What are the consequences of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina's ruling?
Constitutional Law Professor Vladan Kutlesic believes that from the point of view of law there is no possibility to challenge the decision of the Constitutional Court in Sarajevo that agricultural land in Republika Srpska is Bosnia-Herzegovina's property, but adds that the decision changes the provisions of the Dayton Agreement.
In addition to undermining the status of Republika Srpska, the decision seeks to centralize jurisdiction in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while changing and interpreting the provisions of the Dayton Agreement, Kutlesic told Tanjug.
Kultesic, who is a Professor at the Faculty of Business and Law at Union University Nikola Tesla, explains that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are final, binding and cannot be reviewed in legal proceedings, and that Republika Srpska's reaction has gone into the sphere of politics.
Kutlesic recalled that the Dayton system of BiH is a major exception to the constitutional system of other European countries for three reasons - which emerged at an international conference and not in the decision-making process, relied on Anglo-Saxon law in the middle of Europe, and ultimately on the fact that it is still under international protectorate.
He states that these three facts are misused in practical decision-making to the detriment of the RS towards centralization of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The leadership of Republika Srpska, however, he believes, can invoke, when it comes to this decision, as he says, a historical precedent from the United States.
"In the second half of the 19th century, the US Supreme Court, which had powers that go beyond the powers of the BiH Constitutional Court, made a decision that political power did not want to execute. And then, US President Andrew Jackson...