184
Izet Hadžić, Ahmed Hadžić
At the beginning of the paper we explain the territorial differences between the Washington and Dayton Peace Solutions, which especially refers to the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton and focuses only on the Tuzla region and its specifics in relation to other regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We then present the basic elements of the Washington Agreement, the meetings that preceded it, the content of the agreement, the principles of the Vienna Agreement important for the organization of the canton, as well as active monitoring and consideration of the agreement by the Tuzla District Assembly and its views on international community plans. We also monitor the implementation and importance of the implementation of the Washington Agreement in the Tuzla region and the creation of the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, explain the name of the canton and use demographic data based on the 1991 census to indicate that Podrinje is a Bosniak-majority region. Then we give an overview of how the implementation of the Washington Agreement reflected on the normalization of food prices, the situation in the canton and the strengthening of the combat power of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ie the II Corps of the Army of B&H. The paper describes the jurisdiction of the President of the Canton, the Government of the Canton, national representation by agreement of SDA and HDZ, the composition of the government, the reasons for non-participation of Serbs in implementation and talks with the Serb Civic Council to participate in organizing ministries. We especially present the activities of the President and the Government of the Canton on supporting the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, II Corps and strengthening defense, budget funds for these purposes: action: „We are all B&H Army“, support for displaced persons and improving living conditions in protected areas of Srebrenica and Žepa We also describe the activities of the authorities during the fall of the protected zones of Srebrenica and Žepa, for the care of the displaced population, as well as the requests to the institutions of the international community to stop and prevent genocide against the Bosniaks of Srebrenica. We especially emphasize the activity of the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton Ministry of the Interior in preserving public order and peace. We are especially dealing with the military situation in the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, presenting significant military successes through the liberation of Lisača on the Kalesija front, Vis near Gračanica, Vijenac near Lukavac, Greda on Majevica, as well as the crushing of enemy offensives „Spreča-95“ and others. In this paper, we argue the support of Russian diplomacy to the aggressor and link Russia's diplomatic activities through the contact group and other accomplices of the conspiracy group towards the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a complex situation such as that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when a Serbian aggressor with the support of insurgent Ser
{"title":"Political and military circumstances in Tuzla-Podrinje canton in the year of the Dayton peace","authors":"Izet Hadžić, Ahmed Hadžić","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.184","url":null,"abstract":"At the beginning of the paper we explain the territorial differences between the Washington and Dayton Peace Solutions, which especially refers to the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton and focuses only on the Tuzla region and its specifics in relation to other regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We then present the basic elements of the Washington Agreement, the meetings that preceded it, the content of the agreement, the principles of the Vienna Agreement important for the organization of the canton, as well as active monitoring and consideration of the agreement by the Tuzla District Assembly and its views on international community plans. We also monitor the implementation and importance of the implementation of the Washington Agreement in the Tuzla region and the creation of the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, explain the name of the canton and use demographic data based on the 1991 census to indicate that Podrinje is a Bosniak-majority region. Then we give an overview of how the implementation of the Washington Agreement reflected on the normalization of food prices, the situation in the canton and the strengthening of the combat power of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ie the II Corps of the Army of B&H. The paper describes the jurisdiction of the President of the Canton, the Government of the Canton, national representation by agreement of SDA and HDZ, the composition of the government, the reasons for non-participation of Serbs in implementation and talks with the Serb Civic Council to participate in organizing ministries. We especially present the activities of the President and the Government of the Canton on supporting the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, II Corps and strengthening defense, budget funds for these purposes: action: „We are all B&H Army“, support for displaced persons and improving living conditions in protected areas of Srebrenica and Žepa We also describe the activities of the authorities during the fall of the protected zones of Srebrenica and Žepa, for the care of the displaced population, as well as the requests to the institutions of the international community to stop and prevent genocide against the Bosniaks of Srebrenica. We especially emphasize the activity of the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton Ministry of the Interior in preserving public order and peace. We are especially dealing with the military situation in the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, presenting significant military successes through the liberation of Lisača on the Kalesija front, Vis near Gračanica, Vijenac near Lukavac, Greda on Majevica, as well as the crushing of enemy offensives „Spreča-95“ and others. In this paper, we argue the support of Russian diplomacy to the aggressor and link Russia's diplomatic activities through the contact group and other accomplices of the conspiracy group towards the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a complex situation such as that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when a Serbian aggressor with the support of insurgent Ser","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47045458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.233
Omer Hamzić
In this article, with some methodological dilemmas, an attempt is made to speak more clearly from a certain historical perspective about the current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, which „produce“ an almost permanent political crisis in this area - from Dayton to today. The continuity and current effects of these policies, which have their roots in some dark historical depths and myths, never changing their essence and their goals, were pointed out. In the current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions, Bosnia and Herzegovina is treated as a „sphere of interest“, which should be mastered as much as possible in peace, if it did not succeed in the war. Serbia and Croatia, in the historical sense, since they have existed as political entities, have been opposed to each other in almost everything. The only thing on which there was a high degree of agreement was the question of the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, again depending on historical circumstances and other circumstances. (to mention only Tudjman and Milosevic). In the last few years, intensive cooperation and a high degree of „agreement“ between Serbian and Croatian politics have been noticed, again „regarding“ Bosnia and Herzegovina, its status and the definitive post-Dayton division. In this sense, it is not difficult to recognize several common characteristics of both policies. In this article, the author focuses on the following: the first is a declarative and formal public declaration of both to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while in practical politics this sovereignty is continuously violated and „trampled“, acting as its „rulers“. . Another common feature is the belittling and labeling of all pro-Bosnian political forces, reducing them to „political Sarajevo“ in the pejorative sense of the word, with multiple offensive and deeper meanings, which, in addition to Milorad Dodik (to make the absurd even greater, as president or member of the Presidency of BiH) from the Serbian one, Zoran Milanović, the current president of Croatia, until yesterday a declared friend of Bosnia and the pro-Bosnian SDP, is increasingly expressing himself in his own way. Obstruction of the process of reforms and rapprochement of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the European Union and NATO membership is the third session of the characteristics of Serbian and Croatian politics (albeit in different versions), while the fourth, denial of decisions and verdicts of the Hague Tribunal for crimes and atrocities is dominant over Bosniaks (again in a different version): Serbs deny genocide verdicts, and Croats deny convictions for the Joint Criminal Enterprise. In addition to common characteristics, this paper highlights some special features of the current Serbian and Croatian policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, again, boils down to one goal: to strengthen (make independent) the Republika Srpska and cantons with a Croat majority,
{"title":"Bosnia and Herzegovina in current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions","authors":"Omer Hamzić","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.233","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, with some methodological dilemmas, an attempt is made to speak more clearly from a certain historical perspective about the current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, which „produce“ an almost permanent political crisis in this area - from Dayton to today. The continuity and current effects of these policies, which have their roots in some dark historical depths and myths, never changing their essence and their goals, were pointed out. In the current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions, Bosnia and Herzegovina is treated as a „sphere of interest“, which should be mastered as much as possible in peace, if it did not succeed in the war. Serbia and Croatia, in the historical sense, since they have existed as political entities, have been opposed to each other in almost everything. The only thing on which there was a high degree of agreement was the question of the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, again depending on historical circumstances and other circumstances. (to mention only Tudjman and Milosevic). In the last few years, intensive cooperation and a high degree of „agreement“ between Serbian and Croatian politics have been noticed, again „regarding“ Bosnia and Herzegovina, its status and the definitive post-Dayton division. In this sense, it is not difficult to recognize several common characteristics of both policies. In this article, the author focuses on the following: the first is a declarative and formal public declaration of both to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while in practical politics this sovereignty is continuously violated and „trampled“, acting as its „rulers“. . Another common feature is the belittling and labeling of all pro-Bosnian political forces, reducing them to „political Sarajevo“ in the pejorative sense of the word, with multiple offensive and deeper meanings, which, in addition to Milorad Dodik (to make the absurd even greater, as president or member of the Presidency of BiH) from the Serbian one, Zoran Milanović, the current president of Croatia, until yesterday a declared friend of Bosnia and the pro-Bosnian SDP, is increasingly expressing himself in his own way. Obstruction of the process of reforms and rapprochement of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the European Union and NATO membership is the third session of the characteristics of Serbian and Croatian politics (albeit in different versions), while the fourth, denial of decisions and verdicts of the Hague Tribunal for crimes and atrocities is dominant over Bosniaks (again in a different version): Serbs deny genocide verdicts, and Croats deny convictions for the Joint Criminal Enterprise. In addition to common characteristics, this paper highlights some special features of the current Serbian and Croatian policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, again, boils down to one goal: to strengthen (make independent) the Republika Srpska and cantons with a Croat majority,","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42369573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.283
Emir Tahirović, Ermin Kuka
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the pluralization of society and the state began during 1990. This is the time when political parties are formed and the first multi-party parliamentary elections are held. Due to the strong influence and domination of the ethnic principle, political parties were formed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990 in two basic forms: as ethnic or people's (national) parties, and as civic (multiethnic) parties. In almost all election cycles from the beginning of the pluralization of Bosnian society until today, ethnic political parties have won the elections. Ethnic political parties have appropriated a monopoly in the promotion of national interests since the 1990 election campaign, guided by the idea of protecting the national interests of “their“ peoples. The continued rule of ethnic parties without a coalition political agenda and agreement has strengthened ethnic pluralism in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, instead of democratic decision-making and competition between the majority and the opposition, the representative bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina have become an arena and a place of mutual competition and confrontation between the parties that make up the parliamentary majority. The lack of the necessary democratic consensus between the ruling ethnic political parties at the state level was compensated and compensated by the High Representative of the International Community (OHR), who, on the basis of the Bonn powers, promulgated certain laws. Hundreds of laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been promulgated by high representatives. This prevented blockages in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the absence of the necessary consensus of the ruling ethnic parties, it is not possible to develop or strengthen the power of parliaments as the highest representative body of the people and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead of parliamentary democracy, classical partitocracy is at work. The situation is similar at the entity level, and at the cantonal level in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina entity. All this, along with heterogeneous and complicated decision-making procedures and processes, ultimately reflects on the adoption of laws and decisions of importance to society and the state. Complicated forms of decision-making and the existence of a famous mechanism for the protection of vital national interests are some of the obstacles to the development of the state and society. All of these are some of the essential problems, but also the controversies that follow the decision-making processes in the representative bodies in the country. This is especially true of the adoption of important and significant public policies aimed at solving socio-political problems. Only decision-making at the level of local self-government units (municipalities and cities) can serve as a positive example. In general, the local level of government has so far proved to be the most efficient level of gov
{"title":"The Dayton controversies – public decision-making between parliamentary democracy and partitocracy","authors":"Emir Tahirović, Ermin Kuka","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.283","url":null,"abstract":"In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the pluralization of society and the state began during 1990. This is the time when political parties are formed and the first multi-party parliamentary elections are held. Due to the strong influence and domination of the ethnic principle, political parties were formed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990 in two basic forms: as ethnic or people's (national) parties, and as civic (multiethnic) parties. In almost all election cycles from the beginning of the pluralization of Bosnian society until today, ethnic political parties have won the elections. Ethnic political parties have appropriated a monopoly in the promotion of national interests since the 1990 election campaign, guided by the idea of protecting the national interests of “their“ peoples. The continued rule of ethnic parties without a coalition political agenda and agreement has strengthened ethnic pluralism in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, instead of democratic decision-making and competition between the majority and the opposition, the representative bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina have become an arena and a place of mutual competition and confrontation between the parties that make up the parliamentary majority. The lack of the necessary democratic consensus between the ruling ethnic political parties at the state level was compensated and compensated by the High Representative of the International Community (OHR), who, on the basis of the Bonn powers, promulgated certain laws. Hundreds of laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been promulgated by high representatives. This prevented blockages in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the absence of the necessary consensus of the ruling ethnic parties, it is not possible to develop or strengthen the power of parliaments as the highest representative body of the people and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead of parliamentary democracy, classical partitocracy is at work. The situation is similar at the entity level, and at the cantonal level in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina entity. All this, along with heterogeneous and complicated decision-making procedures and processes, ultimately reflects on the adoption of laws and decisions of importance to society and the state. Complicated forms of decision-making and the existence of a famous mechanism for the protection of vital national interests are some of the obstacles to the development of the state and society. All of these are some of the essential problems, but also the controversies that follow the decision-making processes in the representative bodies in the country. This is especially true of the adoption of important and significant public policies aimed at solving socio-political problems. Only decision-making at the level of local self-government units (municipalities and cities) can serve as a positive example. In general, the local level of government has so far proved to be the most efficient level of gov","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45332325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-15DOI: 10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.371
Izet Šabotić
Prikaz//Review: Senaid Hadžić, Veliki zaokret: Bosna i Hercegovina u vremenu tranzicije (od 1880-ih do 1950-ih), Centar za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla i Arhiv Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla 2021, 493 str.
{"title":"Prikaz//Review: Senaid Hadžić, Veliki zaokret: Bosna i Hercegovina u vremenu tranzicije (od 1880-ih do 1950-ih), Centar za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla i Arhiv Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla 2021, 493 str.","authors":"Izet Šabotić","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.371","url":null,"abstract":"Prikaz//Review: Senaid Hadžić, Veliki zaokret: Bosna i Hercegovina u vremenu tranzicije (od 1880-ih do 1950-ih), Centar za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla i Arhiv Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla 2021, 493 str.","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42450051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：