Talk:Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Just in case this wasn't noticed already at Talk:Regions of Republika Srpska... the five regions seem to be dubious. --Joy [shallot] 13:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mostar

On the website of the parliament of FBiH, Mostar is divided in two: http://www.parlamentfbih.gov.ba/js/mapavel3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.17.162 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Brcko District

The claim that the Brcko District is not part of either the Federation or Republika Srpska might de facto be true (that is how things are run on the ground), but de iure it is false. If the Brcko District is not part of either entity, this would imply that the District is in fact the third entity. This would be a major breach of the general framework of the Dayton peace agreement (and the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina), which states that the country is internally composed of only two entities. Also, the Brcko District as 'not part of either entity' would make the territorial formula agreed at Dayton (49% of Bosnia-Herzegovina as Republika Srpska, 51% as the Federation) unworkable. OHR, Office of the High Representative (http://www.ohr.int), provided a clarification on the status of the Brcko District, stating that the District is in fact a condominium of both entities. This means that the territory of the District is shared by both entities, although the entities exercise no executive power there. In other words, the Brcko District territory is both Republika Srpska and the Federation. Technically, this would apply to the whole territory of the District - in that way, there is no third entity, and 49-51% formula is (somehow) preserved. That said, it should be pointed out that the Brcko District was proclaimed on the whole territory of the prewar Brcko municipality. According to the Dayton map, 42% of the prewar Brcko municipality (including the town of Brcko) ended up in the Republika Srpska, while 58% of the prewar Brcko municipality ended up in the Federation. Although the Brcko District was proclaimed in 1999, IEBL (Inter Entity Boundary Line) within its territory was never officially abolished; IEBL plays no administrative function within the District, except to mark the line beyond which the Bosnian Serb Army (Vojska Republike Srpske) traveling through the District can not go (and vice versa for the Federation Army). Thus, it remains unclear how the entities hold the condominium over the whole District if the IEBL still exists on the books, and the District was created out of uneven chunks of both entity's territory. Given the fact that the Republika Srpska never officially accepted the arbitration result (one of the reasons IEBL was never officially abolished), the only solution is to show the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District (42% of it) on the Republika Srpska entity map, but color it differently, and the same formula should be used vis-à-vis the Federation territory within the Brcko District (58% of it) on the Federation entity map. When you put all of this together, you have a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina showing only two entities but also acknowledging the existence of the Brcko District - the neutral position.

p.s.

The 'condominium' idea or the Brcko District is demonstrated by the way in which people declare themselves within the District. Citizens of the District have a right to hold entity citizenship of either Republika Srpska or the Federation, and have the right to vote on their entity's elections, although they are banned from serving in either entity's army.

"Political"

Hi – I'm wondering what makes these divisions political rather than administrative; is it that they're contingent on the Dayton agreement, i.e. not meant to be regarded as long-term...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the RS could legally block any attempt to dismantle it, whereas a simple administrative division has no rights outside those granted or taken away by the state. Also, not sure what you mean that they're not meant to be regarded as long term? The RS is a permanent and inviolable right of the people who live in it.--Hadžija 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dayton Accords

The first paragraph of the article, concerning the Dayton Accords, sounds really biased against them. Qscgy256 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The biased-sounding revision was the work of a blocked user. Reverted.--Zoupan 02:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I support Zoupan's proposed merger of Constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina into this article. Two separate articles are viable, but what we have at present is two sub-standard, poorly referenced and dated articles, so let's merge what we do have and try to improve it. If the merged article grows significantly, then we can consider splitting it again. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Zoupan 11:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done Klbrain (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)