Historical Views

23-70

Authors: Safet Bandžović

Complex socio-historical processes and turning epochs, as well as numerous segments that are an integral part of people's lives, are the subject of interdisciplinary studies. War is one of the most dramatic, most complex social phenomena. In addition to armed operations, there are a number of other dimensions related to war, starting from psychological, legal, sociological, social, economic, cultural to others. Critical and multiple perspectives contribute to the completion of images of politics, wars and their relations. The disintegrations of the ideological paradigm and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were accompanied by the (re)construction of new national identities, the outbreak and duration of „wars“ of different memories, the reshaping of consciousness and the re-examination of history, especially those related to World War II. The history of that war in Yugoslavia was undoubtedly the history of several wars which were stacked on top of each other. The main issue with Bosniaks in that war is a multiperspectival topic that requires a multidimensional and deideologized presentation of the position and the position of all involved actors. Numerous issues related to that war, the complex position of Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak, the emergence of civic responsibility, Bosniak protection of the vulnerable Serb Orthodox population, humanity and assistance, beyond post-war ideological premises and „official truths“ remained more or less marginalized, although they seek more objective and complete answers from multiple angles, for the sake of a more complete view of the past. What is called „local“ or „regional history“, as evidenced by diverse experiences, indicates the multidimensionality of the past, its features and specifics in a certain area. The Second World War in Sandžak could not be understood more objectively outside the broader Yugoslav context. This is also special for the history of Novi Pazar, the largest city in Sandžak which was the subject of many different political plans and conceptions. The history of this city has several sections. After the withdrawal of German forces from Novi Pazar, the Chetniks tried to conquer this city for three times in the fall of 1941. However, thanks to the dedicated defense and the help of Albanian armed groups from Kosovo, Bosniaks managed to defend themselves and Novi Pazar. Even in such a dramatic situation, numerous examples of humanity, solidarity and assistance of Bosniaks to the intimidated Serb urban population have been recorded. In the most difficult days of the war, when Novi Pazar was exposed to Chetnik attacks, a significant part of Bosniaks took actions to prevent anarchy, to save Serbs from terror and revenge. The task of science is to constantly discover forgotten and unknown parts of the past, to re-examine previous knowledge. Everything that happened has a whole range of perspectives. It is necessary to have a multidimensional understanding of the causes and course of events, circuits and time limits, to explain narrowed alternatives. Any reduction of historical totality to only one dimension is problematic. Every nation, every state, in a way, write their „histories“, remember different personalities, events, dates, emphasize various roles, perpetuates monuments, emphatize with different causes and consequences. Contemporary abuses of the interpretation of the war past, one-sided approaches, fierce prejucides and quasi-historical analyzes in the service of the politics damage interethic relations and lead to further growth of tensions and distancing between nations and states in their region.

93-121

Authors: Jasmin Jajčević

In terms of historiography, the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the Second World War has been dealt with by many historians and scholars, dealing with and researching topics related to the economy, culture, the issue of religious communities, political circumstances, etc. What is lacking in historiographical research in the period after the Second World War is certainly the question of education (educational opportunities), as well as the question of the repercussions and consequences of the Informbiro crisis in the period from 1948 to 1956 for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The period from 1948 to 1956 is one of the most dramatic and fateful phases in the recent history of the South Slavic countries, ie Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is a period of very contradictory and turbulent social processes, which have led to complex changes in all areas of socio-economic and political reality, both domestically (in Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and internationally. Stalin's attempt to subjugate the Yugoslav party leadership to Soviet domination will lead to an open split between Tito and Stalin (Yugoslavia and the USSR), which will have major consequences for the development of the Yugoslav political system, will lead to universal persecution of all those who voted for politics. Informbiroa in Yugoslavia. The conflict will have a particular impact on the political, economic and social situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The aim of this paper is to point out the historical sources that are in the archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, archives in Belgrade (Archives of Yugoslavia) and Zagreb on the basis of which the necessary data can be drawn to understand this issue, as well as to point to historiography (books, collections of papers and journals) that dealt with the issue of the Informbiro crisis in the period from 1948 to 1956 and its reflection on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is due to the fact that very few scientists and historians have dealt with this issue, as well as that there is very little historical literature for this period, especially for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It should be noted that we have a historian who has dealt with this issue at the micro level, and as a result a book was published in 2005 entitled „Informbiro and Northeast Bosnia: Echoes and Consequences of the KPJ-Informbiro Conflict (1948-1953)", where the general public with this event, which has a great impact on the political and socio-economic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From the appearance of this book until today, there have been attempts to shed light on this issue through several scientific conferences and round tables, and the result has been published collections of papers, as well as articles published in some journals, both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and wider.

135-183

Authors: Meldijana Arnaut Haseljić

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Peace Agreement) accepted in Paris on December 14, 1995 was signed by: for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović, for the Republic of Croatia dr. Franjo Tudjman and Slobodan Milosevic for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There are good reasons why the international community has demanded that these people be signatories to the Dayton Peace Agreement. Namely, after unsuccessful attempts to establish an agreement on constitutional solutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting with Cutileiro's plan (cantonization of Bosnia and Herzegovina on ethnic grounds), on which talks in Sarajevo began in February 1992, until the conference in London on 26 and On August 27, 1992, it was obvious that the positions of the Serb and Croat sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina were being harmonized with the positions of Belgrade and Zagreb, that is, the policies previously agreed and agreed upon on the Milosevic-Tudjman route. Three delegations participated in the conference in London. On behalf of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government were President Alija Izetbegović, Minister of Foreign Affairs Haris Silajdžić, Ejup Ganić and General Sefer Halilović. The Bosnian Serb delegation included Radovan Karadzic, RS President Momcilo Krajisnik, RS Vice President and VRS General Ratko Mladic, who were in direct consultations with Belgrade throughout the negotiations. Representatives of Bosnian Croats were the President of HZ HB Mate Boban, then the Prime Minister of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mile Akmadžić (although he was a member of the Government of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, he participated as a member of the Croatian delegation) and General Milivoj Petković. Croatian President Franjo Tudjman also took part in the negotiations and was the unofficial but de facto head of the Croatian delegation. Following the London Conference and the failure of the previous negotiations, the European Community Conference on Yugoslavia was expanded to include the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, chaired by Cyrus Vance (US diplomat on behalf of the UN) and Lord David Owen (on behalf of the EC / U). a new era of peace negotiations. Vance-Owen's plan foresaw the decentralization of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the existing borders with a constitutional order based on federal principles contained in a number of constitutive elements - regions (ten cantons formed on ethnic principles) and with the Sarajevo district where the central government would be located. This plan, after the refusal of the Serbian Assembly from Pale to ratify it, was definitely rejected. This was followed by the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan (Constitutional Agreement on the Alliance of the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina) which offered a confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina composed of three republics made up of ethnicity, but this plan also proved unacceptable. The Contact Group's plan followed the establishment of the Washington Agreement, which established the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in March 1994. This plan provided for the preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a union within its internationally recognized borders, and territorial division according to the percentage of territory (51:49). The Serbian leadership in Pale also refused to accept this proposal. The international community had to look for new solutions. The Contact Group's plan was a step towards negotiations that will result in the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. However, it is important to note that all the plans offered led to the discovery of hidden policies created by the eastern and western neighbors of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, all the proposed proposals for "peace plans", which the international community tried to impose in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were based on constitutional devastation and territorial division, thus accepting armed conquests and occupation of the area with the ultimate goal of destroying its territorial integrity and statehood. sovereignty, which made it obvious that the international community was not ready to protect the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state guaranteed by international law, which was especially denied by the introduction of an arms embargo, which prevented it from protecting its own sovereignty and territorial integrity. What was the role of the signatories of the Dayton Agreement in the preparation and execution of bilateral aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim of implementing plans for the partition of Bosnia and the realization of large-scale projects, and whether it determined their position as signatories to the General Framework Agreement? and the topic of trials of international courts with the aim of establishing, proving and convicting committed crimes. What is the significance of the signatories in the establishment and preservation of peace, and whether large-scale projects and plans for their implementation ended with the signing of the Dayton Agreement are questions whose answers are still being sought 25 years after the signing of the agreement. Namely, Slobodan Milosevic, the then president of the Federal Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), before the signing of the Dayton Agreement, appeared before the ICTY as an indictee for crimes committed in the Republics of the former Yugoslavia - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo. The trial was not terminated due to the death of the accused, but the Trial Chamber rendered a decision on the motion for acquittal (Interim Judgment of the Hague Tribunal of 16 June 2004), which established his responsibility for genocide committed in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Franjo Tudjman, the then President of the Republic of Croatia, was identified as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise in a verdict handed down for crimes committed by the Croatian Army (HV) and the Croatian Defense Council (HVO) against the civilian population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Case IT-04-74 Prlić etc). In its appeal verdict against the Bosnian six, the ICTY Appeals Chamber found that there was an international armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the state of occupation, but also confirmed the existence of a Croatian joint criminal enterprise aimed at "ethnic cleansing" certain areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croatia's Franjo Tudjman as one of the participants in this JCE. Thus, persons who found themselves in court proceedings and were held responsible for the consequences of the policies they implemented, the commission of crimes and joint criminal enterprises realized in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, became signatories of the Dayton Peace Agreement and guarantors of peace.

206-232

Authors: Sead Selimović

The armed aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement), initialed in Dayton on November 21, 1995, and signed on December 14, 1995 in Paris „in Bosnian, Croatian, English and the Serbian language“. The Dayton Agreement confirmed the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had real control (power) over the so-called Republika Srpska. Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement determined the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are two entities in the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consists of 10 cantons, and the Republika Srpska. Apart from the two entities, there is also the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was created by the Decision of the International Arbitration Court. It was established on March 8, 2000. According to the Dayton Agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose official name became „Bosnia and Herzegovina“, continues its legal existence under international law as a state with its internationally recognized borders. It remains a member of the United Nations, and as Bosnia and Herzegovina may retain membership or request membership in organizations within the United Nations system and in other international organizations. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement) guarantees human rights and „fundamental freedoms“. Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Entities, according to the Constitution, will ensure „the highest degree of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.“ For this purpose, the formation of the Commission for Human Rights is also envisaged, as provided for in Annex 6 of the General Framework Agreement. The issue of the return of refugees and displaced persons is addressed in Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement, entitled „Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons“. According to Annex 7, all refugees and displaced persons have the right to return freely to their homes and have the right to restitution of property confiscated from them during hostilities since 1991 and to receive compensation for all property that cannot be returned to them. The „Agreement“ states that the return of refugees and displaced persons is an important goal of resolving the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period 1995-2020. The authorities of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity of Republika Srpska did not give up on the project of „separation of peoples“. The implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement has been obstructed in various ways: by killings, beatings, intimidation, attacks on religious buildings and in other ways. Obstructions in the implementation of Annex 7 were also carried out in the entity of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, this was not as pronounced as in Republika Srpska. The first return of displaced persons (refugees and displaced persons) was to the settlement of Mahala, which until the Dayton Agreement was located in the municipality of Kalesija and after Dayton in the municipality of Osmaci in the entity of Republika Srpska. It was August 24, 1996. This was followed by the return of Bosniaks to the settlements of Jusići and Dugi dio in the municipality of Zvornik and Svjetliča in the municipality of Doboj. These events also marked the official start of the implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although the Dayton Agreement guaranteed the return of the exiles, everything went much harder on the ground, and there were also human casualties. Between 1992 and 1995, approximately 2.2 million people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were forced to flee their homes as a result of the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina. About 1.2 million people have applied for refugee protection in more than 100 countries around the world, while countries in the region have accepted about 40% of the total number of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Almost one million people were internally displaced in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the beginning of 2003, the Strategy of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement was adopted. It was the first, at the level of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, harmonized, framework document which sets goals and plans the necessary actions and reforms towards the final implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement. According to the 2015 UNHCR Annual Statistical Report, the number of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina outside the country was 18,748. Of these, 9,080 had refugee status in Serbia, 4,055 in France, 2,274 in Switzerland, 1,412 in Germany, and the remaining number in other countries. It is estimated that at the end of 1995 there were about one million displaced persons, accounting for almost a quarter of Bosnia and Herzegovina's pre-war population. The first comprehensive, official census of displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina was conducted at the end of 2000, when 557,275 displaced persons were registered. The 2005 audit of the status of displaced persons identified 186,138 displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the data of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees from 2016, there were 98,574 displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which 38,345 or 40.6% were displaced in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 59,834 or 58.8% in the Republika Srpska and 395 or 0.5% in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the ethnic structure of displaced persons, according to the head of household - families, 32.7% (10,667 families and 30,920 persons) are Bosniaks, 60.0% (19,565 families and 60,737 persons) Serbs, 6.7% (2,195 families and 6,374 persons) Croats and 0.6% (184 families and 542 persons) Others. According to the 2016 data of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees, by the end of 2016, around 341,000 housing units had been built or renovated in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska, the Bosnian language is denied. Teaching in the Bosnian language is prohibited, and the language is called the non-existent Bosniak language. This discriminates against students who want their language to be called Bosnian. In addition, high-ranking officials from the Republika Srpska in public appearances deny the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosniaks as a people, deny genocide against Bosniaks, which affects the perspective of the people of this area. Streets in cities bear the names of war criminals from the Second World War and the period of aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, busts of war criminals are being built, schools and other state institutions are being „sanctified“, etc. In the period 1995-2020. Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement was not fully implemented in 2006, as an important factor in the reintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the recognition of the results of armed aggression and genocide against Bosniaks.

250-282

Authors: Vedad Gurda, Dževad Mahmutović, Maja Iveljić

The armed conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period from 1992 to 1995, which ended with the conclusion of the so-called The Dayton Peace Agreement was marked by serious violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms and the commission of horrific war crimes. Prosecution of defendants for these crimes takes place at several levels, ie before: a) the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), b) domestic courts and c) courts of certain foreign states. The paper analyzes certain indicators related to the prosecution of these crimes, their scope and structure, as well as the ratio of convictions and acquittals for certain war crimes, the scope of application of conventional and summary forms of ending criminal cases and court policy of sanctioning perpetrators. It was learned that by the end of 2020, hundreds of criminal proceedings against approximately a thousand defendants had been completed. Most of the accused were prosecuted before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Court of B&H), followed by the ICTY, and a slightly smaller number before the courts of the former SFRY and some Western European countries. The research established that before the ICTY, out of the total number of accused for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as many as 90.2% were convicted of some of these crimes, while the rate of convicted in relation to accused before the Court of B&H was 67.2% , and before the courts in the Republic of Serbia 70.2%. It is interesting that before the ICTY as many as 24.3% of the accused were convicted in summary proceedings on the basis of a plea agreement, while before the Court of B&H 13,3% of the accused were convicted using a plea bargaining as a consensual model for ending criminal cases. So far, 22 people have been convicted of the crime of genocide as the most serious crime before the ICTY, the Court of B&H and German courts, and all convictions related to the activities of the Army of Republika Srpska during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Court of B&H, inherited a relatively mild policy of punishing war crimes. Finally, it was found that certain courts, especially Court of B&H, inherited a relatively mild policy of punishing war crimes.

302-337

Authors: Hazim Okanović

The main goal of this paper is to investigate the mechanisms of the influence of NGOs on public policy-making in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement on December 14, 1995 in Paris. The sharp increase in the number of NGOs occurs immediately after the Dayton Accords, and according to some estimates, there were more than 1,500 at the time, which cannot be considered a large number when compared to the number of NGOs in other transition countries. Data from the Collective Register of Foundations and Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina state that their total number is 25,646, while the number of actually active is difficult to determine. The literature so far has been presented from the non-governmental sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina to a significant extent for public policy making, as well as research results and these claims primarily based on the number of qualitative impact diaries of individual NGOs (case studies). This research paper aims at systematic research of the domain of influence of the non-governmental sector, through quantitative analysis of newly collected data on the influence of non-governmental organizations. The survey was proven at the local, cantonal, authorial and state level on a representative and stratified sample (10% - according to the statistical method) and was trained by the leadership and activists of non-governmental organizations and government officials (ministries and state administrative organizations). One of the main assumptions is that by successfully networking with organizations from neighboring EU member states, NGOs become a respectable actor in public policy-making in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to quantitative analysis, this paper provides a detailed overview and theoretical analysis of civil society, NGO sector and public policies as well as a comparative insight into institutional and non-institutional mechanisms of NGO influence on public policy making in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their practical application in neighboring countries European Union. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the role of the non-governmental sector (association) in public advocacy and the analysis and comparison of current theories of the legal policy framework, structure, size, factors of development of the non-governmental sector. In addition, the paper contributes to the assessment of the current state of the mechanism of influence on the creation of public policy agendas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the formulation of measures for internal structures and networking of NGOs and the definition of their number, structure and types. The problem of the research is reflected in the fact that the started processes of transformation and the unfinished process of transition of the Bosnian society and civil sector are, due to the war destructions, significantly slowed down. Changes in society in the pre-war phase created realistic preconditions for the development of the non-governmental sector and civil society in general, and provided a realistic basis for influencing the advocacy and creation of various public policies. In the post-war period, international donors invested heavily in the NGO sector. The subject of this research is the influence of the non-governmental sector on policy-making processes, through knowledge of institutional mechanisms, as well as the correlation of the non-governmental sector and public policies from the aspect of democracy development as an integral process in all its aspects. Given that this topic has previously been partially addressed in this context, through a systematic review of the problem and offering an adequate solution to the problem, it is necessary to re-examine the key issues. The key issues explored within this paper are how networking with neighboring EU Member States has a positive impact (has a positive association) on the importance of NGOs in advocating for public policies. In addition, the extent to which financial support from EU institutions has a positive impact on the importance of NGOs in advocating for public policies has been explored.

359-363

Authors: Semir Hadžimusić

Prikaz//Review: Sead Selimović, Za jedinstvo domovine i slavu dinastije. Školstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, Centar za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla, Tuzla 2021, 442 str.

371-377

Authors: Izet Šabotić

Prikaz//Review: Senaid Hadžić, Veliki zaokret: Bosna i Hercegovina u vremenu tranzicije (od 1880-ih do 1950-ih), Centar za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla i Arhiv Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla 2021, 493 str.

382-384

Authors: Alen Zečević

Prikaz//Review: Emir Demir, Stanovništvo Kaknja u osmanskom periodu, Udruženje Kreativni centar za edukaciju i obrazovanje „Spektrum“, Sarajevo 2021, 187 str.

390-392

Authors: Omer Merzić

Prikaz//Review: Hikmet Karčić, Derviš M. Korkut: A Biography, El-Kalem i Institut za islamsku tradiciju Bošnjaka, Sarajevo 2020, 85 str.

403-415

Authors: Jasmin Jajčević

Aktivnosti Centra za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla u 2020. godini // Activities of Center for Research of Modern and Contemporary History Tuzla in 2020.