The progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the process of EU integrations can be described as slow and difficult. Many reasons contribute to such development, starting with political instability. However, even in the case of absence of political difficulties, certain features of the constitutional and legal system of the country make decision-making at state level and conducting necessary reforms slow and ineffective. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitution is a part of a Dayton Peace Agreement, which was a result of long peace negotiations to end one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 1990’s. It achieved in stopping the conflict, but inserted many features which make reforms difficult, such as complicated decision-making process, fragmented state apparatus and division of competences between different levels of government. One of the features of the constitutional system is the set of group rights belonging to the so-called constituent peoples. The principle foresees certain procedural rules related to the parity in appointment of officials as well as necessary quotas and veto powers in the decision-making process in the legislative and executive bodies. Primarily seen as a compromise to bring back inter-ethnic trust, in recent years, it has been increasingly seen by European Institutions such as European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission, as discriminatory and ineffective, hampering the progress of the state on its path to EU integration. The European Court of Human Rights has in multiple cases described the realization of principle of constituent peoples as contrary to human rights standards. On the other hand, the EU institutions, such as European Commission, in its assessments of the readiness of Bosnia and Herzegovina to progress in EU integrations and potentially become a EU Member state, has pointed to the fact that realization of the principle is detrimental to the decision-making process. The non-compliance with the European Court of Human Rights decisions related to the discriminatory nature of the principle, has slowed the country’s EU integration process, even in the stage of signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement, as is still an outstanding obligation.  All of that is negatively impacting institutional frameworks aimed at devising and implementing necessary reforms on the EU integration path. This article analyses the position of the principle of “constituent peoples” in the legal system of the country and its evaluation by the European institutions as detrimental to country’s progress.

The Srebrenica genocide stands as a stark and enduring reminder of the international community’s failure to prevent genocide, despite existing legal frameworks intended to safeguard populations from such atrocities. This event continues to raise pressing concerns regarding the effectiveness of international mechanisms and the actual extent of state obligations under international law. A central legal development in this context is the judgment rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case, which has been widely scrutinized for the ambiguity it presents. Rather than delivering clear and definitive answers, the judgment has, in many respects, generated further questions, particularly concerning the obligations of states to prevent genocide as stipulated in the 1948 Genocide Convention. The ICJ’s approach to the interpretation of the duty to prevent genocide is notably inconsistent. In certain paragraphs, the judgment appears to adopt a relatively expansive understanding of state obligations, hinting at a broader responsibility to act against the threat of genocide. However, in other parts of the ruling, the Court takes a more restrictive stance, narrowing the scope of this obligation and potentially limiting its enforceability or applicability in practical terms. As a result, the judgment offers only limited and sometimes conflicting guidance for states seeking to understand the nature and extent of their responsibilities under the Genocide Convention. This inconsistency within the ruling has led to considerable uncertainty regarding the legal contours of the obligation to prevent genocide. While the judgment does provide some degree of clarification, it ultimately leaves unresolved critical aspects of how the duty should be interpreted and implemented in practice. The case, therefore, remains a subject of ongoing debate in both legal scholarship and international political discourse, highlighting the continuing need for greater precision in defining states’ preventive obligations under international law.

Background: Bosnia and Herzegovina, with its complex constitutional and legal system, is facing many difficulties in its progress toward European Union membership. These challenges have been worsened by political instability, exacerbated by geopolitical shifts in Europe following Russian aggression on Ukraine. Legal complexities in the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina are often used to halt the country's progress and divert it from its European trajectory. This article analyses the specific instances of very unfavourable legal solutions that are hindering the EU accession process, as well as the recommendations put forth by the EU Commission aimed at removing these legal obstacles. There is an urgent need for reform of constitutional and legal rules to enable the country to effectively continue its EU accession path. The importance of the EU membership perspective for Bosnia and Herzegovina extends beyond simply joining a desirable club of prosperous countries; the reforms required during the EU accession process are needed to strengthen the efficiency of state institutions and secure lasting peace in the country and region. As such, the urgency and potential impact of these proposed legislative changes cannot be overstated. Methods: The research primarily employs a combination of analytical, normative, and comparative methods to examine the legal system and chronology of the integration process. The legal historical method is also used where appropriate. The research focuses on the content of constitutional norms, relevant legislative acts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and legislative acts of the European Union and other countries. These legislative acts are compared with EU recommendations and legislation from other EU member states to identify the discrepancies. The article provides an overview of the legal framework governing EU integrations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including norms of international law, constitutional law, national legislation, and EU law that are negatively impacting the EU accession process, and offers certain recommendations for their improvement. Results and conclusions: The research has identified certain norms of constitutional and legislative origin in the legal system of Bosnia and Herzegovina that are harming the country's ability to effectively engage in the EU accession process. Through a normative approach, the article gives recommendations for their improvement, which are in line with the standards set by the institutions of the EU. Amending these problematic legal frameworks would remove their use as political tools aimed at halting the country’s progress in the EU integrations.

Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) has difficulty integrating and moving closer to the goal of becoming a member of the European Union (EU). From the legal perspective, the main issue is the need to fulfil the accession criteria. The article aims to examine the relationship between the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and Basic Freedoms (ECHR) and the obligations related to the European Union (EU) accession process, with emphasis on Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) as an EU membership candidate country. At first sight, those two obligations are separate. However, upon close examination, a strong link between those two obligations can be established using normative research with a historical approach, statute and case-based approach. On the other hand, the constitutional system of B&H has been described as discriminatory by numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and, most prominently, by the Sejdic-Finci case. B&H has difficulties implementing those judgments. Implementing those judgments is also set as one of the requirements of EU accession. Even if the two obligations seem separate at first sight, the ECHR has a special position within the law of the EU and is especially important in the accession of new Member States, including B&H. The research results show a special position of the ECHR in EU law and a link between the obligations under the ECHR and EU accession.

Widening case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interpreting the notion of discrimination, especially the ambit of discrimination based on “other status” offers important elements in the understanding of the legal definition of discrimination. More specifically, it offers elements in understanding of the scope of discrimination grounds listed under “other status”, such as the place of residence. Discrimination cases before the ECtHR against Bosnia and Herzegovina relate primarily to the discriminatory nature of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s election system, focusing on ethnicity as the main basis for discrimination. However, often overlooked is the place of residence as the discriminatory ground, identified in numerous cases alongside ethnicity (such as the cases of Pilav, Zornic and recently Pudaric), or as a stand-alone basis as in the case of Baralija. The ECtHR’s positions expressed in judgements to these cases offer certain interpretations important for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s election system, legal and constitutional order and showcase the potential power and influence which the ECtHR’s judgements may have in the strengthening of rule of law and overcoming political stalemates. Outside Bosnia and Herzegovina, the cases may offer some new insights in defining and reinterpreting the legal notion of discrimination and the legal ambit of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of place of residence, such as discriminatory effects of legal void and the discriminatory treatment between persons having a place of residence within the same respondent country.