In this last year, Bosnia and Herzegovina are facing the worst crisis since the end of the war in 1995. When the conflict ended, an agreement, known as e Dayton Agreement, was reached by the western powers in order to ensure the peace and stability of the entire region. However, the agreement did not achieve all the expected results due to the fact that up to now the country remains divided in ethnic groups and still does not complain with the international framework provisions, especially for what concerns the equality among the citizens.
The Dayton Agreement has divided the country in two autonomous entities, the Republic Srpska and the Federation of Bosnian-Herzegovina, plus a one special district, located in the north of the country, namely the District of Brcko, which splits the Republic of Srpska in two parts.
For what concerns the ethnic groups living in the country, we may witness a strict distinction, with the majority of the population belonging to the Bosniak and Croats ethnicity living the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, while in the Republic of Srpska the Serbs constitute the greater part of the inhabitants. This distinction is reflected in the Constitution of the country, which contains an electoral law that bars the possibility for the ethnic minorities to vote in the elections for the State presidency, as well as for the other institutions, denying them also the opportunity to be elected: in this context, only Bosniak, Croats and Serbs can participate actively in the political life of the country.
The European Court of Human Rights has expressed itself on the constitutional law in analysis in occasion of the Finci and Sejdic case of 2009, stating that Bosnia and Herzegovina should amend its Constitution in order to remove the offending articles which are in contrast with the international law and with the Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement. However, the decision of the Court has not been implemented yet by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, increasing the inequality in the political framework of the country as well as the lack of representation of the ethnic minorities.
The State government in Sarajevo is composed of a bicameral legislature, the Council of Ministers and a three-member Presidency. At the top of the institutional pyramid sits the Office of the High Representative, an internationally-appointed post, in charge of monitoring the ‘peace implementation process’. The High Representative has wide-ranging powers that include the ability to create and overturn laws and sack elected and non-elected officials, which are known as the “Bonn Powers”. However, the Office of the High Representative depends on the consensus and support of the international community to act, embodied by the Peace Implementation Council. Consequently, the Bosnia and Herzegovina legislative implementation depends significantly on the initiative of the international community bringing the country to be a protectorate characterized by a loose federation with a weak central government.
The current political situation in the country reflects the disinterest of the international community for the security and stability of the country, showing that there is no clear agreement among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on the future of the Bosnia and Herzegovina. In particular, the Russian Federation tried to block the adoption of a resolution by the Security Council concerning the establishment of a European Union multinational stabilization force, or EUFOR-Althea, and the renewal of its authorization to maintain a NATO headquarter in the country for 12 months. What Russia claims to obstacle the adoption of the resolution is the lack of legitimacy of the High Representative Christian Schimdt, appointed by some Western countries in violation of the established practice arguing that the post should remain vacant. Nevertheless, the resolution in question, the 2604 of 3 November 2021, was adopted by the Security Council but in the text there is no reference to the Office of the High Representative for what concern the implementation of the civilian aspects of the General Framework Agreement Peace. It is possible to consider this a relevant victory of the Russian Federation which politically undercut the High Representative.
The recent moves of the Russian Federation, as showed above, are motivated by their support to the Republic of Srpska attempt to secede from the Bosnia and Herzegovina to became independent. This is a crucial historical moment for the aforementioned country, which has always been divided in different ethnic groups although the war is now over and in which each group is characterized by a clear nationalist rhetoric grounded on the grievance.
The moves of the Republic of Srpska President Dodik to overturn the constitutional order has been documented by 60th report of the High Representative for implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina to the UN Secretary General on 5 November 2021. In the present document the High Representative highlights the most grave consequences that the actions of Mr. Dodik could provoke, specifying that this may be considered as the greatest existential threat of the postwar period for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The intention of the president of the Republic of Srpska is weakening the institutions of the country with an unilateral withdrawal from agreement reached, according to which the three entities transfer their competences to the State in the areas of defence, indirect taxes and the High Judicial and Prosecutional Council. Mr. Dodik declared that a new constitution will be drafted and all the laws and decisions of the High Representatives will be rejected in the republic of Srpska. In the intention of Mr Dodik there is his willingness to withdraw the members of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Armed Forces who reside in the Republic of Srpska, to takeover of AFBIH facilities on RS territory and to re-establish the RS army, as well as the withdrawal of the RS entity from the State-level and measures to prevent those institutions from operating in its territory. This move is “tantamount to secession without proclaiming it”. The unilateral withdrawal of either entity from the established State institutions, which is not legally possible under the current constitutional framework, would lead to the collapse of those institutions, and ultimately undermine the State ability to function and carry out its constitutional responsibilities.
The threat to the constitutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina has lead a response by the international community. As just seen, the Security Council adopted a resolution that extended the presence of the NATO and build up a European force of defence to ensure the stability and security in the aforementioned country. In parallel, the United States has imposed new sanctions on the Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik, affirming that the reasons for these measures grounded on the spread of the corruption during his mandate and on his effort to undermine “the stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina” as well as the Dayton Peace Accords. The sanctions in question are targeting the Alternativna Televizija, a television station owned by Dodik and the criminalization of all form of financial donation to him, in addition to these new measures the United States has just imposed sanctions in 2017 on Mr. Dodik in response to his attempt to obstruct the Dayton Accord: as we can see the efforts of the Bosnian Serb President to overturn the constitutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina are already well known.
In the meantime in the European Union the debate concerning the imposition of sanction on Bosnian Serb president Dodik still open. Germany are leading the group of the country supporting the sanctions while Hungary is at the helm of the opposition to block these measures affirming that they are counterproductive. It is not possible to predict what will happen in the future of the Bosnia and Herzegovina due to the fact that the situation is in a continues evolution. The Europe must to take some serious steps in order to prevent the secession but in the meantime must be increase the trust of Bosnian Serb population in its Institution. It is in the interest of the Europen Union improve its influence and support the democratic development of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to avoid that Russian federation could extended its influence in this country situated near the core of the Europe.
Jasmin Mujanovic, “Bosnia and Herzegovina’s eroding Dayton constitutional order”, SEER Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe p.145-164, 2020.
The Brussels Time, EU might consider sanctions against possible break-away entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/194116/eu-might-consider-sanctions-against-possible-break-away-entity-in-bosnia-and-herzegovina.
The economist, Bosnia is on the brink of falling apart again https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/02/12/bosnia-is-on-the-brink-of-falling-apart-again.
The Guardian, US sanctions Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik for ‘destabilizing activities’, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/us-sanctions-bosnian-serb-leader-milorad-dodik.
The Guardian, Bosnia is in danger of breaking up, warns top international official, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/02/bosnia-is-in-danger-of-breaking-up-warns-eus-top-official-in-the-state.
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
