Even if we accept that the international community had to act pragmatically in imposing the Dayton Accords and Bosnia-Herzegovina’s constitution, the current criticisms cannot merely focus on local politics and ignore the role of international ‘experts’.
Archive for July, 2012
As part of an on-going debate on constitutional reform in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Charles Crawford explains how the much-criticized Dayton constitution drew directly upon the political traditions and legal forms that existed previously in the former Yugoslavia.
The UN should play the lead role in negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina – or at least serve as a neutral umpire – as the continuing Kosovo status dispute cannot be settled through the one-sided approach so far pushed by the Quint.
In response to Charles Crawford’s article on ‘Bosnia’s irreconcilable principles’, Jasmin Mujanović refutes proposals for some sort of confederation and reasserts the need to strengthen civic democratic participation as a prerequisite for constitutional reform.
TransConflict is pleased to present contributions to the second Peacebuilders’ Panel, which is designed to stimulate debate about peacebuilding and conflict transformation.
A response to Jasmin Mujanović’s recent article, examining the irreconcilable principles that explain the Dayton Peace Accords and which suggest that, for now, some sort of confederation is the best possible outcome for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Elements of the Irish-English settlement may offer a model for how a Kosovar-Serbia deal might be made, including recognition that the creation of an ethnic state cannot proceed peacefully on the back of forcing an ethnic minority to join.
Insisting that chauvinist oligarchs produce substantive democratic reforms is a fool’s errand and it boggles the mind that this has been the guiding mantra of the international community’s involvement in BiH for nearly two decades. The ordinary people of BiH deserve a chance to have an actual say in the […]
The chance of a meaningful outcome to the next round of political negotiations depends on Serbian and Kosovar protagonists taking responsibility for negotiations away from US, EU and Russian overseers.
The first in a two-part analysis of constitutional change in Bosnia and Herzegovina, criticising the fallacies which have informed the international community’s attempts to “deal” with the country since the early nineties and examining competing conceptions of reform.