This book is an introduction to the basics of Bosnian political structure, institutions, and political processes. Twenty-five years after the Dayton Peace Agreement ended the Bosnian war, the political process still maintains various levels and divisions among political entities. A transitional, post-conflict, divided, multicultural, state-building society, Bosnia and Herzegovina represents a complex and unique political system through which a myriad of topics can be studied. Applying multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary methodologies, the book presents a descriptive analysis and critical evaluation of the various aspects of the political system of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The chapters address various aspects of the political system, such as institutions and state building, the legal system and the post-war constitution, as well as an examination of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s place in the international community and their relationship with European Union and NATO. Providing a holistic view of the development, politics, and policy of this unique state, this book will be ideal for students studying the contemporary history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as students and researchers of political science, international relations, and development.

The Balkans - Political systems - Yugoslavia's breakup - Transformation of the political system - Bosnia and Herzegovina - Croatia - Kosovo - Macedonia - Montenegro - Serbia - Slovenia

In 1995 none of the political parties representing the peoples of Bosnia preferred a federal option. Yet, Bosnia became a federal state, highly decentralised and with a complex institutional architecture. This solution was imposed on them by international actors as a result of peace negotiations following the Yugoslav wars. Political parties in post-war Bosnia were not willing to identify with or accept the federation. The international community intervened taking over key decisions and so Bosnia and Herzegovina became the first state to experience a new model of federalism, namely ’imposed federalism’ and a new model of a federal state, that of the ’internationally administered federation’. By combining comparative politics, conflict analysis and international relations theory Soeren Keil offers a unique analysis of federalism in post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina. By exploring this model of ’imposed federalism’ not only does this study greatly contribute to the literature on developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina it also re-evaluates comparative federalism in theory and practice. This study also offers important conclusions for similar cases, both in the Western Balkans region and the wider world, where international involvement and federalism as a method of conflict resolution in diverse societies becomes ever more prevalent and important.

"A great stone bridge built three centuries ago in the heart of the Balkans ... stands witness to the countless lives played out upon it" and to the sufferings of the people of Bosnia.--Cover.

Analyzing nineteen cases, this title offers practical perspective on the implications of constitution-making procedure, and explores emerging international legal norms.

The book is about the peace implementation process in Bosnia-Herzegovina viewed, or interpreted reasonably, as a continuation of war by other means. Twenty years after the beginning of the Dayton peace accords, we need to summarize the results: the author shares the general agreement in public opinion, according to which the process is a failure. Pehar presents a broad, yet sufficiently detailed, view of the entire peace agreement implementation that preserves 'the state of war,' and thus encourages the war-prone attitudes in the parties to the agreement. He examines the political and narratological underpinnings to the process of the imposed international (predominantly USA) interpretation of the Dayton constitution and peace treaty as a whole. The key issue is the – perhaps only semi-consciously applied – divide ut imperes strategy. After nearly twenty years, the peace in document was not translated into a peace on the ground because, with regard to the key political and constitutional issues and attitudes, Bosnia remains a deeply divided society. The book concludes that the international supervision served a counter-purpose: instead of correcting the aberration and guarding the meaning that was originally accepted in the Dayton peace treaty, the supervision approved the aberration and imposed it as a new norm under the clout of 'the power of ultimate interpretation.'

Mahmutcehaji'c (former vice president of the Bosnia-Herzegovina government) first prepared this text as a lecture to be given at Stanford University in 1997, but he was unexpectedly denied a visa to enter the United States. The book is an indictment of the partition of Bosnia and a plea for Bosnia's communities to reject ethnic segregation and restore mutual trust. He argues that different religious and ethnic cultures have co-existed in Bosnia for centuries, and that the partitioning was made possible by Western complicity with Serbian and Croatian nationalists. Annotation copyrighted by Book News Inc., Portland, OR