The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995): Towards a better understanding (original) (raw)
Related papers
Bosnia & Herzegovina – A country in turmoil: Causes and Peace Initiatives
Why has the Bosnian War occurred? Why is the conflict still there? Which initiatives have been taken to address the conflict and what results have they produced? The writer is attempting to find an answer to these questions, by examining academic literature relevant to the case, as well as by referring on personal experience gained by research on the ground, on terms of the educational trip in Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH) on January 2017, organized by Radboud University.
Bosnia revisited: a retrospective on the legacy of the conflict
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals), 2015
Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author's name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pagination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award.
2 War in Bosnia, Its Interpretations, and Its Legacies
The method of preservation, restoration or reconstruction ultimately chosen for any site, as well as the motives and arguments for those choices, is intimately connected to and dependent on the manner in which the site was damaged or destroyed. In cities such as Mostar, where cultural heritage was damaged during the course of a complicated war, this not only applies to the specific circumstances surrounding the destruction of each particular site, but also the greater context of the conflict and how it was understood by those involved. The events and interpretations of the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina even color the way in which new construction is presented and received in the post-conflict period.
Xlibris, 2019
This is a testimonial about Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović, and his determination to destroy God’s gift to the Bosnian people, the internationally recognized sovereign nation, The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to create The Republic of the Serbs. Dr. Borogovac, a mathematician by training, but also a patriot and witness, uses facts, logic and very direct writing cuts into the heart of the deceit upon which Izetbegović built his campaign against the Republic of B&H. This work represents a definitive rejection of Izetbegović’s big lies, including that “the world” conspired to divide Bosnia, that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be defeated on the battlefield, and even that he, Izetbegović himself, was only well intentioned, but naive and helpless Muslim old man who could not withstand this conspiracy. I recommend this book to all those who even after the Dayton treason still believe in those lies. General Sefer Halilović Chief of General Staff of the Bosnian Army
2022
The peace-building process in Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) has been more successful in the initial post-Dayton phase from 1999 to 2005/06/07. Throughout that period, peace did not mean a mere absence of war; it also reflected various efforts in support of legal, political, and institutional transformation necessary for the state’s recovery. However, the recovery of B&H was less successful at later stages, especially after 2008. Since that year, many have lamented that the country was failing, or is at serious risk of failing. The question is: why did two phases produced different outcomes in B&H and why each phase last for so long? This chapter looks at external realities to answer these questions. It observes the role played by NATO/EU, representing American-led liberal, institutional and rules-based order in Europe with direct influence on policies in B&H from one side, and the role of Russia, representing a rival geopolitical pole with opposing stimulus. It is significant to evaluate how these systems-level factors and determinants outline key pressures on B&H, as well as predict the likely course of B&H in the future.
Peace Processes in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Theory and Practice
Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development, 2002
The breakdown of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s was accompanied by military conflicts, that of Bosnia being the longest and most violent. It erupted as a result of uncertainty about the future of the ex-Yugoslav republic, stimulated by political leaders using the ethnic differentiation of the population. The conflict was brought to a halt at the end of 1995, thus confronting the fighting parties with the question of how to construct their new state. Serbs, Muslims and Croats, competitors in the run for power, each had projects for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereas the international community made explicit that no partition of the territory would be possible. Forced into cooperation , now, the three ethnic groups, together with international forces, struggle with the issue of the construction of the new Bosnian state, as part of the peace process. This article addresses ostensible reasons for the outbreak of the Bosnian conflict as well as why it was resolved the way it was. Special attention is paid to the institutional reconstruction of the state. References are made to the theories of the multi-ethnic, post-conflict state building of Lijphart and Horowitz and an analysis in situ is presented of their different perceptions. These theoretical proposals are here confronted with the practice of reconstruction of Bosnia today.