In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the pluralization of society and the state began during 1990. This is the time when political parties are formed and the first multi-party parliamentary elections are held. Due to the strong influence and domination of the ethnic principle, political parties were formed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990 in two basic forms: as ethnic or peoples (national) parties, and as civic (multiethnic) parties. In almost all election cycles from the beginning of the pluralization of Bosnian society until today, ethnic political parties have won the elections. Ethnic political parties have appropriated a monopoly in the promotion of national interests since the 1990 election campaign, guided by the idea of protecting the national interests of “their“ peoples. The continued rule of ethnic parties without a coalition political agenda and agreement has strengthened ethnic pluralism in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, instead of democratic decision-making and competition between the majority and the opposition, the representative bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina have become an arena and a place of mutual competition and confrontation between the parties that make up the parliamentary majority. The lack of the necessary democratic consensus between the ruling ethnic political parties at the state level was compensated and compensated by the High Representative of the International Community (OHR), who, on the basis of the Bonn powers, promulgated certain laws. Hundreds of laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been promulgated by high representatives. This prevented blockages in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the absence of the necessary consensus of the ruling ethnic parties, it is not possible to develop or strengthen the power of parliaments as the highest representative body of the people and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead of parliamentary democracy, classical partitocracy is at work. The situation is similar at the entity level, and at the cantonal level in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina entity. All this, along with heterogeneous and complicated decision-making procedures and processes, ultimately reflects on the adoption of laws and decisions of importance to society and the state. Complicated forms of decision-making and the existence of a famous mechanism for the protection of vital national interests are some of the obstacles to the development of the state and society. All of these are some of the essential problems, but also the controversies that follow the decision-making processes in the representative bodies in the country. This is especially true of the adoption of important and significant public policies aimed at solving socio-political problems. Only decision-making at the level of local self-government units (municipalities and cities) can serve as a positive example. In general, the local level of government has so far proved to be the most efficient level of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The basis for strengthening the democratic decision-making capacities of the representative bodies of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina is contained in the application of the democratic principle on which parliamentary democracy is established and functions. Applying almost all basic and general scientific research methods, as well as the method of analysis (content) of relevant documentation as a method of data acquisition, will identify key problems and controversies of public decision-making and policy making in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the period after the Dayton Peace Agreement. today. A conclusion will be drawn on the need to establish a parliamentary majority based on the coalition agreement and the political program of that coalition, which significantly affects the public decision-making processes and the adoption of the necessary state public policy. Bosnia and Herzegovina is required to reconstruct public decisions in the direction of strengthening state public decisions and policies and building European standards, in order to more efficiently compose them with the requirements and directives of the European Union.

The illumination of the state policy of separating „positive“ from „negative“ priests of the Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the most important issues in the scientific understanding of the position of this religious community during the first decades of existence of AVNOJ Yugoslavia. The post-war government in Bosnia and Herzegovina treated a large number of priests of the Catholic Church as real or potential enemies of the state. In addition to ideological reasons, which were more or less similar in all communist parties, the negative attitude of the CPY towards the Catholic Church was influenced by the fact that some priests supported the Ustasha movement during World War II. The justification for the negative attitude of party structures towards priests was argued most often in the documents of the Commission for Religious Affairs with the following reasons: that most priests supported the occupier and domestic traitors during the war; that they spread hostile propaganda against the national liberation movement; that they actively participated in the fight against the new social order; that they had committed war crimes and persecuted members of other faiths, and that they had been linked to criminal Ustasha emigration abroad. In addition to „negative“ priests, there were „positive“ priests that also acted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as they were reported in the documents of the Commission for Religious Affairs. They did not agree to the policy of confrontation with the state and demanded the establishment of dialogue and co-operation between the Church and the state. Some of the most prominent representatives of this group of priests were: Fr Bono Ostojic, Ph.D. Karlo Karin, Fr Mile Leko, Fr Josip Markušic, Fr Serafin Dodig, Fr Kruno Misilo and others. Holders of „positive tendencies“ among the clergy, according to the Commission for Religious Affairs, understood the importance of establishing communication and contacts with state authorities and the harmfulness of the negative attitude of the Catholic Church towards the state. Their goal was to change the methods of solving problems between the Church and the state, and to build a path that would suit the interests of the priests of the Catholic Church and the interests of the state community, without interfering with the churchs dogmatic canonical principles. The „differentiation“ of priests was treated as a positive result of the work of the new government, because, according to their assessments, in the first post-war years, representatives of religious communities had a hostile attitude towards the newly created socialist Yugoslav state. Therefore, the Commission for Religious Affairs (federal and republican) has continuously pointed out the importance of implementing a policy of „stratification and differentiation“ within religious communities. According to the observations of the Federal Commission for Religious Affairs, the post-war „differentiation“ among the priests happened primarily due to their attitudes regarding the relationship between the state and the Catholic Church. Some considered it desirable and useful to establish communication with the newly created authorities, while others maintained a negative attitude. In addition to these two groups, there was a third group that was undecided. When considering the biographical data of the priests of the Catholic Church proposed for state decorations, it can be stated that the authorities carefully took into account which priests would be on the list of candidates recommended for awards. A positive attitude towards the new socialist social order, active participation in the establishment of the Association of Catholic Priests in Bosnia and Herzegovina, loyalty, patriotism towards socialist Yugoslavia, and contribution to the development of the Association of Catholic Priests in Bosnia and Herzegovina, are some of the most important reasons for choosing candidates for awards. In the article, based on unpublished archival sources, the author contextualises the political circumstances and the circumstances in which the state policy of differentiation of „positive“ from „reactionary“ priests of the Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina took place, points out the reasons for and bearers of such policy, and analyses its expression and results. Also, the author presents the policy of awarding state recognitions and decorations to individual priests in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Review: Izet Šabotic, Tvrda kora i krvave brazde: Agrarna reforma i kolonizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini od 1945. do 1948. godine, Centar za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla, Tuzla 2021, 369 str.

Review: Senaid Hadžic, Veliki zaokret: Bosna i Hercegovina u vremenu tranzicije (od 1880-ih do 1950-ih), Centar za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla i Arhiv Tuzlanskog kantona, Tuzla 2021, 493 str.

Review: Pljevaljski sidžil – Istorijski izvor vrijedan posebne pažnje. Šerbo Rastoder (priredio), Turski (osmanski) izvori za istoriju Crne Gore – Pljevaljski sidžil, knj. 2, tom 1, CANU, Podgorica 2021, 833 str.

Review: Emir Demir, Stanovništvo Kaknja u osmanskom periodu, Udruženje Kreativni centar za edukaciju i obrazovanje „Spektrum“, Sarajevo 2021, 187 str.

Conference Report: Izvještaj sa Naucne konferencije Alimi Srebrenice i njihova uloga u duhovnom i društvenom životu Bošnjaka, Srebrenica, 6. juli 2021. godine

Report: Aktivnosti Centra za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla u 2020. godini // Activities of Center for Research of Modern and Contemporary History Tuzla in 2020.

Very few papers have been written about the development of education in the wider area of Bosanska Krupa during the Austro-Hungarian administration (1878-1918). No comprehensive historical study is known that treats exclusively the development of education in this area during the occupation period. An exception is the book by Elvira Islamovic entitled Schooling and education in the Bihac district during the Austro-Hungarian administration, published in Bihac in 2008, which in one part deals with the development of schooling in the Bosnian Krupa area. The starting point for the study of the past of Bosanska Krupa and its surroundings is the work of a group of authors entitled Bosnian-Krupska municipality in the war and revolution published in Bosanska Krupa in 1969, which presents a rough overview of Bosnian Krupas history until the first years after World War II. war and partly the development of education during the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and the period between the two world wars, and more recently the following works: Mithad Kozlicic, Population and settlements of the Una-Sana area 1879-1921. godine, Bihac 1999; Mirza Ahmetbašic, Adnan Hafizovic, Osnovna škola Otoka od osnivanja do danas, Bihac 2008; Emin Mesic, Fikret Midžic, Mali Pset 1272. Tvrdava Krupa, Prilozi za monografiju Bosanska Krupa, Bosanska Krupa 2012; Asmir Crnkic, Mirza Ahmetbašic, Bosanska Krupa during the Austro-Hungarian administration, Bihac 2020 and others. The development of school opportunities during the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian administrations was partially addressed by bringing them into context when dealing with other topics. In this paper, the author talks about school opportunities in the area of Bosanska Krupa and its surroundings at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Attention is paid to the establishment and operation of confessional primary and secondary schools that operated during the Ottoman period, and whose work continued after 1878, and the establishment and operation of the first state primary schools in the wider Bosnian Krupa area. The development of school conditions in the area of Bosanska Krupa during the Ottoman rule did not differ from other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For the needs of the Muslim population, sibjan mektebs were opened, somewhat later ruždija and madrasas, and for the needs of Orthodox children of the Orthodox primary school. Orthodox primary schools in the Bosnian Krupa area were first opened in Jasenica, Bosanska Krupa and Velika Rujiška. The Austro-Hungarian government also encountered an extremely high level of illiteracy in the area of Bosanska Krupa and its surroundings. At the end of the Ottoman rule, the illiteracy of the population was more than 95%. In addition, the regular educational process was very often interrupted by various infectious diseases that affected this area, as evidenced by numerous historical sources. There was also a great lack of professional teaching staff. A large number of students who are old enough to start school, the need for education of children of immigrant foreigners, etc. it was a sufficient signal to the competent authorities that a state primary school be established in Bosanska Krupa as well. In the villages around Bosanska Krupa, state primary schools opened relatively late. In the period from 1887 to 1913, public primary schools began operating in Otoka, Veliki Radic, Hasanbegova Jasenica, Ivanjska, Vranjska, Hasani and Bužim. However, in the year of establishment of certain schools, e.g. Otoka, Veliki Radic and Hasanbegova Jasenica there are differences between researchers. The Orthodox population was far more in favor of opening interfaith primary schools in their communities than the Muslim population, despite the fact that the Austro-Hungarian authorities, where possible, regulated the formation of special womens classes in public primary schools. The year 1880 marked a turning point in the development of education in the wider Bosnian Krupa area. That year, the Peoples Primary School in Bosanska Krupa started operating, which operated throughout the Austro-Hungarian period. However, certain researchers claim that this educational institution began operating in 1884 and 1885, respectively. It was one of the main educational centers and a nursery for numerous cultural and educational activities in this area.

At the beginning of the paper we explain the territorial differences between the Washington and Dayton Peace Solutions, which especially refers to the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton and focuses only on the Tuzla region and its specifics in relation to other regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We then present the basic elements of the Washington Agreement, the meetings that preceded it, the content of the agreement, the principles of the Vienna Agreement important for the organization of the canton, as well as active monitoring and consideration of the agreement by the Tuzla District Assembly and its views on international community plans. We also monitor the implementation and importance of the implementation of the Washington Agreement in the Tuzla region and the creation of the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, explain the name of the canton and use demographic data based on the 1991 census to indicate that Podrinje is a Bosniak-majority region. Then we give an overview of how the implementation of the Washington Agreement reflected on the normalization of food prices, the situation in the canton and the strengthening of the combat power of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ie the II Corps of the Army of B&H. The paper describes the jurisdiction of the President of the Canton, the Government of the Canton, national representation by agreement of SDA and HDZ, the composition of the government, the reasons for non-participation of Serbs in implementation and talks with the Serb Civic Council to participate in organizing ministries. We especially present the activities of the President and the Government of the Canton on supporting the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, II Corps and strengthening defense, budget funds for these purposes: action: „We are all B&H Army“, support for displaced persons and improving living conditions in protected areas of Srebrenica and Žepa We also describe the activities of the authorities during the fall of the protected zones of Srebrenica and Žepa, for the care of the displaced population, as well as the requests to the institutions of the international community to stop and prevent genocide against the Bosniaks of Srebrenica. We especially emphasize the activity of the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton Ministry of the Interior in preserving public order and peace. We are especially dealing with the military situation in the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, presenting significant military successes through the liberation of Lisaca on the Kalesija front, Vis near Gracanica, Vijenac near Lukavac, Greda on Majevica, as well as the crushing of enemy offensives „Spreca-95“ and others. In this paper, we argue the support of Russian diplomacy to the aggressor and link Russias diplomatic activities through the contact group and other accomplices of the conspiracy group towards the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a complex situation such as that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when a Serbian aggressor with the support of insurgent Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina commits genocide, a joint criminal enterprise with the support of the Croatian state led by Tudman and Croats mainly from Herzegovina win over Fikret Abdic to organize a quisling creation „autonomous region of Western Bosnia“ and opening a conflict with the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The support of the Tuzla District Assembly to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in their efforts to stop the war and find a peaceful solution was significant. Also, the authorities of the District of Tuzla vigorously condemned the divisions on the national principle as well as the division of the territory of the District of Tuzla. In this paper, we have processed the proposals of the Assembly of the District of Tuzla to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to individual peace solutions. The inadmissibility of the Dayton Peace Solution for the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton authorities and the SDA Cantonal Committee was specifically addressed as well as the reasons and request to President Alija Izetbegovic and the negotiating team of Bosnia and Herzegovina to leave the Dayton negotiations, and then the request to Izetbegovic to clarify the reasons for accepting such an unjust peace agreement.

The armed aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement), initialed in Dayton on November 21, 1995, and signed on December 14, 1995 in Paris „in Bosnian, Croatian, English and the Serbian language“. The Dayton Agreement confirmed the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had real control (power) over the so-called Republika Srpska. Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement determined the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are two entities in the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consists of 10 cantons, and the Republika Srpska. Apart from the two entities, there is also the Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was created by the Decision of the International Arbitration Court. It was established on March 8, 2000. According to the Dayton Agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose official name became „Bosnia and Herzegovina“, continues its legal existence under international law as a state with its internationally recognized borders. It remains a member of the United Nations, and as Bosnia and Herzegovina may retain membership or request membership in organizations within the United Nations system and in other international organizations. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement) guarantees human rights and „fundamental freedoms“. Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Entities, according to the Constitution, will ensure „the highest degree of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.“ For this purpose, the formation of the Commission for Human Rights is also envisaged, as provided for in Annex 6 of the General Framework Agreement. The issue of the return of refugees and displaced persons is addressed in Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement, entitled „Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons“. According to Annex 7, all refugees and displaced persons have the right to return freely to their homes and have the right to restitution of property confiscated from them during hostilities since 1991 and to receive compensation for all property that cannot be returned to them. The „Agreement“ states that the return of refugees and displaced persons is an important goal of resolving the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period 1995-2020. The authorities of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity of Republika Srpska did not give up on the project of „separation of peoples“. The implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement has been obstructed in various ways: by killings, beatings, intimidation, attacks on religious buildings and in other ways. Obstructions in the implementation of Annex 7 were also carried out in the entity of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, this was not as pronounced as in Republika Srpska. The first return of displaced persons (refugees and displaced persons) was to the settlement of Mahala, which until the Dayton Agreement was located in the municipality of Kalesija and after Dayton in the municipality of Osmaci in the entity of Republika Srpska. It was August 24, 1996. This was followed by the return of Bosniaks to the settlements of Jusici and Dugi dio in the municipality of Zvornik and Svjetlica in the municipality of Doboj. These events also marked the official start of the implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although the Dayton Agreement guaranteed the return of the exiles, everything went much harder on the ground, and there were also human casualties. Between 1992 and 1995, approximately 2.2 million people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were forced to flee their homes as a result of the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina. About 1.2 million people have applied for refugee protection in more than 100 countries around the world, while countries in the region have accepted about 40% of the total number of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Almost one million people were internally displaced in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the beginning of 2003, the Strategy of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement was adopted. It was the first, at the level of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, harmonized, framework document which sets goals and plans the necessary actions and reforms towards the final implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement. According to the 2015 UNHCR Annual Statistical Report, the number of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina outside the country was 18,748. Of these, 9,080 had refugee status in Serbia, 4,055 in France, 2,274 in Switzerland, 1,412 in Germany, and the remaining number in other countries. It is estimated that at the end of 1995 there were about one million displaced persons, accounting for almost a quarter of Bosnia and Herzegovinas pre-war population. The first comprehensive, official census of displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina was conducted at the end of 2000, when 557,275 displaced persons were registered. The 2005 audit of the status of displaced persons identified 186,138 displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the data of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees from 2016, there were 98,574 displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which 38,345 or 40.6% were displaced in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 59,834 or 58.8% in the Republika Srpska and 395 or 0.5% in the Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the ethnic structure of displaced persons, according to the head of household - families, 32.7% (10,667 families and 30,920 persons) are Bosniaks, 60.0% (19,565 families and 60,737 persons) Serbs, 6.7% (2,195 families and 6,374 persons) Croats and 0.6% (184 families and 542 persons) Others. According to the 2016 data of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees, by the end of 2016, around 341,000 housing units had been built or renovated in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska, the Bosnian language is denied. Teaching in the Bosnian language is prohibited, and the language is called the non-existent Bosniak language. This discriminates against students who want their language to be called Bosnian. In addition, high-ranking officials from the Republika Srpska in public appearances deny the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosniaks as a people, deny genocide against Bosniaks, which affects the perspective of the people of this area. Streets in cities bear the names of war criminals from the Second World War and the period of aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, busts of war criminals are being built, schools and other state institutions are being „sanctified“, etc. In the period 1995-2020. Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement was not fully implemented in 2006, as an important factor in the reintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the recognition of the results of armed aggression and genocide against Bosniaks.

The three key conditions for the existence of a state, according to the theory of state and law, are geographical territory, population and organized political power in that area. However, during the twentieth century in some African and Asian countries, due to various political, economic and other factors, problems began to appear in performance of their basic functions: ensuring public order and peace, providing health services, education. Modern science has introduced the term failed states to describe such countries. This scientific phenomenon has been the subject of numerous researches, and international organizations have been publishing annual indices of fragile, failed or unsuccessful world states for years. The first index of its kind was created in 2005 by the American non-profit organization The Fund for Peace in cooperation with the magazine Foreign Policy, which initially included 76 countries. The original term failed state was considered politically extremely incorrect, even when it referred to countries like South Sudan or Somalia, noting that such a term originated in the political terminology of developed countries by which all other countries at a lower level of development were considered to be failed ones. Therefore, in 2014, a new notion of a fragile state was created, and accordingly the existing index was renamed the Fragile State Index (FSI). This parameter determines the degree of fragility for each country on an annual basis, assessing four basic indicators: cohesion (functionality of the state apparatus), economic (overall economic situation), political (legitimacy of the state, availability of public services, respect for human rights and freedoms) and social (demographic structure of the community, number of displaced persons and refugees, external interventions). Based on the values of these indicators, countries are positioned in four groups: sustainable, stable, endangered and alarming. The paper also discusses Bosnia and Herzegovina as a potentially fragile state. Although it enjoys sovereignty and political independence, the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement still provides for the strong participation of the international community in the performance of its basic state functions. Examples include the presence of international military and police forces from the early post-war years to the present (EUFOR), with a special emphasis on the position of High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The peace agreement gave him the status of his supreme interpreter, as well as the well-known Bonn powers that he used on several occasions to remove Bosnian political officials and the imposition of laws (Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Law on the Prosecutors Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina) due to the inability of domestic parliamentary bodies to pass them independently. In addition to the extremely complicated constitutional structure, the functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina is hampered by the inability to reach an agreement between political representatives on key issues in the country. In the first place, these are much-needed changes to the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina that would in the future allow members of minorities (Jews and Roma) to elect their own representatives in the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2009 in the case of Sejdic-Finci assessed that the impossibility of minority participation in political decision-making is a gross violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Numerous international organizations, primarily Human Rights Watch, have been warning for years about other problems in the country: national segregation of children under two schools under one roof, numerous attacks on Bosniak returnees in Republic of Srpska without adequate sanctions and extreme slowness in war crimes proceedings and the administration of transitional justice with the emergence of increasingly frequent denials of war crimes and victims. Although more than 25 years have passed since the end of the war, the participation of the international factor is still noticeable, and in some cases necessary.

Review: Sead Selimovic, Za jedinstvo domovine i slavu dinastije. Školstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, Centar za istraživanje moderne i savremene historije Tuzla, Tuzla 2021, 442 str.

Review:Journal of the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo (History, History of Arts, Archeology), posebno izdanje: Reflections on Life and Society in the Western Balkans. Studies in the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, knjiga 7, broj 2, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo 2020, 321 str.

Review: Hikmet Karcic, Derviš M. Korkut: A Biography, El-Kalem i Institut za islamsku tradiciju Bošnjaka, Sarajevo 2020, 85 str.

Complex socio-historical processes and turning epochs, as well as numerous segments that are an integral part of peoples lives, are the subject of interdisciplinary studies. War is one of the most dramatic, most complex social phenomena. In addition to armed operations, there are a number of other dimensions related to war, starting from psychological, legal, sociological, social, economic, cultural to others. Critical and multiple perspectives contribute to the completion of images of politics, wars and their relations. The disintegrations of the ideological paradigm and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were accompanied by the (re)construction of new national identities, the outbreak and duration of „wars“ of different memories, the reshaping of consciousness and the re-examination of history, especially those related to World War II. The history of that war in Yugoslavia was undoubtedly the history of several wars which were stacked on top of each other. The main issue with Bosniaks in that war is a multiperspectival topic that requires a multidimensional and deideologized presentation of the position and the position of all involved actors. Numerous issues related to that war, the complex position of Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sandžak, the emergence of civic responsibility, Bosniak protection of the vulnerable Serb Orthodox population, humanity and assistance, beyond post-war ideological premises and „official truths“ remained more or less marginalized, although they seek more objective and complete answers from multiple angles, for the sake of a more complete view of the past. What is called „local“ or „regional history“, as evidenced by diverse experiences, indicates the multidimensionality of the past, its features and specifics in a certain area. The Second World War in Sandžak could not be understood more objectively outside the broader Yugoslav context. This is also special for the history of Novi Pazar, the largest city in Sandžak which was the subject of many different political plans and conceptions. The history of this city has several sections. After the withdrawal of German forces from Novi Pazar, the Chetniks tried to conquer this city for three times in the fall of 1941. However, thanks to the dedicated defense and the help of Albanian armed groups from Kosovo, Bosniaks managed to defend themselves and Novi Pazar. Even in such a dramatic situation, numerous examples of humanity, solidarity and assistance of Bosniaks to the intimidated Serb urban population have been recorded. In the most difficult days of the war, when Novi Pazar was exposed to Chetnik attacks, a significant part of Bosniaks took actions to prevent anarchy, to save Serbs from terror and revenge. The task of science is to constantly discover forgotten and unknown parts of the past, to re-examine previous knowledge. Everything that happened has a whole range of perspectives. It is necessary to have a multidimensional understanding of the causes and course of events, circuits and time limits, to explain narrowed alternatives. Any reduction of historical totality to only one dimension is problematic. Every nation, every state, in a way, write their „histories“, remember different personalities, events, dates, emphasize various roles, perpetuates monuments, emphatize with different causes and consequences. Contemporary abuses of the interpretation of the war past, one-sided approaches, fierce prejucides and quasi-historical analyzes in the service of the politics damage interethic relations and lead to further growth of tensions and distancing between nations and states in their region.

In terms of historiography, the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the Second World War has been dealt with by many historians and scholars, dealing with and researching topics related to the economy, culture, the issue of religious communities, political circumstances, etc. What is lacking in historiographical research in the period after the Second World War is certainly the question of education (educational opportunities), as well as the question of the repercussions and consequences of the Informbiro crisis in the period from 1948 to 1956 for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The period from 1948 to 1956 is one of the most dramatic and fateful phases in the recent history of the South Slavic countries, ie Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is a period of very contradictory and turbulent social processes, which have led to complex changes in all areas of socio-economic and political reality, both domestically (in Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) and internationally. Stalins attempt to subjugate the Yugoslav party leadership to Soviet domination will lead to an open split between Tito and Stalin (Yugoslavia and the USSR), which will have major consequences for the development of the Yugoslav political system, will lead to universal persecution of all those who voted for politics. Informbiroa in Yugoslavia. The conflict will have a particular impact on the political, economic and social situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The aim of this paper is to point out the historical sources that are in the archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, archives in Belgrade (Archives of Yugoslavia) and Zagreb on the basis of which the necessary data can be drawn to understand this issue, as well as to point to historiography (books, collections of papers and journals) that dealt with the issue of the Informbiro crisis in the period from 1948 to 1956 and its reflection on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is due to the fact that very few scientists and historians have dealt with this issue, as well as that there is very little historical literature for this period, especially for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It should be noted that we have a historian who has dealt with this issue at the micro level, and as a result a book was published in 2005 entitled „Informbiro and Northeast Bosnia: Echoes and Consequences of the KPJ-Informbiro Conflict (1948-1953)", where the general public with this event, which has a great impact on the political and socio-economic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From the appearance of this book until today, there have been attempts to shed light on this issue through several scientific conferences and round tables, and the result has been published collections of papers, as well as articles published in some journals, both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and wider.

During the 1980s, socialist Yugoslavia was hit by various social problems, which disintegrated the fragile tissue of Titos state-political legacy. In the early 1990s, when the unstoppable phase of dissolution of this country began, national-chauvinist pretensions resolved to realize their old great-power ambitions in a period of general disruption surfaced. Although in this whirlwind of social turmoil the method of military force was used as the dominant and indispensable factor, behind the scenes political arrangements were very often much more effective in realizing certain goals. Sometimes conducted in public, and sometimes secretly, such negotiations were most often a typical expression of grand national aspirations. In this context, one can certainly observe one of the most famous separate negotiations in the 1990s on the soil of the disintegrating Yugoslavia, conducted between Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudman. Although these talks have not been published to date, many close associates of the Serbian and Croatian presidents, as well as participants in various political sessions, clearly indicate the presence of a high degree of their mutual agreement on the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this paper, the author tried to shed light on the separate Serbo-Croatian efforts to divide the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina through the statements of Tudman and Milosevic, and the speeches of their close associates and participants in numerous political talks.

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Peace Agreement) accepted in Paris on December 14, 1995 was signed by: for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegovic, for the Republic of Croatia dr. Franjo Tudjman and Slobodan Milosevic for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There are good reasons why the international community has demanded that these people be signatories to the Dayton Peace Agreement. Namely, after unsuccessful attempts to establish an agreement on constitutional solutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting with Cutileiros plan (cantonization of Bosnia and Herzegovina on ethnic grounds), on which talks in Sarajevo began in February 1992, until the conference in London on 26 and On August 27, 1992, it was obvious that the positions of the Serb and Croat sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina were being harmonized with the positions of Belgrade and Zagreb, that is, the policies previously agreed and agreed upon on the Milosevic-Tudjman route. Three delegations participated in the conference in London. On behalf of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government were President Alija Izetbegovic, Minister of Foreign Affairs Haris Silajdžic, Ejup Ganic and General Sefer Halilovic. The Bosnian Serb delegation included Radovan Karadzic, RS President Momcilo Krajisnik, RS Vice President and VRS General Ratko Mladic, who were in direct consultations with Belgrade throughout the negotiations. Representatives of Bosnian Croats were the President of HZ HB Mate Boban, then the Prime Minister of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mile Akmadžic (although he was a member of the Government of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, he participated as a member of the Croatian delegation) and General Milivoj Petkovic. Croatian President Franjo Tudjman also took part in the negotiations and was the unofficial but de facto head of the Croatian delegation. Following the London Conference and the failure of the previous negotiations, the European Community Conference on Yugoslavia was expanded to include the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, chaired by Cyrus Vance (US diplomat on behalf of the UN) and Lord David Owen (on behalf of the EC / U). a new era of peace negotiations. Vance-Owens plan foresaw the decentralization of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the existing borders with a constitutional order based on federal principles contained in a number of constitutive elements - regions (ten cantons formed on ethnic principles) and with the Sarajevo district where the central government would be located. This plan, after the refusal of the Serbian Assembly from Pale to ratify it, was definitely rejected. This was followed by the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan (Constitutional Agreement on the Alliance of the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina) which offered a confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina composed of three republics made up of ethnicity, but this plan also proved unacceptable. The Contact Groups plan followed the establishment of the Washington Agreement, which established the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in March 1994. This plan provided for the preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a union within its internationally recognized borders, and territorial division according to the percentage of territory (51:49). The Serbian leadership in Pale also refused to accept this proposal. The international community had to look for new solutions. The Contact Groups plan was a step towards negotiations that will result in the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. However, it is important to note that all the plans offered led to the discovery of hidden policies created by the eastern and western neighbors of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, all the proposed proposals for "peace plans", which the international community tried to impose in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were based on constitutional devastation and territorial division, thus accepting armed conquests and occupation of the area with the ultimate goal of destroying its territorial integrity and statehood. sovereignty, which made it obvious that the international community was not ready to protect the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state guaranteed by international law, which was especially denied by the introduction of an arms embargo, which prevented it from protecting its own sovereignty and territorial integrity. What was the role of the signatories of the Dayton Agreement in the preparation and execution of bilateral aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim of implementing plans for the partition of Bosnia and the realization of large-scale projects, and whether it determined their position as signatories to the General Framework Agreement? and the topic of trials of international courts with the aim of establishing, proving and convicting committed crimes. What is the significance of the signatories in the establishment and preservation of peace, and whether large-scale projects and plans for their implementation ended with the signing of the Dayton Agreement are questions whose answers are still being sought 25 years after the signing of the agreement. Namely, Slobodan Milosevic, the then president of the Federal Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), before the signing of the Dayton Agreement, appeared before the ICTY as an indictee for crimes committed in the Republics of the former Yugoslavia - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo. The trial was not terminated due to the death of the accused, but the Trial Chamber rendered a decision on the motion for acquittal (Interim Judgment of the Hague Tribunal of 16 June 2004), which established his responsibility for genocide committed in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Franjo Tudjman, the then President of the Republic of Croatia, was identified as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise in a verdict handed down for crimes committed by the Croatian Army (HV) and the Croatian Defense Council (HVO) against the civilian population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Case IT-04-74 Prlic etc). In its appeal verdict against the Bosnian six, the ICTY Appeals Chamber found that there was an international armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the state of occupation, but also confirmed the existence of a Croatian joint criminal enterprise aimed at "ethnic cleansing" certain areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croatias Franjo Tudjman as one of the participants in this JCE. Thus, persons who found themselves in court proceedings and were held responsible for the consequences of the policies they implemented, the commission of crimes and joint criminal enterprises realized in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, became signatories of the Dayton Peace Agreement and guarantors of peace.

In this article, with some methodological dilemmas, an attempt is made to speak more clearly from a certain historical perspective about the current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, which „produce“ an almost permanent political crisis in this area - from Dayton to today. The continuity and current effects of these policies, which have their roots in some dark historical depths and myths, never changing their essence and their goals, were pointed out. In the current Serbian and Croatian political conceptions, Bosnia and Herzegovina is treated as a „sphere of interest“, which should be mastered as much as possible in peace, if it did not succeed in the war. Serbia and Croatia, in the historical sense, since they have existed as political entities, have been opposed to each other in almost everything. The only thing on which there was a high degree of agreement was the question of the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, again depending on historical circumstances and other circumstances. (to mention only Tudjman and Milosevic). In the last few years, intensive cooperation and a high degree of „agreement“ between Serbian and Croatian politics have been noticed, again „regarding“ Bosnia and Herzegovina, its status and the definitive post-Dayton division. In this sense, it is not difficult to recognize several common characteristics of both policies. In this article, the author focuses on the following: the first is a declarative and formal public declaration of both to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while in practical politics this sovereignty is continuously violated and „trampled“, acting as its „rulers“. Another common feature is the belittling and labeling of all pro-Bosnian political forces, reducing them to „political Sarajevo“ in the pejorative sense of the word, with multiple offensive and deeper meanings, which, in addition to Milorad Dodik (to make the absurd even greater, as president or member of the Presidency of BiH) from the Serbian one, Zoran Milanovic, the current president of Croatia, until yesterday a declared friend of Bosnia and the pro-Bosnian SDP, is increasingly expressing himself in his own way. Obstruction of the process of reforms and rapprochement of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the European Union and NATO membership is the third session of the characteristics of Serbian and Croatian politics (albeit in different versions), while the fourth, denial of decisions and verdicts of the Hague Tribunal for crimes and atrocities is dominant over Bosniaks (again in a different version): Serbs deny genocide verdicts, and Croats deny convictions for the Joint Criminal Enterprise. In addition to common characteristics, this paper highlights some special features of the current Serbian and Croatian policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, again, boils down to one goal: to strengthen (make independent) the Republika Srpska and cantons with a Croat majority, as well as the position of Croats in Federation with the aim of forming a third entity and at the same time weaken the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina until the question of the meaning of its existence is raised. The states inability to organize the procurement of coronavirus vaccines is just one of the latest proofs that these destructive political forces have succeeded to a great extent. This article points out the consequences of such a policy and emphasizes the need to stop further degradation and collapse of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. Such forces exist, they just have to be activated.

The armed conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period from 1992 to 1995, which ended with the conclusion of the so-called The Dayton Peace Agreement was marked by serious violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms and the commission of horrific war crimes. Prosecution of defendants for these crimes takes place at several levels, ie before: a) the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), b) domestic courts and c) courts of certain foreign states. The paper analyzes certain indicators related to the prosecution of these crimes, their scope and structure, as well as the ratio of convictions and acquittals for certain war crimes, the scope of application of conventional and summary forms of ending criminal cases and court policy of sanctioning perpetrators. It was learned that by the end of 2020, hundreds of criminal proceedings against approximately a thousand defendants had been completed. Most of the accused were prosecuted before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Court of B&H), followed by the ICTY, and a slightly smaller number before the courts of the former SFRY and some Western European countries. The research established that before the ICTY, out of the total number of accused for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as many as 90.2% were convicted of some of these crimes, while the rate of convicted in relation to accused before the Court of B&H was 67.2% , and before the courts in the Republic of Serbia 70.2%. It is interesting that before the ICTY as many as 24.3% of the accused were convicted in summary proceedings on the basis of a plea agreement, while before the Court of B&H 13,3% of the accused were convicted using a plea bargaining as a consensual model for ending criminal cases. So far, 22 people have been convicted of the crime of genocide as the most serious crime before the ICTY, the Court of B&H and German courts, and all convictions related to the activities of the Army of Republika Srpska during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Court of B&H, inherited a relatively mild policy of punishing war crimes. Finally, it was found that certain courts, especially Court of B&H, inherited a relatively mild policy of punishing war crimes.

The main goal of this paper is to investigate the mechanisms of the influence of NGOs on public policy-making in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement on December 14, 1995 in Paris. The sharp increase in the number of NGOs occurs immediately after the Dayton Accords, and according to some estimates, there were more than 1,500 at the time, which cannot be considered a large number when compared to the number of NGOs in other transition countries. Data from the Collective Register of Foundations and Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina state that their total number is 25,646, while the number of actually active is difficult to determine. The literature so far has been presented from the non-governmental sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina to a significant extent for public policy making, as well as research results and these claims primarily based on the number of qualitative impact diaries of individual NGOs (case studies). This research paper aims at systematic research of the domain of influence of the non-governmental sector, through quantitative analysis of newly collected data on the influence of non-governmental organizations. The survey was proven at the local, cantonal, authorial and state level on a representative and stratified sample (10% - according to the statistical method) and was trained by the leadership and activists of non-governmental organizations and government officials (ministries and state administrative organizations). One of the main assumptions is that by successfully networking with organizations from neighboring EU member states, NGOs become a respectable actor in public policy-making in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to quantitative analysis, this paper provides a detailed overview and theoretical analysis of civil society, NGO sector and public policies as well as a comparative insight into institutional and non-institutional mechanisms of NGO influence on public policy making in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their practical application in neighboring countries European Union. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the role of the non-governmental sector (association) in public advocacy and the analysis and comparison of current theories of the legal policy framework, structure, size, factors of development of the non-governmental sector. In addition, the paper contributes to the assessment of the current state of the mechanism of influence on the creation of public policy agendas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the formulation of measures for internal structures and networking of NGOs and the definition of their number, structure and types. The problem of the research is reflected in the fact that the started processes of transformation and the unfinished process of transition of the Bosnian society and civil sector are, due to the war destructions, significantly slowed down. Changes in society in the pre-war phase created realistic preconditions for the development of the non-governmental sector and civil society in general, and provided a realistic basis for influencing the advocacy and creation of various public policies. In the post-war period, international donors invested heavily in the NGO sector. The subject of this research is the influence of the non-governmental sector on policy-making processes, through knowledge of institutional mechanisms, as well as the correlation of the non-governmental sector and public policies from the aspect of democracy development as an integral process in all its aspects. Given that this topic has previously been partially addressed in this context, through a systematic review of the problem and offering an adequate solution to the problem, it is necessary to re-examine the key issues. The key issues explored within this paper are how networking with neighboring EU Member States has a positive impact (has a positive association) on the importance of NGOs in advocating for public policies. In addition, the extent to which financial support from EU institutions has a positive impact on the importance of NGOs in advocating for public policies has been explored.