Naučna istraživanja

Sa aspekta međunarodnog humanitarnog prava, Dejtonski sporazum nije nikad ni mogao biti usvojen niti potpisan. Očigledno je da je pravna osnova zanemarena kada je u pitanju Dejtonski sporazum, jer se radi o političkom dogovoru, odustajanjem od pravnog u korist dogovornog pristupa.

Sa aspekta međunarodnog humanitarnog prava, Dejtonski sporazum nije nikad ni mogao biti usvojen niti potpisan. Očigledno je da je pravna osnova zanemarena kada je u pitanju Dejtonski sporazum, jer se radi o političkom dogovoru, odustajanjem od pravnog u korist dogovornog pristupa.


U kontekstu 21. godišnjice od potpisivanja Dejtonskog sporazuma neophodno je ukazati na nastanak paradržavne (nelegitimne) tvorevine Republike Srpske.  Na teritoriji Republike Bosne i Hercegovine su 1991, u skladu sa srpskim velikodržavnim projektom “svi Srbi u jednoj državi”, uspostavljeni nelegalni srpski organi vlasti i formirane srpske teritorijalne cjeline, zatim ilegalna “Skupština srpskog naroda u BiH”, koja je do donošenja Dejtonskog ustava donosila i usvajala odluke genocidnog karaktera kojima su nacionalističke velikosrpske ideje uobličavane u normativnim odredbama. Na taj način došlo je do ustavnog razvoja paradržavne tvorevine Republike Srpske, unitarne tvorevine sa suverenitetom jednog naroda. Ozakonjena je vladavina srpskog naroda u Bosni i Hercegovini i stvoren pravni okvir za nacionalnu državu Srba, što je u skladu sa velikosrpskom ideologijom i politikom “svi Srbi u jednoj državi”. Praktično, došlo je do uništavanja svega što nije imalo obilježje srpskog i istovremeno osnivanja srpske paradržavne tvorevine. Savezna republika Jugoslavija (Srbija i Crna Gora) 9. januara 1992. formirala je tzv. Srpsku republiku Bosnu i Hercegovinu, koja je 12. augusta iste godine preimenovana u “Republiku Srpsku”. Zapadne sile su Dejtonskim sporazumom nagradile i etablirale “nacionalističke teritorijalne politike, politike koje neprestano, i u postratnom dobu, reproduciraju maligne konflikte oko etničkih teritorija”, te priznale srpska teritorijalna osvajanja (“legitimnost ratnih ideologija i politika”), poklanjajući “krvnicima zemlju prekrivenu masovnim grobnicama”, institucionalizirale genocid i legalizovale postojanje entiteta Republika Srpska, čime je jedan de facto ilegalni režim transformisan u legalni element ustavne “države” pod imenom “Republika Srpska”.

Riječ je o pravnom nasljedniku fašističkog režima, pod čijim okriljem su počinjeni najteži oblici zločina protiv čovječnosti i međunarodnog prava, uključujući i genocid nad Bošnjacima. Na taj način je Opći okvirni sporazum za mir u Bosni i Hercegovini (Dejtonski sporazum), odnosno njegov Aneks 4, koji predstavlja Ustav Bosne i Hercegovine, postao, pored brojnih nedostataka, ugovor koji je sam sebi kontradiktoran, jer osnovna načela koja propagira su, između ostalog, teritorijalni integritet, zaštita ljudskih prava i sloboda, sprečavanje genocida i drugih oblika zločina protiv čovječnosti i međunarodnog prava. S tim u vezi, postavlja se pitanje kako je moguće da Dejtonski sporazum zabranjuje genocid i druge oblike zločina protiv čovječnosti i međunarodnog prava, ako je upravo taj sporazum legalizovao paradržavnu tvorevinu Republiku Srpsku koja je nastala na osnovama agresorskog rata i zločina genocida? Usvajanjem i verifikacijom Dejtonskog mirovnog sporazuma došlo je do nestanka Republike Bosne i Hercegovine i njenog teritorijalnog integriteta. Dejtonskim sporazumom je, nažalost, i žrtva agresije i zločina genocida prihvatila podjelu Republike Bosne i Hercegovine i legalizovala i faktički legitimirala rezultate zločina protiv mira i zločina genocida. Naravno, ovo se nije moglo ostvariti pravnim putem, koji razlikuje zločinca i žrtvu genocida, nego u domenu dogovora u kojem su automatski zločinac  i žrtva genocida pravno izjednačeni i u kojem žrtva genocida, i samim pristajanjem na dogovor, amnestira zločinca. Sa aspekta međunarodnog humanitarnog prava, Dejtonski sporazum nije nikad ni mogao biti usvojen niti potpisan. Opći okvirni sporazum se, “zbog nedostatka međunarodnopravnog subjektiviteta jedne ugovorne strane” i “osnovane sumnje da je povrijeđen princip dobrovoljnosti ugovaranja”, “ne može smatrati pravno valjanim niti se njegova valjanost protokom vremena može nadoknaditi”. Bečka konvencija, koja pravno reguliše međunarodne ugovore (kakav je i sam Dejtonski sporazum), isključuje mogućnost da atributi suverenosti budu predmet međudržavnih ugovora (član 46); ugovore donesene pod pritiskom smatra ništavnim (članovi 51 i 52), pa i one naizgled dobrovoljne ako su rezultat nelegitimne volje pregovarača ukoliko su pregovarali o onome za što po vlastitom ustavu nemaju mandat (član 49). Očigledno je da je pravna osnova zanemarena kada je u pitanju Dejtonski sporazum, jer se radi o političkom dogovoru, odustajanjem od pravnog u korist dogovornog pristupa.
Institut za istraživanje genocida Kanada

Izvori naučnih saznanja:

1.       Institut za istraživanje zločina protiv čovječnosti i međunarodnog prava Univerziteta u Sarajevu

2.       Institut za istraživanje genocida, Kanada

3.       Međunarodni krivični tribunal za područije bivše Jugoslavije

4.       Međunarodni sud pravde


From the position of international humanitarian law, the Dayton Agreement should have never been adopted and signed.Evidently the legal basis was neglected in case of the Dayton Agreement, because it concerns a political agreement, which departs from legal in favor of a negotiable approach.
http://instituteforgenocide.org/?p=12222

In this context of 21 years of  Dayton Peace Agreement it is important to point to the setting up of a pseudostate (illegitimate) creation Republika Srpska. In 1991 and in line with the Serbian great-state project “all Serbs in one state”, illegal Serbian authorities as well as territorial units were formed in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, followed by inauguration of the illegal “Assembly of Serbian People in BiH”, which, up to the adoption of the Dayton Constitution, passed on decisions of fascist and genocidal nature by way of which nationalist great-Serbian related ideas were shaped up into norms and standards. Thus, the pseudo-state unitary creation Republika Srpska was established in constitutional terms favoring sovereignty of one nation only. The rule of Serbian people was legitimized in Bosnia and Herzegovina and a legal framework for the national state of Serbs was created, in line with great-Serbia ideology and politics “all Serbs in one state”. Practically, everything not related to Serbs was destroyed while a Serb pseudo-state creation was set up. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) formed the so-called Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 9 January 1992, to be renamed into “Republika Srpska” on 12 August same year. By way of the Dayton Peace Agreement, western powers awarded and endorsed “nationalist and territorial politics, which perpetually, even in post war time reproduced malign conflicts over ethnic territories”, and recognized Serbian territorial conquest (“legitimacy of war ideologies and politics”), having given away to “butchers a land covered in mass graves”, institutionalized genocide and legalized the existence of the entity Republika Srpska. In this way an illegal regime de facto was transformed into a legal element of the constitutional “state” known as “Republika Srpska”. It concerns a legal successor of a fascist regime, under which the most severe forms of crimes against humanity and international law were committed, including genocide against Bosniacs. In this way the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement), i.e. Annex 4 thereto, representing the Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitution, and in addition to numerous deficiencies, became an agreement in contradiction to itself, because the basic endorsed principles, inter alia, are territorial integrity, protection of human rights and freedoms, prevention of genocide and other forms of crimes against humanity and international law. One has to pose a question how is it possible that the Dayton Peace Agreement prohibits genocide and other forms of crimes against humanity and international law, when at the same time that agreement legalized a pseudo-state creation Republika Srpska established on the grounds of an aggressor’s war and crimes of genocide? The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its territorial integrity were abolished by the adoption and ratification of the Dayton Peace Agreement. Unfortunately, by way of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the victim of aggression and genocide victim endorsed division of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and legalized and actually legitimized results of crime against peace and crime of genocide. Naturally, this could not have been achieved in a legal fashion, which distinguishes criminals from genocide victims, but in the sphere of agreement – in which automatically the criminals and genocide victims were legally equalized, and whereby the genocide victim having consented to the agreement, actually exonerated criminals. From the position of international humanitarian law, the Dayton Agreement should have never been adopted and signed. “Due to lack of international-legal subjectivity of one of contracting parties” and “grounded suspicion that the principle of willingness of negotiation 2289 was violated”, the General Framework Agreement “cannot be deemed legally valid not its validity may be compensated by the passage of time.” The Vienna Convention, regulating international treaties in legal terms (such as the Dayton Agreement) excludes a possibility that aspects of sovereignty can be the subject of inter-state treaties (Article 46); treaties procured under the coercion are deemed not to have a legal effect (Articles 51 and 52), and even such treaties which appear seemingly procured of free will as a result of illegitimate will of negotiators who negotiated over issues for which they were not competent for under their own constitution (Article 49). Evidently the legal basis was neglected in case of the Dayton Agreement, because it concerns a political agreement, which departs from legal in favor of a negotiable approach.

Institute for Research of Genocide Canada

Sources of scientific knowledge:
1.Institute for Research of Crimes against Humanity and International Law, University of Sarajevo
2.Institute for Research of Genocide, Canada
3.The International Criminal Tribunal for areas of the former Yugoslavia
4. The International Court of Justice

Vijesti: