The Minister of European Integration and International Cooperation of the Republika Srpska, Zlatan Klokić, stated in an interview with Srna that officials in Washington, London, and Berlin are aware that the presence of a foreign dictator in Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutes a complete violation of international law and European standards.
Klokić emphasized that the Republika Srpska presents truthful legal arguments pointing to numerous violations of international law committed by foreign actors in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has evidently struck Assistant U.S. Secretary of State James O’Brien.
Speaking about O’Brien’s claims that he is affected when he hears inaccurate arguments from irresponsible politicians and their lawyers, who are paid with citizens’ money, Klokić said that American officials would have nothing against the Republika Srpska having a legal advisor if the actions of Christian Schmidt, the self-proclaimed High Representative for the Implementation of the Peace Agreement, and the U.S. Embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina were in accordance with international law.
He stressed that the international lawyers of the Republika Srpska, engaged by the Ministry of European Integration and International Cooperation, have never developed or presented any legal arguments in favor of the Republika Srpska’s secession from Bosnia and Herzegovina or the abolition of the Dayton Agreement, nor has this ever been requested of them.
Klokić reminded that the legal team of the Ministry, which provides advice on EU integration and other matters of international law, consistently assists the Republika Srpska in defending the entity’s rights under the Dayton Agreement.
“It is an undeniable fact that for more than a decade, reports of the Republika Srpska to the UN Security Council, to the drafting of which our legal team also contributes, consistently affirm the Republika Srpska’s support for the peace agreement, as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” said Klokić.
He reminded that O’Brien, at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Sarajevo, stated that foreign judges should remain because “courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina interpret the law of the European Court of Human Rights, so it is important to have judges in court who are experts in this law.”
Klokić says that constitutional courts in most European countries interpret the law of the European Court of Human Rights, but O’Brien would never dare to suggest that these countries should allocate a third of the positions in their constitutional courts to foreigners.
“Even worse, his arguments erroneously assume that judges from Bosnia and Herzegovina are so incompetent that they cannot understand and apply the law of the European Court of Human Rights. His condescending statements also suggest that it is not important for judges to be experts in constitutional law, which is precisely their job, or even to speak one of the languages used in the country,” Klokić added.
He assessed that it seems as if the U.S. officially opposes a core element of the 14 key priorities of the EU for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s integration, namely, the change of foreign judges in the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Klokić reminded that O’Brien claims that the appointment of the new High Representative is entrusted, not to the UN Security Council, but to an informal, self-appointed group of countries and organizations known as the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council.
“In that claim, he neglects the fact that Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement explicitly requires the High Representative to be appointed in accordance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions. He also neglects that the Dayton Agreement nowhere mentions or even considers the Peace Implementation Council, that this council has no legal existence, charter, or procedures, and that no one has ever given it the authority to appoint a High Representative or any legal authority,” Klokić stated.
Therefore, he emphasized, there are no arguments in support of O’Brien’s claim, except for a mistaken appeal to authority, namely the personal opinion of the UN Secretary-General, which is completely irrelevant as he is neither authorized nor qualified to give an opinion on this matter.
“Implicitly acknowledging that there is no specific provision of the Dayton Agreement that gives the High Representative extraordinary powers, O’Brien bases his shaky defense on the ‘Bonn powers’ on a single clause from the penultimate article of Annex 10. In that clause, the High Representative is designated as the ‘final authority on the ground for the interpretation of this agreement on the civilian implementation of the peace solution.’ This shows that he attempts to strengthen his argument by deliberately omitting the phrase ‘on the ground’ when quoting that clause,” said Klokić.
He reminded that every lawyer knows that a clause of the agreement relating to interpretation, such as the one cited by O’Brien, does not grant any substantive powers, let alone broad dictatorial powers that are not mentioned in the agreement.
“The bad faith in interpreting that Annex 10 gives the High Representative ‘Bonn powers’ is even more evident when considering that such despotic powers undoubtedly violate democratic procedures and human rights conventions embedded in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, namely Annex Four of the Dayton Agreement,” Klokić stated.
He assessed that nothing represents a greater attack on European standards and the violation of basic principles of international law than the presence of the unelected Office of the High Representative, which is accountable to no one, invokes dictatorial powers, and imposes dozens of unlawful decisions at its own discretion.
“This obvious fact has been recognized by the European Commission and the Venice Commission, and even former High Representatives, and now enjoys widespread recognition among academics, analysts, and even journalists, who all recognize the illegality of the power usurpation by the Office of the High Representative,” said Klokić.
He reminded that none of the foreign powers supporting the continued presence of the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina has ever attempted to express a convincing legal argument about how the despotic powers successively invoked by High Representatives are in accordance with international law, let alone European standards, because that is impossible.
“Officials in Washington, London, and Berlin are aware that the presence of a foreign dictator in Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutes a complete violation of international law and European standards. Unfortunately, these officials have a very selective view of who is subject to these norms and when, easily completely disregarding international law and European standards whenever respecting those norms might prevent them from using levers of external control they have set up in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Klokić concluded.
O’Brien said last week during a visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina that “property belongs to the state,” that the presence of foreign judges in the Constitutional Court “is also part of Dayton,” that the U.S. will support the use of Bonn powers when necessary, and that it is “wrong” when some say that the UN Security Council must appoint a High Representative.
“So it is painful, for me as a lawyer, when I hear inaccurate arguments put forward by irresponsible politicians and lawyers paid with your money. These arguments would drag the country back, not towards the initial peace, but towards the war that preceded it,” O’Brien said in a lecture at the FPN in Sarajevo.
Source: RTRS
