Academic literature on the topic 'Mostar (Bosnia and Hercegovina) – Ethnic relations'

Disintegration of Yugoslav state union, which was carried out marked by ethnic conflicts and creation of new political and geographical subjectivities, resulted in major changes in ethnical and ethno-confessional structure of most of the urban settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina and especially those which until 1992 had a heterogeneous structure according to listed features. In this context, the biggest changes were recorded in three urban settlements: Sarajevo, Banja Luka and Mostar. Today, these settlements have a role of poles of development and affirmation of individual ethno-national ethno-confessional interests. Sarajevo - of Bosniaks and Islam, Banja Luka - of Serbs and Orthodoxy and Mostar - of Croats and Catholicism. Changes in ethnical and ethno-confessional structure of population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the period from 1992 to 1995, strongly contributed to the territorial organization of Bosnia and Herzegovina into two entities, the Republic of Srpska with Serbian majority and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina within which the cantons are formed either with the Croatian or Bosniak majority. This division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to ethnical or ethno-confessional principle, is again a source of different, and usually conflicting, geopolitical relations and aspirations between mentioned constituents.

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisted of six republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia) and two autonomous regions (Kosovo and Vojvodina). Its overall population was recently estimated as 23.69 million. There were 8.14 million Serbs, 4.43 million Croats, 1.75 million Slovenes, 1.73 million Albanians, 1.34 million Macedonians and 1.22 million “Yugoslavs,” as well as a variety of other minorities.Slovenia has a population of 1.94 million, 90 percent of whom are ethnic Slovenes. There are small minorities of ethnic Serbs, Croats and Hungarians.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY / ICTY) has indicted Jadranko Prlić, Bruno Stojić, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petković, Valentin Ćorić and Berislav Pušić. Indictees are charged with individual criminal responsibility (Article 7 (1) of the Statute) and criminal responsibility of a superior (Article 7 (3) of the Statute) for crimes against humanity: persecution on political, racial and religious grounds; killing; rape; deportation; inhumane acts; inhumane acts (forcible transfer); inhumane acts (conditions of detention); imprisonment, violations of the laws or customs of war: cruel treatment; cruel treatment (conditions of detention); illegal physical labor; reckless destruction of towns, settlements or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; destruction or willful damage to institutions dedicated to religion or education; looting of public and private property; unlawful attack on civilians (Mostar); unlawful terrorism of civilians (Mostar); cruel treatment (siege of Mostar), violations of the Geneva Conventions: willful deprivation of life; inhuman treatment (sexual abuse); unlawful deportation of civilians; illegal transfer of civilians; unlawful detention of civilians; inhuman treatment; inhuman treatment (conditions of detention); destruction of large-scale property that is not justified by military necessity, and was carried out illegally and recklessly; confiscation of property that is not justified by military necessity, and was performed illegally and ruthlessly. The trial began on April 26, 2006. The Trial Chamber's judgment of 29 May 2013 concluded that the conflict between the Croatian Army / Croatian Defense Council (HV / HVO) and the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) was of an international character. The factual evidence unequivocally showed that HV forces fought together with HVO members against ARBiH, and that the Republic of Croatia exercised general control over the armed forces and civilian authorities of the Croatian Community/Croatian Republic (HZ/HR) of Herceg-Bosna. The Council also found that there was a joint criminal enterprise (JCE) with the ultimate goal of establishing a Croatian entity, partly within the 1939 Croatian Banovina, to enable the unification of the Croatian people. The ultimate goal was the annexation of this area to the territory of the Republic of Croatia in case of disintegration of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which corresponded to great state claims), or alternatively to make this area an independent state within Bosnia and Herzegovina, closely connected with Croatia. As early as December 1991, members of the HZ Herceg-Bosna leadership (including Mate Boban, president of HZ/HR Herceg-Bosna) and Croatian leaders (including Franjo Tuđman, president of Croatia) assessed that in order to achieve the ultimate goal of establishing a Croatian entity it is necessary to change the national composition of the population in the areas that were calculated to be part of it. JCE participants knew that achieving this goal means removing the Bosniak population from the area of the so-called Herceg-Bosna and that it is in contradiction with the peace negotiations that were held in Geneva. Numerous crimes committed from January 1993 to April 1994 indicate an obvious pattern of behavior where the commission of a crime was the outcome of a plan prepared by JCE participants. The Trial Chamber found that all persons covered by the Indictment made a significant contribution to the implementation of the JCE and that their contribution indicated that they had the intent to pursue a common criminal purpose. Following consideration of the Appeals filed by the Prosecution and the Defense of the Convicts, the ICTY Appeals Chamber issued a final Judgment on 29 November 2017 against Jadranko Prlić, Bruno Stojić, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petković, Valentin Ćorić and Berislav Pušić, declaring them liable for the joint criminal enterprise in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This appellate judgment upheld the convictions handed down by the ICTY Trial Chamber in May 2013. In addition to participating in a joint criminal enterprise, the Appeals Chamber upheld responsibility for killings, persecution on political, racial and religious grounds, deportations, unlawful detention of civilians, forced labor, inhumane acts, inhumane treatment, unlawful and wanton destruction of large-scale property not justified by military necessity, destruction or willful damage to institutions dedicated to religion or education, unlawful attacks on civilians and unlawful terrorism of civilians, and individually for rape and sexual abuse. The verdict confirmed that the participants from Croatia in the joint criminal enterprise were Franjo Tudman, Janko Bobetko and Gojko Šušak. From the presented evidence it was concluded that the leaders of HZ/RHB, including Mato Boban, and the leaders of the Republic of Croatia, including Franjo Tudjman, in December 1991 assessed that the long-term political goal was to achieve the unification of the Croatian people entities, within the borders of the Banovina of Croatia from 1939, it is necessary to carry out “ethnic cleansing” in the territories that were claimed to belong to the HZ/RHB. Evidence confirms that a joint criminal enterprise has been established to achieve the political goal. In this context, it was established that Franjo Tudjman advocated the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina between Croatia and Serbia by annexing part of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatia or, if this was not possible, by establishing an autonomous Croatian territory that would be closely connected with Croatia. Prlić, Stojić, Praljak, Petković, Ćorić, and Pušić were convicted of crimes against humanity, violations of the laws or customs of war and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, specifically murder, willful deprivation of life, persecution on political, racial and religious grounds, deportation, unlawful detention of civilians, forced labor, inhumane acts, inhuman treatment, unlawful and wanton destruction of large-scale property not justified by military necessity, looting and confiscation of public and private property under the third category of liability for participation in JCE destruction or intentional infliction damage to institutions dedicated to religion or education, unlawful attacks on civilians and unlawful terrorism of civilians. In addition, Prlić, Stojić, Petković and Ćorić were convicted of rape and inhuman treatment (sexual abuse). Ćorić was additionally convicted for several crimes for which he is responsible as a superior.

On 14 December 1995, an agreement as the Elysée Treaty (earlier initialled in Dayton after weeks of difficult negotiation) was signed in Paris by the Heads of State of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. One of the witnesses at the ceremony was the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and, in a real sense, it marked the nadir of his term of office. In June 1992, amidst the euphoria of U.S. President George Bush's articulation of hopes for a new world order, Boutros-Ghali had presented a report to U.N. members entitled An Agenda for Peace which painted an ambitious picture of the opportunities for constructive involvement of the U.N. in conflict resolution. Yet ironically, this was almost the moment at which the intensification of intergroup conflict precipitated Bosnia-Hercegovina's slide into social and political disarray. The ultimate humiliation for the U.N. came in July 1995 when the massacre of Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serb forces in the U.N.-declared “safe area” of Srebrenica triggered the chain of events which saw responsibility for Bosnia-Hercegovina decisively removed from the U.N.'s grasp, and assumed by the United States and its NATO allies. The U.N. may recover from the shame of its Balkan entanglement, but the scars are likely to prove permanent.

AbstractKosovo's declaration of independence on 17 February 2008 has re-ignited debates about the interaction among the fundamental international legal principles of self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The question of conformity with international law was interrelated to scenarios on the political implications of secession. After more than one year the following article elaborates if the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo had a precedent-setting impact for long-standing autonomist and secessionist conflicts in South-Eastern Europe and in CIS. The Kosovo-precedent formula had its biggest impact in the secessionist conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where a powerful external actor Russia, made effective use of the precedent-formula in its coercive diplomacy against Georgia. Generally speaking, in South-Eastern-Europe, the independence of Kosovo had only minor destabilizing effects with the exception of Bosnia and Hercegovina and Macedonia where political entrepreneurs used the opportunity to play the nationalist card and to profit from worst case scenarios of a disintegration of their country.

The specific regulatory framework under which the local elections in Mostar in 2020 were held, and especially the fact that the elections in this city were held after 12 years, puts in the focus of communication research the media treatment of the relationship between citizens and political parties in local communities organized under a mortgage of war ethnic and territorial divisions. Having in mind the influence of online media, both independent and relying on traditional media productions, this paper primarily deals with reporting on the results of local elections in Mostar, questioning the focus of reports in the context of relations between citizens, as a universal political category, and political candidates competing for the management of public affairs at the local level. Also, in additional elements of the research, the paper deals with the analysis of identification of participants in political processes, on the one hand, a citizen, who in the public discourse of Bosnia and Herzegovina is often treated as a member of an ethnic group, and a political party on the other, usually treated in media reports as a representative of national categories, and not as a performer of public affairs concerning the achieved election results.

One city in Bosnia-Herzegovina can be seen as a microcosm of a greater ethnic and religious conflict. The city of Mostar has drawn much attention from the international community not only because of its position in Bosnia but because of a small bridge over the Neretva River. This bridge has evolved into an international symbol of hope and reconciliation while at the same time embodying segregation and destruction. This thesis aims to analyse this old bridge in Mostar as a symbol of cultural intervention by the international community. The successes and failures that the bridge encompasses speak to the tumultuous time the international community at large has had in reunifying the war-torn city of Mostar and in extension the country of Bosnia. The bridge has become more than a path over water, but a reflection of the mood and culture of an entire city.