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.

Before the socio-political communities are posted, a very demanding task of defining the subject on whose name will behalf political power is implemented over a given state territory. However, the question about the subject of sovereignty should in no case be misunderstood as an issue of simply theoretical approach. The level of a state’s democracy, as well as its ability to realize internal and external sovereignty, depends entirely on fact: does the power belong to the People and whether it derives from the People. In other words, the issue of popular sovereignty is a substantial, constitutive element of modern democratic states. When we speak about contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, the functionality of the entire state government is often hindered by the complex decision-making processes at all state levels which lead to obstruction of the entire decision-making process. Such a dysfunctional decision-making process on the state level poses a threat and disables the Bosnian plural society to respond to the modern challenges of a democratic functioning state. The legal nature of Bosnian society is determined by the existence of constituent people who have “usurped” the entire decision-making process. There is still no end in sight to the struggle that leads to an oligarchy of the ruling elites; furthermore, there is still no appropriate socio-political mechanism that will enhance the accountability of the representatives to their voters; it is still inconceivable that decisions of state authorities are effectively and consistently implemented throughout the national territory. In other words, there is still no appropriate mechanism that will enhance the principle of popular sovereignty. It is necessary to “offer” Bosnia and Herzegovina’s pluralism and its political tradition a form of democratic authority which in no way should be a cliché. Furthermore, it may not be one of the “copy-paste” models of democratic authority. Currently, citizens of B&H are completely suspended (de facto, there are only citizens of entities). In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbs are suspended, while in the Republika Srpska, Bosniacs and Croats cannot equally participate in the decision-making process. An unfinished process of implementation of the Dayton Agreement and, in particular, Annex 4 (the Constitution of B&H), whose provisions permit discrimination against the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the impossibility of the realization of the principle of equality in the exercise of universal suffrage), as well as the non-application of the Decision of the European Court of Human Rights contributes and is conducive to further segmentation of Bosnian society.

Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Baralija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina holds several important points. Under the surface, different layers are visible, pointing to the deficiencies in the general state of rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The core issue, as identified by the ECtHR is one of non-compliance with the final and binding decision adopted by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, resulting in a legal void, which has left residents of Mostar without the possibility to fulfill their rights to free, democratic, and periodical elections. However, the most interesting part of the ECtHR’s reasoning might be the view which the ECtHR holds in regards to the position and the power of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to step in and play an active role, giving solutions, albeit temporary, in form of “interim arrangements.”. This article offers an overview of the background of the “Mostar case,” as well as the ECtHR’s reasoning and purported position of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the challenges this case, and previous similar ones, may represent to the State authorities.

The essence of democracy is to enable citizens to participate in the decision-making process. In order to actively participate in the process of democratic decision-making, it is necessary to have an own view on certain issues. Based on the freely formed and expressed attitude of contemporary democracy, they ensure a consistent and clear application of the will of citizens in the process of making key political decisions. Bosnia and Herzegovina faces great challenges today. Citizens do not have the possibility to exercise passive voting rights under equal conditions. Normed human rights and freedoms are not exercised in practice. Citizens do not have a developed political culture and in a kind of vicious circle that is a consequence of material endangerment do not engage in political processes. The paper analyzes elements that influence the impossibility of carrying out socio-political processes in a democratic spirit, in a way that fits modern democratic countries.

The achievement of rights of same-sex couples is an actual topic in contemporary law. This is especially in focus of the professional and academic publicity in the transitional countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this paper authors considered the issue of the achievement of the same-sex couples' rights in the legal system of this country in the context of the European Court of Human Rights practice and obligations arising from the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. The aim of this paper is to determine to which extent the national legal order of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country trying to accede to European integration, implements european standards of human rights and freedoms with the final goal to point to the omissions and possible directions for reform.

The task of state authorities is to enable, within its competencies, full and effective implementation of the principle of the rule of law, and to allow all individuals to participate in process of creation and achievement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In connection to aforementioned, and according to the political criteria adopted in Copenhagen in June 1993, the paper analyzes status of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the European integration process. Special emphasis is placed on the analysis of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and their normative, professional and infrastructural readiness (and ability) to guarantee the implementation of fundamental democratic principles. Furthermore, the paper analyzes the measures that have been announced in the adopted reform agenda for Bosnia and Herzegovina 2015-2018, which are primarily related to the implementation of the principle of the rule of law and to the process of good governance.