Vučić's presence in Banja Luka: a manifestation or a commemoration of parallel ties?

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić somewhat justified his decision to attend the celebration of Republika Srpska Day with one obligation and one right.

The obligation, he says, stems from the fact that Serbia is a guarantor (sic) of Dayton (rather, Serbia is a party with assumed obligations).

The right that "drives him" towards Banja Luka would be the right, obtained through Dayton, of special and parallel ties between the state whose prime minister he is and the Bosnian-Herzegovinian smaller entity, the RS.

The decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the unconstitutionality of the celebratory day has been pronounced. The RS has been ordered to amend and harmonize its law on holidays in accordance with the Decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH within six months from the date of receipt of the decision.

Unfortunately, the act of the Constitutional Court has not yet even been forwarded to the parties in the constitutional dispute.

Despite the fact that the observance of this holiday in the RS, even on this 9th of January, is ultimately legal from the position of the RS institutions, it is not so from the position of Vučić's government.

Article III/2.a of Annex IV of the General Framework Agreement (the Constitution of BiH) grants entities the right to establish special parallel relations with neighboring states.

This right is limited by Article III/3.b, the use of which must not violate the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of BiH.

Taking into account also the provisions of Article II/4 of the Constitution of BiH (prohibition of discrimination), it can be concluded that the presence of Serbian institutions at the observance of an unconstitutional date would indeed be an overstepping of the constitutional possibilities for exercising the right to special and parallel relations between the Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity of the RS and the neighboring state of Serbia.

The ruling of the Constitutional Court is precisely based on the violation of the international convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination, which Vučić's presence would disregard and ignore, and ultimately encourage, contrary to the supremacy of international law over domestic law.

Such disregard for international law would certainly compromise a candidate state for EU accession, which could cause it harmful consequences on this path.

A signatory party to the Dayton Peace Agreement (Serbia) would, by this act, grossly violate the obligations assumed under Dayton, and possibly confirm suspicions about its double game in implementing the Dayton solutions in Bosnia.

Vučić is, of course, pragmatic and wise enough that, for the sake of his undeniable state patriotism, he would not be ready to sacrifice perhaps even more pronounced all-Serbian nationalism.

If Serbia were to ignore all these international legal and constitutional facts and still attend the observance of an already non-existent holiday, then that mournful gathering would more resemble a commemoration than a manifestation.

It is to be hoped that, this time, the confused institutions of BiH will know what to do.