Lawyer Ognjen Tadić has argued that the fundamental prerequisite for establishing genuine rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina is to stop treating what he describes as unlawful decisions of the incomplete Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an integral part of the rule of law itself.
In an op-ed, Tadić contends that a greater danger to society arises when courts fail to respect the constitution than when citizens question decisions issued by such courts. According to him, the solution lies in ensuring that judicial institutions adhere to constitutional principles rather than creating an appearance of legality through unquestioning acceptance of controversial rulings.
Tadić argues that Western democracies regularly criticize laws and court decisions in countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Belarus, and Turkey when they believe fundamental rights, democratic standards, or judicial independence have been violated. However, he claims that a different standard is applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where public debate regarding the legitimacy of decisions imposed by international authorities is often portrayed as an attack on the rule of law.
According to Tadić, Bosnia and Herzegovina remains unique in Europe because a significant portion of its legal and political framework was shaped through decisions imposed by High Representatives rather than through regular democratic procedures. He argues that questions concerning the legitimacy of such measures, the scope of the Bonn Powers, and the role of the Office of the High Representative should be open to democratic discussion.
The author further maintains that Western governments frequently challenge judicial decisions in other countries on the grounds of human rights, democratic legitimacy, and constitutional principles, yet advocate unconditional acceptance of the existing institutional framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina despite ongoing legal and political controversies.
Tadić concludes that Bosnia and Herzegovina has become a test of the limits of Western legalism. In his view, the key question is whether principles such as the rule of law, democratic legitimacy, and human rights are truly universal or whether they are applied selectively depending on political circumstances. He argues that the credibility of Western democratic values depends on providing a convincing answer to that question.
Source: RTRS
