USTAVNA PITANJA O POIMANJU SUVERENITETA U KONTEKSTU PROCESA DONOŠENJA ODLUKA U BOSNI I HERCEGOVINI. (Croatian)

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Alternate Title:
      CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT SOVEREIGNTY IN CONTEXT OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. (English)
    • Abstract:
      The issue of sovereignty always actualizes the commitment and pointing to the actual holders of real power and authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which takes controversial views and interpretations of the constitutional reality and political situation in our country. Sovereignty as a theoretical concept, is defined as the exclusive quality of a holder in the typical modern state, the category different to Bosnia and Herzegovina, according it's state organization, political system, and functioning of the state institutions. Pathological functioning of anatomically unique state organization, is leading to persistent tendencies of changes in legal supremacy as a main determinant of internal sovereignty in favor of the final interpreter of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the owner of so called Bonn powers, adopted in 1997. The basis of the forthcoming analysis, which entails a number of issues, is a comparison of decision-making process in Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the action of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1997. until today, especially taking into account that the legal supremacy should be exclusive right of one subject to create and implement its own legal norms. The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Annexes 4 and 10, supplemented by the so called Bonn powers in 1997, accords two possible entities for creating law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and introduces complex legal discussion in context of indivisibility of sovereign , as a mostly unknown fact in theory of constitutional law. It's undoubtedly shown that the Institution of the High Representative in period 1997 until 2007, along with the decisions of the constitutional interpreter, the institution of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is the main factor of creating law and legislative contribution of factual changing the Constitution, as well as factor of improving determined competencies of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The empirical analysis in this paper also indicates a change in focus and direction in the creation of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when institution of the High Representative since 2008 until 2011 partially, and since 2011, completely, is entering a phase and the role of pure supervision of the implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
    • Abstract:
      Problematika suvereniteta uvijek nanovo aktuelizira opredjeljenje i ukazivanje na nosioce stvarne moći i vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini, što povlači kontroverzne stavove i tumačenja ustavne stvarnosti i političkih prilika u našoj zemlji.Suverenitet, kao teorijski pojam, definiran je kao isključivi kvalitet jednog nosioca u tipičnoj modernoj državi, kategoriji u koju ne spada Bosna i Hercegovina, ni po državnom ureĎenju, ni po političkom sistemu, niti po funkcioniranju državnih institucija.Patološko funkcioniranje anatomski unikatne državne organizacije dovodi do stalno prisutne tendencije odricanja od pravne vrhovnosti, kao determinante unutrašnjeg suvereniteta u korist konačnog tumača Općeg okvirnog sporazuma za mir u BiH, te vlasnika tzv. bonskih ovlasti iz 1997. godine, institucije visokog predstavnika.Osnova predstojeće analize koja povlači brojna pitanja jeste komparacija procesa odlučivanja u Parlamentarnoj skupštini BiH i djelovanja visokog predstavnika za BiH od 1995. god. do danas.Opći okvirni sporazum za mir u BiH, u Aneksu 4. i Aneksu 10, dopunjen tzv. bonskim ovlastima iz 1997. godine, navodi dva moguća subjekta donošenja pravnih normi u BiH, čime teorijsku nedjeljivost uvodi u složenu pravnu diskusiju, pretežno nepoznatu teoriji ustavnog prava.Nesumnjivo se pokazuje da institucija visokog predstavnika 1995–2007. godine, zajedno sa odlukama ustavnog tumača, tj. institucijom Ustavnog suda BiH, predstavlja osnovni faktor stvaranja pravnih normi i legislativnog doprinosa faktičkom mijenjanju Ustava BiH te unapređenja determiniranih nadležnosti države Bosne i Hercegovine.Empirijska analiza u ovom radu, također, ukazuje na promjenu težišta i pravca u stvaranju pravnih normi u BiH, jer institucija visokog predstavnika od 2008. do 2011. godine djelimično, a od 2011. godine potpuno, ulazi u fazu i ulogu čistog nadzora nad provođenjem Općeg okvirnog sporazuma za mir u BiH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
    • Abstract:
      Copyright of Pregled is the property of University of Sarajevo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)