19 / 514
Nuray BOZBORA
n
8
a. introduction of common institutions, symbols and policies ( state symbols, a common currency and common,
neutral license plates, common police force etc.)
b. introduction of new property and housing legislation to encourage refugee an internally displaced people
return.
c. encouragement of independent and alternative media
d. transferring of the competencies from the Entities to the central level encouragement of the moderate parties
against the radical ethnic parties
In efforts to achieve these objective, the High Representatives made extensive use of their authority to remove
elected officials obstructing Dayton implementation. Although some success has been achieved, they were insuf-
ficient for the realization of the necessary constitutional reforms.
The High Representatives have struggled against the ethnic nationalism during this period, and also, have tried
to prevent its negative effects on the transition to democratic order. Until 2004, the OHR had dismissed many
officials, including judges, ministers, civil servants and members of parliaments. Many mayors and police who
obstructed refugee return was removed from their offices. For example 158 officals removed from their Office
in 2002 (Florian, 2008: 216). Among these people there are leading political figures such as the President of the
Republika Srpska, Nikola Poplasen and the Bosnian Croat member of the Presidency, Ante Jelavic. Poplasen’s
illegitimate attempt to unseat the RS Prime Minister Milorad Dodik, have forced the High Representative to
remove him from Office in 1999. He was accused of abusing his power and blocking the will of the people of
Republika Srpska and provoking a government crisis by hindering the implementation of the election results
(OHR Press Releases, 1999). The main reason for Poplasen’s attempt was his ultra nationalist tendencies while
Milorad Dodik’s political line was a moderate at that time. Ante Jelavic was also removed from office for similar
reasons in 2001. He was accused of supporting the efforts for establishment of a third entity, an illegal parallel
structure in BiH, for the Croation people (OHR, HR Decisions, 2001). High Representative on this issue showed
an increasing sensitivity such that, after the 2002 elections the OHR scrutinised all political candidates for major
ministerial positions at Entity and State level.
Amendments to the Constitutions of the Entities is another example for extensive use of the Bonn Powers. Consti-
tution of each entity granted constituent people status only to their own respective ethnic groups. So, the constitu-
tions of the Entities were not comply with the Constitution of BiH in which Bosniacs, Serbs and Croats have been
recognized as ‘constituent peoples’. To prevent the human rights violations caused by the claims for the ethnic
sovereignty in the constitutions of the Entities, through the constitutional court has OHR pressed for changes in
the Entities’ Constitutions to mirror the DPA acknowledgment of all three constituent peoples as ethnic groups.
The Constitutional Court struct down the declarations of ethnic sovereignty in the constitutions of the Entities by
declaring that “...despite the territorial delimitation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the establishment of the two
Entities, this territorial delimitations cannot serve as a constitutional legitimation for ethnic domination national
homogenisation or a right to uphold the effects of ethnic cleansing” (Issacharoff, 2014). By the Constitutional
Court’s decision of July 1, 2000, the required amendments to the Constitutions of the Entities were made and
three ethnic groups namely Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs were acknowledged as the constituent peoples of the enti-
ties.
OHR’s constant interference in politics of Bosnia did not contribute much to the inter-ethnic reconciliation and
cooperation, namely not to further integration of the country, but rather have been some negative consequences.
First, the legislation imposed by OHR has been perceived as an external interference in Bosnian politics. This
raised questions about the legitimacy and accountability of the OHR himself and about the function of the Parlia-
mentary Assembly. Second, impositon of the legislation by OHR created a dependence of the members of parlia-
ment on the OHR. So that, they expected OHR to act on their behalf in the imposition of legislation on sensitive
issues. Third, OHR’s authority to remove the democratically elected officials has undermined the confidence in
the state mechanism. Fourth, the continued intervention of the OHR in the electoral process in order to promote
the moderate parties have the opposite effect and led to the strengthening of the nationalist radicalism. Finally, the