Entity Political Pluralism as Ultra-Unitarism

By: Sifet Kukuruz, legal expert

How deep a mark do the conclusions, very often adopted in a dramatic atmosphere by the National Assembly of the smaller Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity, leave on political life, is best confirmed by the fact that the conclusions adopted tonight are, more or less, a repetition of those previously adopted.

It is clear that the adopted conclusions represent only a new "cosmetic line in the offer" of a policy that is doomed to failure from the outset. Looking at the session and listening to the Frankensteinian constructions of the main narrators of this unsuccessful political story, it becomes necessary to draw attention to the following:

- The state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a creation of the entities. Entities are the result of a modification of the internal structure of the state of BiH, which existsentially precedes them. Only content that existsentially, essentially, and temporally precedes modification can be modified. The modification of the internal structure does not represent creatio ex nihilo, but rather a transformation of existing state subjectivity. Entities derive their existence from the existence of the state of BiH; they are realities whose existence is derived and dependent on the subjectivity and existence of the state of BiH;

- In the sovereign state of BiH, there is no and cannot be sovereign power of the entities. In every state, there can only be one and a single sovereign power. The power exercised at the entity level also represents state power. In no sovereign state can there be power that is independent of state power. All power in the state belongs to the state; only the exercise of that power in certain areas is entrusted and assigned to state bodies, and in some areas to entity institutions, while some tasks can be entrusted to joint execution by state bodies and entity institutions;

- In a sovereign state, there can be no division of sovereign power; only a distribution of authority for the exercise of power in certain areas or matters is possible. Sovereign power is indivisible, while the authorities for exercising that power are subject to distribution. The state of BiH, through the distribution of authority to the entities, "issues a power of attorney" for them to perform certain tasks, solely for the purpose of more effectively realizing the values and goals proclaimed by the Constitution;

- There is no "Serb member of the Presidency of BiH," but rather a "member of the Presidency of BiH from the Serb people";

- On the unified state territory, two sovereign powers cannot exist simultaneously. Through the Constitution of BiH, the entities have expressed their commitment to the sovereignty of the state of BiH. Such a commitment obliges all political actors in BiH in their political actions. According to the Constitution of BiH, entities are obliged to fully adhere to the state Constitution and the decisions of BiH institutions, given that the Constitution of BiH is superior to all inconsistent provisions of BiH laws, entity constitutions, and laws;

- Sovereign power is not subordinate to any other power. The power exercised at the entity level is subordinate to state power, and therefore entities are not sovereign and cannot have their own sovereignty. Entrusting the exercise of so-called exclusive competencies to entity institutions does not mean that the state of BiH has renounced its own sovereignty in favor of the entities, because that would mean that a power that is sovereign throughout the state territory creates a new sovereign power, which would be a contradictio in adjecto;

- One cannot speak of recognizing, accepting, and respecting the sovereignty of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while simultaneously claiming that the entity of Republika Srpska is a state and possesses its own sovereignty;

- State institutions are not joint institutions resulting from decisions of entity institutions, but rather state institutions that have their own subjectivity, which are constituted by electoral will, and whose composition includes representatives of the constituent peoples in BiH;

- Entities are not subjects of the legislative process at the state level. State laws are autonomously adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH as a state body. Entities do not decide on the adoption of state laws, nor is the consent of the entities required for state laws to enter into force, be valid, and be applied. Taking a stance in the legislative body of any of the entities on draft or proposed laws adopted by the legislative body of BiH is exclusively for the purpose of daily politics;

- One cannot be against the application of international conventions on human rights and freedoms and against the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, while simultaneously demanding that the rights of the president of the entity of Republika Srpska be protected by invoking international conventions on human rights and freedoms and by invoking judgments of the European Court of Human Rights;

- One cannot condemn and criticize the work, nor deny the constitutionality of the Constitutional Court of BiH, the Court and Prosecutor's Office of BiH, while simultaneously claiming to respect the Dayton Peace Agreement. The Dayton Peace Agreement explicitly provides for the establishment of new constitutional institutions so that the state of BiH can preserve its internal and international subjectivity, ensure sovereignty, territorial integrity, and its political independence;

- One cannot accuse one or two constituent peoples in BiH of unitarism, while simultaneously, through the decisions of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, imposing the will of the institutions of one entity or the will of one people, specifically the Serb people, on other peoples. The National Assembly of the entity of Republika Srpska, with its adopted conclusions, wants to impose its own will as state will; it advocates and implements a policy aimed at making the will of the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH an authentic expression of the will of the institutions of one entity and one constituent people. Such action represents ultra-unitarism for which other peoples are simultaneously accused;

- It is not possible to block the work or deny the existence of the institutions of the state of BiH, while simultaneously seeking to realize rights before those institutions;

- It is not possible to deny the legitimacy of the High Representative due to the absence of a formal decision by the UN Security Council, when such a decision undeniably arises from the proceedings and actions of the body claimed to be solely competent for appointing the High Representative. A decision on the legality and legitimacy of the High Representative can only be made by the UN Security Council, and not by the National Assembly of Republika Srpska. The fact that the High Representative attends sessions of the UN Security Council, submits reports on his work to that body, and that this body allows his presence at its sessions, in the capacity of High Representative for BiH, confirms that Christian Schmidt's status is not legally disputed by the UN Security Council, which is claimed to be the only competent body for making a formal act regarding his appointment.

And much else is not disputed, but is constantly challenged by some, but not all, policies in the National Assembly of Republika Srpska. However, it is not disputed that the adopted conclusions should be viewed as an attempt at political blackmail and pressure, or more precisely, as an expression of political bargaining in a deal that will inevitably end in political bankruptcy and insolvency.