International protectorate and all forms of foreign guardianship and tutelage have been exhausted and have become obstacles to the stability, sovereignty, and development of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said Mile Dmičić, professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Banja Luka.
Marking 30 years since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement in Paris, Dmičić emphasized that all forms of interventionism, mediation, and arbitration by international representatives hinder domestic institutions from assuming full responsibility.
“Changes to the Dayton constitutional arrangements are not possible without the consent of all participants and signatory states, as well as the two entities and three constituent peoples in BiH,” Dmičić stressed.
He noted that the Constitution emerged from an act of international law — an international agreement that defines the foundations of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional and legal structure, politically and legally obliging all signatories to respect and fully implement it.
Dmičić pointed out that revising an international agreement, whether in whole or in part, is possible only once a certain period has passed or when circumstances change sufficiently to justify amendments.
“The conditions and procedures for this are not prescribed, and any change to the Dayton Peace Agreement would have to involve all signatory parties, including the guarantor states, which would return the issue to institutions of higher legal hierarchy, primarily the UN,” he said.
He stressed the need to highlight the harmful impact of attempts to diminish entity competencies, as well as the importance of halting the erosion of entity powers and rejecting any revision of Dayton’s solutions and the established constitutional model of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a complex state — composed of two equal entities, Republika Srpska and the Federation of BiH, along with the Brčko District and three constituent peoples.
“Instead of choosing one of the known models of state organization, the Constitution defines BiH as composed of two entities — the Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska — which have autonomy and all state powers except those explicitly transferred to BiH institutions, as is typical in complex states,” Dmičić explained.
He added that the allocation of powers represents a compromise between preserving Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territorial integrity and the broad autonomy of the entities, which is why BiH functions as a complex state under a specific form of international supervision.
According to him, disputes and challenges to the Dayton Peace Agreement stem from internal conflicts, divisions, and the promotion of only one model for BiH — primarily centralization and unitarization, with dominance of the most numerous people, under the narrative of building a “functional state.”
He also noted the denial of historical, national, and religious particularities of the country’s distinct political communities, the strengthening of consociational and majoritarian decision-making, and the absence of coherent and implementable constitutional, political, and economic reforms, especially regarding the so-called Dayton–Brussels process.
From the conclusion of the Dayton Agreement to the ongoing “silent” or “covert” constitutional revision, he said, federal–confederal characteristics have predominated.
It is understandable, Dmičić added, that in a post-conflict society there remains a lack of trust, sincerity, and readiness for cultural dialogue, tolerance, and reconciliation among ethnic groups and their leaders.
“In this context, debates emerge that advocate further disintegration through redrawing borders, peaceful separation of territorial units, creation of new state entities, and similar ideas — all of which, given past experiences, directly evoke the possibility of tragic conflicts,” he warned.
Dmičić argued that this requires genuine dialogue between the entities and BiH institutions on the causes, nature, and consequences of past conflicts, as well as a revision of war crimes verdicts and an end to the practice of assigning collective guilt to peoples or public authorities.
He stressed the need to prevent unconstitutional retroactive application of criminal law, reject all calls for the abolition of Republika Srpska, and oppose challenges to its name, symbols, and existence.
However, he added, there remain strong political pressures to impose governance based solely on majority rule, ignoring the risks of discrimination, intolerance, and majorization.
“It is contrary to democratic and constitutional principles for any illegitimate or illegal body to change state or entity constitutions, enact or amend laws, replace or influence legislative, executive, administrative, and judicial authorities, dismiss elected officials, or establish new branches of government and alter judicial competences,” Dmičić stated.
He emphasized that this also applies to the creation of new BiH-level institutions — including the armed forces, intelligence and security structures, indirect taxation system, border and customs administration, agencies, and regulatory bodies.
Such actions, he said, represent unconstitutional, unlawful, and undemocratic interference — particularly through the misuse of “Bonn powers” — undermining the sustainability of the Dayton framework.
According to Dmičić, all of this threatens constitutional development and EU integration efforts, especially the implementation of priority reforms. It also strengthens the argument for ending the mandates of the international high representative and foreign judges in the Constitutional Court of BiH.
“Therefore, it is essential to preserve the original Dayton solutions and maintain full consensus between the two entities and the three equal constituent peoples,” Dmičić concluded.
Source: RTRS
.webp "Dodik: Schmidt is trying to be part of BiH in a false way")
