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.

The rule of law is, along with democracy, one of the main concepts of the 21st century, while Islam is, along with Christianity, the most populous religion. On the other hand, Muslim states face the problem of accepting the rule of law as a concept that originated in the West. The paper discusses the compatibility of the rule of law and Islam as well as the reason why the rule of law is not developed in Muslim countries. The authors investigate whether the underdevelopment of the rule of law in Muslim countries is inherently related to Islam or to the socio-economic circumstances that led to it. The authors of the paper put forward the thesis that the cause of the underdevelopment of the rule of law in Muslim countries is primarily caused by socio-economic circumstances, and not because of the very concept of Islam as a religion.

This paper analyzes the constitutional position of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) between constitutional nationalism and human rights. In its judgments in Sejdić and Finci v. BiH, and Zornić v. BiH, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the BiH Constitution was not in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Namely, the privilege of the three constituent peoples in the Constitution of BiH, the ECHR was assessed as contrary to the prohibited discrimination prescribed by the ECHR. In this sense, the paper analyzes the current Bosnian constitutional model of a form of consociational democracy or constitutional nationalism. The authors analyze the presumption of the ECtHR in terms of the (non) existence of a legitimate goal for maintaining discriminatory provisions in the Constitution of BiH. Also, the paper analyzes the importance of the implementation of the ECtHR judgment for the future of the rule of law in BiH.