Historijski pogledi

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 2637-1502 / 2712-0651
Total articles ≅ 134
Current Coverage
SCOPUS
Filter:

Latest articles in this journal

Omer Hamzić, Publishing house ", Monos", Gracanica Gračanica Herald Journal
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 233-249; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.233

Abstract:
In this article, with some methodological dilemmas, an attempt is made to speak more clearly from a certain historical perspective about the current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, which „produce“ an almost permanent political crisis in this area - from Dayton to today. The continuity and current effects of these policies, which have their roots in some dark historical depths and myths, never changing their essence and their goals, were pointed out. In the current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions, Bosnia and Herzegovina is treated as a „sphere of interest“, which should be mastered as much as possible in peace, if it did not succeed in the war. Serbia and Croatia, in the historical sense, since they have existed as political entities, have been opposed to each other in almost everything. The only thing on which there was a high degree of agreement was the question of the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, again depending on historical circumstances and other circumstances. (to mention only Tudjman and Milosevic). In the last few years, intensive cooperation and a high degree of „agreement“ between Serbian and Croatian politics have been noticed, again „regarding“ Bosnia and Herzegovina, its status and the definitive post-Dayton division. In this sense, it is not difficult to recognize several common characteristics of both policies. In this article, the author focuses on the following: the first is a declarative and formal public declaration of both to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while in practical politics this sovereignty is continuously violated and „trampled“, acting as its „rulers“. . Another common feature is the belittling and labeling of all pro-Bosnian political forces, reducing them to „political Sarajevo“ in the pejorative sense of the word, with multiple offensive and deeper meanings, which, in addition to Milorad Dodik (to make the absurd even greater, as president or member of the Presidency of BiH) from the Serbian one, Zoran Milanović, the current president of Croatia, until yesterday a declared friend of Bosnia and the pro-Bosnian SDP, is increasingly expressing himself in his own way. Obstruction of the process of reforms and rapprochement of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the European Union and NATO membership is the third session of the characteristics of Serbian and Croatian politics (albeit in different versions), while the fourth, denial of decisions and verdicts of the Hague Tribunal for crimes and atrocities is dominant over Bosniaks (again in a different version): Serbs deny genocide verdicts, and Croats deny convictions for the Joint Criminal Enterprise. In addition to common characteristics, this paper highlights some special features of the current Serbian and Croatian policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, again, boils down to one goal: to strengthen (make independent) the Republika Srpska and cantons with a Croat majority, as well as the position of Croats in Federation with the aim of forming a third entity and at the same time weaken the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina until the question of the meaning of its existence is raised. The state's inability to organize the procurement of coronavirus vaccines is just one of the latest proofs that these destructive political forces have succeeded to a great extent. This article points out the consequences of such a policy and emphasizes the need to stop further degradation and collapse of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. Such forces exist, they just have to be activated.
Izet Hadžić, Ahmed Hadžić
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 184-205; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.184

Abstract:
At the beginning of the paper we explain the territorial differences between the Washington and Dayton Peace Solutions, which especially refers to the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton and focuses only on the Tuzla region and its specifics in relation to other regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We then present the basic elements of the Washington Agreement, the meetings that preceded it, the content of the agreement, the principles of the Vienna Agreement important for the organization of the canton, as well as active monitoring and consideration of the agreement by the Tuzla District Assembly and its views on international community plans. We also monitor the implementation and importance of the implementation of the Washington Agreement in the Tuzla region and the creation of the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, explain the name of the canton and use demographic data based on the 1991 census to indicate that Podrinje is a Bosniak-majority region. Then we give an overview of how the implementation of the Washington Agreement reflected on the normalization of food prices, the situation in the canton and the strengthening of the combat power of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ie the II Corps of the Army of B&H. The paper describes the jurisdiction of the President of the Canton, the Government of the Canton, national representation by agreement of SDA and HDZ, the composition of the government, the reasons for non-participation of Serbs in implementation and talks with the Serb Civic Council to participate in organizing ministries. We especially present the activities of the President and the Government of the Canton on supporting the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, II Corps and strengthening defense, budget funds for these purposes: action: „We are all B&H Army“, support for displaced persons and improving living conditions in protected areas of Srebrenica and Žepa We also describe the activities of the authorities during the fall of the protected zones of Srebrenica and Žepa, for the care of the displaced population, as well as the requests to the institutions of the international community to stop and prevent genocide against the Bosniaks of Srebrenica. We especially emphasize the activity of the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton Ministry of the Interior in preserving public order and peace. We are especially dealing with the military situation in the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, presenting significant military successes through the liberation of Lisača on the Kalesija front, Vis near Gračanica, Vijenac near Lukavac, Greda on Majevica, as well as the crushing of enemy offensives „Spreča-95“ and others. In this paper, we argue the support of Russian diplomacy to the aggressor and link Russia's diplomatic activities through the contact group and other accomplices of the conspiracy group towards the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a complex situation such as that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when a Serbian aggressor with the support of insurgent Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina commits genocide, a joint criminal enterprise with the support of the Croatian state led by Tuđman and Croats mainly from Herzegovina win over Fikret Abdić to organize a quisling creation „autonomous region of Western Bosnia“ and opening a conflict with the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The support of the Tuzla District Assembly to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in their efforts to stop the war and find a peaceful solution was significant. Also, the authorities of the District of Tuzla vigorously condemned the divisions on the national principle as well as the division of the territory of the District of Tuzla. In this paper, we have processed the proposals of the Assembly of the District of Tuzla to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to individual peace solutions. The inadmissibility of the Dayton Peace Solution for the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton authorities and the SDA Cantonal Committee was specifically addressed as well as the reasons and request to President Alija Izetbegović and the negotiating team of Bosnia and Herzegovina to leave the Dayton negotiations, and then the request to Izetbegović to clarify the reasons for accepting such an unjust peace agreement.
Sead Selimović
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 206-232; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.206

Abstract:
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...
Hazim Okanović, Faculty of Administration associate member of the University of Sarajevo
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 302-337; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.302

Abstract:
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.
Emina Mostić, Oriental Institute of the University of Sarajevo
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 385-389; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.385

Abstract:
Prikaz//Review: Journal of the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo (History, History of Arts, Archeology), posebno izdanje: Reflections on Life and Society in the Western Balkans. Studies in the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, knjiga 7, broj 2, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo 2020, 321 str.
Emir Šečić, Institute for Social and Religious Research in Tuzla
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 395-400; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.395

Abstract:
Izvještaj//Conference Report:Izvještaj sa Naučne konferencije Alimi Srebrenice i njihova uloga u duhovnom i društvenom životu Bošnjaka, Srebrenica, 6. juli 2021. godine
Omer Merzić, Sarajevo
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 390-392; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.390

Abstract:
Prikaz//Review: Hikmet Karčić, Derviš M. Korkut: A Biography, El-Kalem i Institut za islamsku tradiciju Bošnjaka, Sarajevo 2020, 85 str.
Emir Tahirović, Ermin Kuka
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 283-301; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.283

Abstract:
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the pluralization of society and the state began during 1990. This is the time when political parties are formed and the first multi-party parliamentary elections are held. Due to the strong influence and domination of the ethnic principle, political parties were formed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990 in two basic forms: as ethnic or people's (national) parties, and as civic (multiethnic) parties. In almost all election cycles from the beginning of the pluralization of Bosnian society until today, ethnic political parties have won the elections. Ethnic political parties have appropriated a monopoly in the promotion of national interests since the 1990 election campaign, guided by the idea of protecting the national interests of “their“ peoples. The continued rule of ethnic parties without a coalition political agenda and agreement has strengthened ethnic pluralism in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, instead of democratic decision-making and competition between the majority and the opposition, the representative bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina have become an arena and a place of mutual competition and confrontation between the parties that make up the parliamentary majority. The lack of the necessary democratic consensus between the ruling ethnic political parties at the state level was compensated and compensated by the High Representative of the International Community (OHR), who, on the basis of the Bonn powers, promulgated certain laws. Hundreds of laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been promulgated by high representatives. This prevented blockages in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the absence of the necessary consensus of the ruling ethnic parties, it is not possible to develop or strengthen the power of parliaments as the highest representative body of the people and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead of parliamentary democracy, classical partitocracy is at work. The situation is similar at the entity level, and at the cantonal level in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina entity. All this, along with heterogeneous and complicated decision-making procedures and processes, ultimately reflects on the adoption of laws and decisions of importance to society and the state. Complicated forms of decision-making and the existence of a famous mechanism for the protection of vital national interests are some of the obstacles to the development of the state and society. All of these are some of the essential problems, but also the controversies that follow the decision-making processes in the representative bodies in the country. This is especially true of the adoption of important and significant public policies aimed at solving socio-political problems. Only decision-making at the level of local self-government units (municipalities and cities) can serve as a positive example. In general, the local level of government has so far proved to be the most efficient level of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The basis for strengthening the democratic decision-making capacities of the representative bodies of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is contained in the application of the democratic principle on which parliamentary democracy is established and functions. Applying almost all basic and general scientific research methods, as well as the method of analysis (content) of relevant documentation as a method of data acquisition, will identify key problems and controversies of public decision-making and policy making in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the period after the Dayton Peace Agreement. today. A conclusion will be drawn on the need to establish a parliamentary majority based on the coalition agreement and the political program of that coalition, which significantly affects the public decision-making processes and the adoption of the necessary state public policy. Bosnia and Herzegovina is required to reconstruct public decisions in the direction of strengthening state public decisions and policies and building European standards, in order to more efficiently compose them with the requirements and directives of the European Union.
Safet Bandžović
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 23-70; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.23

Abstract:
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.
Jasmin Jajčević, Center for Research of Modern and Contemporary History Tuzla
Historijski pogledi, Volume 4, pp 93-121; https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.93

Abstract:
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.
Back to Top Top