Republika Srpska is the only constitutional defender of Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina, although many fail to understand this or choose to ignore it, emphasized professor of constitutional law Siniša Karan.
“The fact is simple: the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina has not been amended for thirty years. However, the constitutional reality has changed—unconstitutionally—through impositions, threats, pressures, and abuses, without the consent of the entities, without respect for the will of the people, and without a democratic process,” Karan stressed.
Bosnia and Herzegovina functions outside legal norms
Today, we have a situation in which Bosnia and Herzegovina functions as something that legally does not exist. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina is probably the only country in the world that has a Court and Prosecutor’s Office at the level of the state union, which are not provided for in the Constitution.
These institutions were not created by law, but by decisions of high representatives who, under that same Constitution, do not have the authority to pass laws. What is imposed is neither legitimate nor democratic.
The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina clearly and unambiguously defines the competences of the state union. Anything beyond that framework can exist only if both entities give their consent. That is the fundamental principle on which Bosnia and Herzegovina rests.
It is important to note that Republika Srpska, as one of the signatories of Annex IV, still calls on the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for political and constitutional agreement.
The laws are Republika Srpska’s institutional response to decades of legal violence
None of the laws recently reviewed by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina are accidental or provocative. They were adopted to prevent unconstitutional actions by unconstitutional and anti-Dayton institutions.
These are institutional responses by Republika Srpska to decades of legal violence inflicted by parts of the international community, high representatives, the unfortunate German diplomat Christian Schmidt, the Court in Strasbourg, the unconstitutional Court and Prosecutor’s Office, and the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Through these laws, Republika Srpska defends its constitutional, political, and overall security order.
The acts of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska were not adopted out of political whim, but out of constitutional responsibility.
According to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sovereignty belongs to the peoples and the entities—not to foreigners, not to high representatives, not to judges without legitimacy, but to the peoples. That sovereignty is expressed through elections and institutions, not through impositions and interventions.
I remind you that entity sovereignty is expressed through the independent organization of entity structures, the creation of legal order, and the exercise of power within each entity. Entities hold a portion of state authority through the power to adopt binding decisions and enforce them, and they have their own constitution, legislation, judiciary, administration, and finances.
The legislative will of Republika Srpska is formed in the National Assembly, not in diplomatic salons
Republika Srpska is not an administrative unit—it is a constitutional category, and when it makes decisions, it does so in the name of the people, not under dictate.
Therefore, the legislative will of Republika Srpska is not formed in diplomatic salons, but in the National Assembly, the highest representative and legislative body, composed of legitimately elected members of parliament, who are the bearers of the sovereign will of the citizens.
That popular will is above everything, and no institution—not even the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially not its current incomplete composition—has the right to interfere with it.
These representatives are not self-proclaimed authorities, nor are they politically appointed from abroad; they were elected by the people in direct and democratic elections.
Their competence derives directly from the Constitution, and their responsibility is toward the citizens, not foreign centers of power. Therefore, the laws they pass have full constitutional and democratic legitimacy.
The laws contested by the Constitutional Court are fully legitimate, constitutional, and serve to protect the competences guaranteed to Republika Srpska by the Dayton Peace Agreement.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is not unitary or monoethnic, but a complex state union composed of two entities and three constituent peoples
If someone from political Sarajevo is bothered by the fact that Republika Srpska acts within Dayton and the Constitution, then the problem lies in their understanding of the state. Bosnia and Herzegovina is neither unitary nor monoethnic. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a complex state union composed of two entities and three constituent peoples, whether someone likes it or not.
For three decades in Bosnia and Herzegovina, various occupiers have acted unconstitutionally, informally, and outside every constitutional logic, creating a reality that deviated from Dayton in nearly every respect. All of this was done under the label of reforms with the primary goal of unitarizing Bosnia and Herzegovina—of turning it into a state exclusively of the Bosniak people. In reality, this was a gradual dismantling of what the Serb people accepted in Dayton.
Let us be clear: Republika Srpska accepted Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina, not any other imposed or institutionally altered version.
The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, aligned with political Sarajevo, supported by seasoned initiators of constitutional appeals against Republika Srpska, has positioned itself as an instrument of dismantling the constitutional order and the state itself. It is undeniable that this Court makes decisions exclusively against Serbs and Republika Srpska, regardless of the subject of the appeal.
Over time, through linguistic interpretation of constitutional norms, interpreting the “spirit of the Constitution” through a unitarist-civic lens, legal interpretation along the same lines, and the introduction of constitutional practices aimed at eliminating the basic constitutional definition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an ethno-civic complex state with entities as a substantial element, the Court has created a new framework suitable for decisions dictated by the Bosniak political elite.
The incomplete Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to openly implement the agenda of disempowering Republika Srpska
In this regard, practice shows that the incomplete, institutionally deficient Constitutional Court has taken upon itself the right to decide the fate of an entire entity—Republika Srpska.
Three foreign judges, accountable to no one in this country and without democratic legitimacy, rule on the internal structure and competences of Republika Srpska, while domestic judges, without the votes of Serb members, implement already prepared political scenarios.
Despite all warnings from the professional public about the clearly illegal actions of this Court, it is evident that the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to openly implement the agenda of disempowering Republika Srpska.
Republika Srpska will not accept that this incomplete Court, through constitutional fraud, determines our destiny, nor that the laws of Republika Srpska, adopted in accordance with Dayton authorities, be suspended by an institution that lacks both legality and legitimacy.
Republika Srpska knows its rights well and will defend them peacefully, institutionally, and legally, without hesitation. Respecting the Dayton Constitution is not a matter of goodwill, but the foundation for the survival of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a shared state.
This disgrace that today bears the name Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be remembered in history as the institution that tried, unsuccessfully, to suppress the will of the people.
Source: RTRS
