The central problem of the study is the last phase of the forced ethnic homogenization of Bosna and Herzegovina, unintentionally cased by the peace accord, concluded on the American base in Dayton in the year 1995. On the basis of the border agreements the competing parties were forced to hand over some lands they were so far controlling to the hands of the enemy. This caused another wave of involuntary mass migrations. The most controversial transfer of territory has been the handing over of five settlements of Sarajevo with mostly Serbian inhabitants to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the first three months of the year 1996. The circumstances of how exactly the majority of the Serbians were forced to leave their homes has so far not been fully clarified.
This article explores the nexus between the financialisation of housing and socio-economic inequality in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). In this context, since the post-war economic reforms, driven by deindustrialisation, the precarisation of labour, and dependent financialisation, housing loans have become a ‘privilege’ for a restricted group of people with high and stable incomes. Instead, the housing aspirations of Bosnians are generally met with the aid of consumer loans and the ostensibly cheaper FX loans that were introduced in the mid-2000s. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data, this paper highlights the enduring features of the polarised credit market in BiH. It particularly focuses on the period after the 2008 crisis when lending policies were only mildly re-regulated. FX loans never became the object of an ad hoc law to convert them to Bosnian convertible marks. This institutional approach has been unable to challenge the extreme class segmentation of housing finance and is still fostering indebtedness and precarious housing conditions among the lower-income segments of Bosnian society even after the pandemic.
The article analyses how the so called "inner refugees", dispersed in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a result of the civic conflict in the 1990s view "home". The principal aim of the study rests in answering the question of how, as a result of prolongation of the period of stay of the refugees in other places, their longing for returning to their home changed (the so callded "myth of return").
Příspěvek popisuje a hodnotí reformu soudního systému v Bosně a Hercegovině, která nabízí řadu zajímavých poznatků využitelných rovněž v jiných státech regionu. Nejprve jsou vysvětleny důvody reformy.Mezi ty se řadí složitý právní a soudní systém v BiH, kde vedle sebe na základě Daytonské dohody z roku 1995 existují čtyři odlišné právní a soudní soustavy, a neutěšené podmínky práce soudů a soudců, kteří se pohybují v prostředí etnicky rozdělené společnosti vykazující vysokou míru korupce a klientelismu. Další část příspěvku předkládá chronologický přehled pěti základních etap reformy v období od roku 1995 do současnosti. Tyto etapy se vzájemně liší jak realizovanými opatřeními, tak institucemi, jež tato opatření realizovala. Hlavní část příspěvku zabírá představení nejdůležitějších reformních kroků. Ty zahrnují personální změny, především proces znovujmenování všech soudců uskutečněný v roce 2002; změny ve
financování justice, včetně výrazného navýšení platů soudců; automatizaci justice, včetně zavedení Systému správy případů; a zřízení Vysoké rady soudců a žalobců. Příspěvek tyto kroky obecně hodnotí pozitivně, poukazuje ale rovněž na některé jejich nedostatky (trvající fragmentace systému, stále přítomná korupce, nejasnosti pravomocí Vysoké rady soudců a žalobců aj.). and The article scrutinizes the reform of the judiciary in Bosnia and Herzegovina which, though desplaying certain unique features, could be in some respects inspiring for other countries in the region as well. The second section, after the preface, explains the main reasons behind the reform, encompassing primarily the fragmented nature of the system in BiH in which four different
legal and judicial orders exist next to each other, and harsh working conditions of judges, facing an ethnically divided society showing a high level of corruption and clientelism. The third section presents a chronological overview of five main stages of the reform. These stages, spreading over the
period since 1995 till now, differ by the focus of concrete measures, as well as by institutions responsible for the implementation of these measures. Sections 4–6 concentrate on the most important reform measures. These measures encompass personal changes in the judiciary, including the reappointment of all judges in 2002; changes in the financing of the judiciary, including an increase in salaries; the automatization of the work, including the creation of a Case Management System; and the establishment of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council. While the article gives a rather positive assessment of the reform, it does not stop short of drawing attention to its limits