Legal expert Ognjen Tadić has published a commentary arguing that the current dispute over the Commission to Preserve National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina reflects a broader constitutional crisis caused by what he describes as the gradual expansion of institutional powers beyond those established by the Dayton Peace Agreement.
According to Tadić, political crises do not always arise from ideological divisions. Some, he argues, develop when institutions gradually exceed the legal limits of their authority and begin acting according to political will rather than constitutional rules.
He maintains that the Commission to Preserve National Monuments was established under Annex 8 of the Dayton Peace Agreement and that the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina is authorized only to appoint its members after the Commission’s initial five-year mandate.
In his view, the Presidency has repeatedly exceeded that authority by adopting decisions regulating the Commission’s organization, legal status and functioning, matters which he argues are governed exclusively by Annex 8 and the Commission’s own acts.
Tadić contends that this practice amounts to a gradual attempt to alter the institutional framework established by the Dayton Peace Agreement without formally amending it.
Referring to the Presidency’s decision adopted earlier this year despite opposition from Serb member Željka Cvijanović, he argues that the measure violates Annex 8, multiple provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, several state laws and the Rules of Procedure of the Presidency.
According to Tadić, the decision also raises issues of foreign relations because it provides for the appointment of foreign members to the Commission, despite the Commission having operated without foreign members for more than a decade.
He further argues that Denis Bećirović subsequently contacted UNESCO without the knowledge or consent of the other members of the Presidency to request nominations for foreign experts, describing the move as contrary to the constitutional framework governing Bosnia and Herzegovina’s representation in international affairs.
Tadić says the latest developments have further deepened the institutional dispute. He notes that Cvijanović left the Presidency session after arguing that the appointment of foreign members was a matter affecting international relations, later announcing that she would invoke the constitutional veto mechanism.
According to Tadić, the veto is not intended to obstruct institutions but to preserve the constitutional principle that political majorities are not the sole source of legitimacy in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s power-sharing system.
He also argues that Denis Bećirović’s political approach has consistently relied on majority voting rather than compromise, saying this demonstrates the constitutional importance of mechanisms such as entity voting, the protection of vital national interests and the veto procedure.
Tadić notes that Croatian Presidency member Željko Komšić had previously described the issue as part of Bećirović’s election campaign and warned that insisting on such an approach could prevent the Commission from becoming operational. According to Tadić, this illustrates that the current institutional deadlock is the predictable consequence of decisions adopted without consensus.
In conclusion, Tadić argues that the dispute extends far beyond the Commission itself and concerns the broader constitutional question of whether state institutions may expand their powers beyond those granted by the Constitution and the Dayton Peace Agreement.
He maintains that constitutional systems are designed to limit the exercise of majority power rather than merely facilitate it, warning that repeated reinterpretations of institutional authority effectively amount to rewriting the Dayton framework without the consent of its signatories.
Tadić concludes that, under such circumstances, the National Assembly of Republika Srpska should support the veto submitted by Željka Cvijanović in order to preserve what he describes as the constitutional framework established by the Dayton Peace Agreement.
Source: RTRS
