Suchergebnisse

The rich socio-cultural history of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single territorial, political, state and legal and administrative rounded whole, can be seen in several separated simultaneous fl ows arising as a result of the deep-rooted ethno-confessional division of this area, where religion, as the dominant integrating cultural factor, also represented the main distinctive element of the national identity of the three Bosnian constituent peoples, which the unaltered state agrees with to this day. As a unique area with religions at the border, and denominational boundaries at the edges of Catholicism and Orthodoxy among which Islam is wedged between, Bosnia and Herzegovina represents a unique civilizational bridge between East and West, where the followers of these religions see as their guardians, highlighting specifi c religious, cultural and national characteristics which establishes the opposition to the "other" and "diff erent" with which for centuries has coexisted. The most prominent features of identity and otherness which exist in symbiosis are articulated precisely on the borders as places of their meetings, which in turn have never been so impervious to keep the integration of diff erent ethnic and religious traditions followers, leading to ghettoisation and creating worlds closed for themselves, and long-term coexistence of diff erent and often confl icting civilizational-religious system characterized by a certain closeness of high culture of individual entities and openness, and mutual intertwining of which was out of the realm of popular culture.

The Ethno‑politics and the Status of the Sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina
The underlying aim of the article is to contribute to the understanding the relation between ethnic claims and policies which determine social relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the debate on the current constitutional crisis in this country. The present ethno‑political regime heavily depends on the perpetual crisis as the primary source of political articulation and action. Though the Dayton Accords ended war and established peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the agreement did not create a functional central government, lacking the capacity to undertake the reforms needed to meet the terms of accession to the European Union. The peace treaty designed future state structures around the very ethnic‑based power struggles that shaped the conflict. As a result, ethnic‑based politics continued to dominate political space. These politics, combined with high levels of international oversight have distorted the state building process, and reduced democratization efforts. Today, Bosnia's future is still uncertain. Political squabbles have seriously detracted from Bosnia's ability to engage in reforms needed to boost its economy and move closer to the EU. Conflicting ambitions of national party leaders is an important factor in this failure. Representatives of an ethnic group can veto any decision that they feel does not accord with their interests. This means in effect that all major decisions have to be made by consensus among the main ethnic parties, which is often very difficult since they have fundamentally different views on Bosnia's future. Although Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently not in danger of being dismembered, awareness that the country cannot survive without multi‑ethnic collaboration should remain one of the guiding principles for Bosnia's ruling ethnically‑based political parties.