The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is primarily notable for being an annex to the Dayton Peace Treaty that ended the 1992–1995 war. A significant aspect of this constitutional framework is its emphasis on the three main ethnic groups – Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs – designated as constituent peoples, which play a central role in the state’s governance and institutions. The recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Savickis and Others v. Latvia has indirectly highlighted the (in)compatibility of certain constitutional solutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the principle of non-discrimination of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this article, the authors explain how the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not seek to implement the rulings issued by the ECtHR, but rather interpreted the constitutional identity of the country as being based precisely on the central role given to the constituent peoples. In so doing, the Constitutional Court, now also supported by the case Savickis and Others v. Latvia, created the prospect of abuse of constitutionalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, through the Law on Internal Trade, it is planned to restrict work on Sundays for most sales facilities. This would apply to the territory of the entity concerned, i.e., 51% of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territory. Previously, unlike other countries that introduced the same or similar practices, there have been no significant social and political discussions or surveys of the views of workers, employers, and citizens. This paper aims to research the citizens' views of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina on non-working Sundays and thus offer a basis for a better discussion of this issue. A convenience sample of 406 respondents from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FB&H) entity was used. Despite the expressed bias on the topic of banning trade on Sundays, the analysis of respondents’ answers regarding the willingness to work on Sundays (with the condition of a second day off some other day and 50% higher wages for working on Sundays) showed that more than half of the respondents support working on Sundays under this condition. The survey results showed that citizens are less inclined to restrict the operation of smaller shops and that the ban on working on Sundays is mainly supported by those who do not work on Sundays.

The aim of this paper is to consider the relationship between the regulation of state property and the rule of law, and for this purpose the authors analyze the Decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH No. U-4/21 which declared certain provisions of the Law on Forests of Republika Srpska unconstitutional. The paper discusses not only the issues of the relationship between state property and the rule of law, but also the issues of judicial activism and the rule of law. In particular, the authors analyze the extent to which the courts, and in this particular case the Constitutional Court of BiH, in order to protect the rule of law, may interfere in the competences of the legislature. In this context, the authors consider the justification of judicial activism of the Constitutional Court of BiH in case U-4/21, considering whether the Constitutional Court of BiH has the right to protect the principle of the rule of law in such a way. Finally, the authors explain why judicial activism is necessary when it comes to the relationship between constitutional and legislative power and why judicial activism of the BiH Constitutional Court was necessary in the case U-4/21.

The philosophy of Gustav Radbruch made an immeasurable contribution to the development of the concept of the rule of law. The part of Radbruch’s philosophy that still has a great influence on thought about the relationship between justice and mere legality is certainly his Formula, which can be reduced to the venerable stance of lex injusta non est lex.[1] Simply put, according to Radbruch’s Formula, any law that is ‘unjust to an intolerable degree is not legally valid and should not be applied by courts. In this text, the author finds a similarity between Radbruch’s Formula and provision VI/3(c) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) and analyzes the content of the aforementioned provision, which regulates the possibility of initiating a concrete review of the constitutionality of laws by ordinary courts. The text analyzes what the aforementioned provision of the B&H Constitution stipulates and what opportunities it offers to ordinary courts when applying the law. It also analyzes the extent to which the potential of the B&H Constitution has been used by ordinary courts in the legal system of B&H.

The rule of law is one of the key concepts in the 21st century. The idea of the rule of law exists to the extent that there are reflections on the state and law, and a relationship between these two concepts. The aim of this paper is to show in one place the development of the idea of the rule of law through history. In this sense, the authors look at the thoughts of philosophers who have largely determined the direction of development of the idea of the rule of law. Of course, not all philosophers who have contemplated the rule of law are listed in the paper, but it nevertheless attempts to show in chronological order how the rule of law as an idea developed from Plato to its modern theorists.

The text is a review of the book Ka filozofiji prava kao filozofiji ljudskih prava written by Jasminka Hasanbegović and published by Dosije studio, Belgrade, 2021.