We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
We should not imagine that the «Hôtel Crillon Commission» approached the problem ex abrupto, that it found itself in front of a blank slate and in a position to construct from scratch the international constitution of the League of Nations. The Crillon Commission mainly had an implementation role. The fundamental design of the new institution, the essential elements of its organization were definitively decided before it set to work. However, his role was not without importance. It had to resolve serious difficulties with regard to the drafting of the texts, and the discussion of certain implementing provisions threatened on several occasions to overthrow the entire edifice.
More...
The draft Covenant of the League of Nations published on February 14, 1919 was drawn up, without the neutral States having had the opportunity to give their opinion. It must also be said that the project did not satisfy the desires of neutral States. Everywhere in these States, a society open to all States was wanted, including the defeated States, and greater equality between the Member States of the Society would have been desired, a less preponderant position for the great powers. Nevertheless, in all the neutral countries of Europe the opinion prevailed that one should join the Society, if one was invited to do so. The League was considered as a first basis of an international organization founded on the principles of law and justice, and it was hoped that neutral States could contribute in the future to the happy evolution of the League.
More...
Though the League of Nations came to the people of England eventually as a new idea, the movement had roots in this country long before the War. There were various religious sects, especially the Society of Friends & the Plymouth Brethren, which regarded all war as a crime. There were the ordinary pacific tendencies in the parties of the left, well known in other European countries, which had of late drawn new inspiration from the writings of Tolstoy. Above all, there was the great peace-tradition connected with the names of Cobden and Bright, which formed the idealistic side of the Free Trade movement and the economics of the Manchester School. Free Trade in England has never been simply an economic doctrine. It is held by its votaries as a kind of ethical ideal, an emblem and instrument of that fair dealing between all nations and all parts of humanity which is an essential condition of human brotherhood.
More...
We can only understand the state of public opinion in France, in relation to the League of Nations, if we go back in time at least to the Revolution of 1789 and the movement of ideas from which she is out. I will therefore first speak briefly about French opinion in the past and then, with as much precision as possible, about French opinion in the present, that is to say since the end of the last war.
More...
It is at times difficult to understand to what extent the attitude of the people of the United States regarding participation in world affairs has been influenced by the so-called “Traditions of the Fathers”, and particularly by the advice of Washington “ to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” These traditions have become deeply embedded in the American consciousness. However, with the lapse of time and change in conditions, their origin and spirit have often been overlooked and they have been given a meaning which the “Fathers” never intended to convey.
More...
The matter of denial of the genocide committed against Bosniacs, including also a revisionism of history has become in course of last several years a current topic in the Bosnian and Herzegovinian society. With the amendments to the Criminal Code off Bosnia and Herzegovina, which prohibits genocide denial and glorification of the adjudicated war criminals, exercising such practices has not stopped. The focus of recent studies related to the genocide committed against Bosniacs is reduced to the contemporary phenomena. Authors of this paper are trying to offer a historic review of the denial of crimes and genocide committed against Bosniacs, which has been in progress ever since the early days of the aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The denial of camps, massacre at the Tuzla square, Sarajevo Markale market place, ample other crimes, including also the denial of genocide in Srebrenica, clearly suggests the form of institutional denial of crimes, which has been in progress, to a lesser or larger intensity, in the last thirty years.
More...
Sarajevo as the capital of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been subjected to the longest military siege in a more recent history. The siege continued for 1425 days. The objective of the siege as to prevent legitimate authorities of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to organize resistance and defense from the aggression executed by the Milošević’s regime against the sovereign and independent Bosnia and Herzegovina. The defense of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was organized and managed by the War Presidency on the basis of Platform for the operation of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in time of war. The principal role in the defense of Sarajevo was with the self-organized citizens and the 1st Corps of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
More...
The political goal of the total demographic extermination of the Bosniac Muslim people in Bosnia and Herzegovina is evidenced by the criminal practice on the part of the aggressor, which tried to systematically persecute said people from the territory in which they always lived. Such a goal could not be achieved in another way, but by criminal methods of waging warfare. In order to cover up the aggressive nature of the military force use against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, presenting it as a civil war within an internationally recognized country, the Belgrade regime established a so-called Republika Srpska para-state and constituted an army of the said para-state, which made an integral part of the Army of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The unjust and criminal political and military goals determined and directed the war of aggression primarily against the non-Serb civilian population, and only than against the other armed forces, given that most of the killed victims were civilians. The unjust policy based on the great-Serbian ideology against Bosnia and Herzegovina continued even after the signing of the General Frame-work Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter the Dayton Agreement), and continued up to the present day. This is just another proof that Serbia has not yet sincerely and in good faith recognized territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, indicating that all anomalies and blockades in the implementation of the Dayton Agreement are a signal that Serbia, as of this day, does not consider its internationally recognized borders as being final. Such policy of the Belgrade regime is most concretely and indeed most destructively manifested in their attempts to cover up war crimes and glorify war criminals, aspiring to shifting the blame for starting the war and its consequences onto victims, and in that regard to equalize responsibility of the aggressor and Bosnia and Herzegovina defenders, ultimately to change the character of war. It is precisely the reason why the judiciary in the states that acted as aggressors against Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period 1991-1995 was burdened with anomalies resulting in blockades, even the setbacks in the commitments from the Dayton Agreement. This is the reason why trust cannot be built and reconciliation cannot be achieved on such foundations between the peoples and states of the Western Balkans. In that context, various concrete cases of unjust and illegal protection of war criminals should be analyzed, as well as numerous indictments fabricated by the Serbian regime and the Bosnia and Herzegovina entity of Republika Srpska should be considered. Obvious example of such practice is the indictment, including its confirmation, related to the events in Sarajevo’s Dobrovoljačka Street on May 3, 1992.
More...
Purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review how system of logistical security of the units within 1st Corps of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina emerged, its organisation and functioning, given that the 1st Corps as a military formation served within the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Officially, 1st Corps was established on 1 September 1992 under the conditions of aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the complete blockade and siege of the city of Sarajevo. Observed from the aspect of spatial, temporal and functional features, and given the lack of documentation ‒ as this topic was not elaborated in course of last 30 years ‒ achieving the expected result is a complex task. If we add to this that the logistical system as such is complex, big, open, and integral, complexity of this task is progressively increased. The author is aware that this task cannot be accomplished in this paper. By its specifics and manner of logistical securing of the units within the city under the siege, the time of war beginning in April 1992 until November 1995 is divided into four periods of logistical securing, which will be separately discussed further in the paper. First two periods precede the establishment of the 1st Corps. They are reflected in the fact that the logistics was not organised, that there were no permanent sources to supply the units with material and technical means, that there were no reserve sources, and also that there was no competent staff to carry out these tasks, so that the second period is in fact the beginning of establishment of logistics in the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
More...
Sarajevo, as the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the biggest urban, demographic, economic, and political centre, and the city which during the siege and defence had around 350,000 residents. The 1st Corps of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was growing from the ashes, and its predecessors were Patriotic league and Territorial defence which with the state insignia became legal and legitimate force of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Government. In the period March-April 1992, the aggressors managed to achieve a deep operational military blockade and placed the city under the siege. The city was militarily and hermetically closed. With this closure of the city, the aggressor manged to create all preconditions to begin with an open military operation aimed at terrorising and disappearance of Sarajevo. It also believed that only several weeks were required to completely take over Sarajevo. The city was destined to die. The 1st Corps of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was established on 1 September 1992 in Sarajevo and it encompassed all the military units, established up to that moment. The aggressor intended to remove from office the state, political and military leadership in Sarajevo, establish a new marionette presidency, occupy Sarajevo, declare capitulation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and thus and retain it within the ramp Yugoslavia, namely “Great Serbia”. The 1st Corps played a key strategic role in the defence of Sarajevo, during the longest siege observed in the history, and served as a principal holder the armed resistance and fight for the defence of Sarajevo. Valter was the 1st Corps, which based its fight for the defence of Sarajevo on his paradigm. This was the fight between David and Goliath, and despite the UN arms embargo, David won. It began with the groups, detachments, brigades, followed by Tactical groups, Operational groups and finally divisions with the total manpower of over 80,000 members. During the defence of the city, the 1st Corps manged to defend Sarajevo with the bodies of its soldiers. International community has left the 1st Corps and the Army to the mercy of the aggressor. At the end of the 20th century, the 1st Corps, in such an unfair fight from the aspect of the relationship of power in the technical factor, though fair from the aspect of justice and fairness, had to dig a tunnel under the airport, before the eyes of the entire world, which is the tunnel of the international shame and the tunnel of our pride, that had a strategic relevance for the defence of Sarajevo, including Bosnia and Herzegovina. International community has stopped the war with the architecture of the Dayton Peace Agreement, although the fight to make Bosnia and Herzegovina disappear by those same retrograde political forces, which started the war, continued, becoming even stronger in their ideology. That is the reason why the international community bears a huge responsibility for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is obliged, responsible, and it would have to do everything possible to rectify those failures made in relation to Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina by way of ensuring its permanent prosperous future and building its political systema based on principles of civil democracy, as well as multi-ethnic and secular state.
More...
The defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the defence of Sarajevo, was based on political and patriotic awareness of its citizens, who were genuinely committed to preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina specific political and statehood being, as a community of equal citizens and peoples. Based on assessment of a big relevance of Sarajevo for the survival of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the aggressor has thoroughly planned, prepared, and utilised large military forces to conquer the city and establish there its occupational authority. They wanted Sarajevo to be only a Serb capital of the so-called “Republic of Serb Bosnia and Herzegovina”. The combat activities carried out by the 1st Corps of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were organised in a very complex strategic, operational, and tactical conditions, under the conditions of besieged free territories in which the units and the commands of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina operated, including the conditions of specific military siege of a major part of the 1st Corps in the city of Sarajevo. Strategic and operational-tactical positions of the aggressor’s forces were rather favourable for them, given that they controlled main roads that were connecting Bosnia and Herzegovina battlefield with the sources of mobilization into the aggressor’s army with soldiers and material means in the so called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), and the countries that supported aggressor. The extent of human losses, during and after every war, turned into a big political, historic, and moral and ethical issue. Pursuant to the character of response of the warring parties and their allies to the question of the extent of human losses, it is possible to identify the character of policy that served as a basis for war engagement and support to any of the warring parties. In general, the factors on the side of the warring party that waged the righteous war strive to present truthfully the number of victims, whereas the factors on the side of the warring party that waged unfair war strive to fake the number of victims and adapt it to the character of its unfair political views related to the causes and consequences of the war. Given the fact that the international community with its embargo harmed the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina defence forces, which operated on the grounds of fair policy and righteous war, we arrive at a conclusion that the embargo was unfair, in favour of unfair aggressor’s policy, criminal and genocidal war practice.
More...
Faced with an open threat from Radovan Karadzic in the Republic of BiH Assembly on October 14, 1991 that the Muslim people would disappear, President Alija Izetbegovic visionary won the state, first through a referendum and then recognition from the European Community and the United Nations. With this, he repealed the SFRY laws. He formulated the general strategic concept of the defense of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is about small community waging a war, in a small territory, against incomparably militarily and economically stronger opponents. And precisely because of that, it was necessary to apply such a strategic concept that provides the opportunity to wage war in all domains, to engage all human and material potentials, activate all energy, to apply all forms of combat, all types and forms of combat operations. This means organizing the whole society into a solid monolithic community, which is completely identified with the total military force. Part of the RBiH leadership and its patriots, using the prior experiences from the war in Slovenia and Croatia, estimated that without the armed forces there cannot be any defense of an independent, complete, sovereign and multiethnic BiH. For the sake of easier and more purposeful leadership and command, all patriotic forces were united in the Army of RBiH. On April 6, 1992, the European Community recognized the independence of BiH, and one day earlier, on April 5, as this decision became public, the JNA, in fact Serbia and Montenegro, began with the aggression against BiH. This marked the beginning of the most terrible and bloodiest war in the history of BiH and the Balkans. Poorly armed units of the Territorial Defense, Ministry of the Interior, Patriotic League, Green Berets and spontaneously formed small armed groups provided heroic resistance to superior attackers who quickly took control over the large territory of the state. Our resistance was especially manifested in bigger cities, such as Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zenica... In a kind of the counterattack, armed units of the legitimate authorities liberated these places and the government was consolidated in them. On May 22, 1992, Bosnia and Herzegovina became a full member of the OUN.
More...
Introductory remarks by: - Prof. Ph.D. Rifat Škrijelj, rector of the University of Sarajevo - Prof. Ph.D. Dženeta Omerdić, Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Office of Dr. Denis Bećirević) - Prof. Ph.D. Denis Zvizdić, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Ph.D. Pavle Krstić, Minister (Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Youth of Sarajevo Canton) - Ph.D. Husein-ef. Kavazovića, reisul-ulema (Islamic community in Bosnia and Herzegovina) - Academician, prof. Ph.D. Mirko Pejanović (President of the Scientific Committee of the Conference of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina) - Ćamil Duraković (Vice President of the RS entity) - Prof. Ph.D. Rasim Muratović, Director of the Institute for Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law, University of Sarajevo - Ph.D. Sc. Sedad Bešlija, director of the Institute of History
More...
Ni nakon više od dvije decenije u Srebrenici, ali manje-više i u svim povratničkim mjestima, ne samo da nije izrađen i primijenjen održivi model ekonomskog oporavka i razvoja već je ostao nerazjašnjen sam koncept postratni/genocidni ekonomskog oporavka. I pored zvanično promoviranog i izdašno donacijski podržanog procesa ekonomske obnove, na sceni su krajnje nepovoljna demografska, socijalna i ekonomska kretanja u ukupnom postratnom periodu. Naravno da se zbog toga otvaraju brojna pitanja ovakvog neuspjeha – od ponovnog preispitivanja samog pojma ekonomske obnove do niza „nenaučenih lekcija” iz dvadesetogodišnjeg procesa ekonomske obnove u ovoj općini.
More...
Općina Srebrenica nalazi se u istočnom dijelu Bosne i Hercegovine. Graniči s općinama: Bratunac na sjeveru i sjeveroistoku, Višegrad i Rogatica na jugozapadu, općinom Milići (dio bivše općine Vlasenica) na zapadu, a na jugu granica ide rijekom Drinom u dužini od 40 km koja je i međunarodna granica između Bosne i Hercegovine i Republike Srbije. Površina teritorije općine Srebrenica je 529,83 km2. Prema popisu stanovništva 1991. godine na prostoru općine Srebrenice živjelo je ukupno 36.666 stanovnika ili 0,84% od ukupnog stanovništva Bosne i Hercegovine. Bošnjaka je bilo 27.572 ili 75,20%, Srba 8.315 ili 22,70% i ostalih 779 ili 2,12%1. Gustina naseljenosti u općini iznosila je 69,6 st/km2 (u Bosni i Hercegovini 85,6 st/km2). U političko-administrativnom pogledu 1991. godine Srebrenica je imala 19 mjesnih zajednica u kojima se nalazilo 80 naselja od kojih je jedno pripadalo gradskom, a 79 seoskom tipu naselja. Prema prirodnom priraštaju koji je iznosio 13,2‰ 1991. godine, općina Srebrenica bila je na petom mjestu u Bosni i Hercegovini i to poslije općina Žepče, Velika Kladuša, Živinice i Kalesija. U periodu 1992‒1995. godine na području općine Srebrenica, kao i na prostoru cijele Bosne i Hercegovine, dogodile su se krupne demografske promjene. Masovni zločini koje su nad nedužnim bošnjačkim stanovništ-vom vršile tzv. Vojska RS i policija RS, pod vojnom komandom ratnog zločinca Ratka Mladića i političke direktive ratnog zločinca Radova-na Karadžića, dostigle su vrhunac u općini Srebrenica kada su srpske oružane formacije okupirale “sigurnu zonu UN-a” Srebrenicu, jula 1995. godine, i počinile genocid nad nedužnim bošnjačkim stanovništvom.
More...
Valjan razgovor o međunacionalnim odnosima, a kada je u pitanju međunacionalno povjerenje na putu pomirenja, danas je moguć tek u kontekstu analize ukupne socijalne situacije: ekonomske, kulturne i duhovne, te naravno političke stvarnosti Bosne i Hercegovine i uzroka koji ih omogućavaju i/ili onemogućavaju. U mogućnosti da se ovom prilikom barem pokuša izvršiti ta analiza, razmatranja u ovom radu podrazumijevat će mnoge poznate aspekte sadašnje situacije, koja je, s razlogom, već godinama označena kao krizom, i to u jednom produbljenijem smislu kao kidanje osnovnih, elementarnih poluga na kojima počiva karakter društvenih odnosa. U tim i iza takvih pukotina nastaje lavina procesa i proturječnosti koji su zahvatili bosanskohercegovačko tkivo u cjelini i koji se najčešće završavaju sukobima na socijalnoj, ideološkoj i političkoj osnovi. U središtu tih sukoba, a u sociološkom smislu sukoba koji su više nego očigledni u cjelokupnom društvenom odnosu, mogu se prepoznati najmanje dvije tendencije koje okružuju primarni društveni odnosi i koji su već odavno poprimili oblike pojava, ali i više od toga: formu i sadržinu dva polarizirana pogleda.
More...
Moralno-pravna i politička obaveza svijeta i Evropske unije i Bosne i Hercegovine jeste ne samo spriječiti buduće, civilizacijski katastrofične zločine poput genocida nad Bošnjacima u Srebrenici i oko nje nego, i prije svega, spriječiti njegovo planski aktivno i politički, medijski, kvazinaučno, sistematsko poricanje i negiranje. Tome svjedočimo danas i svih poratnih godina u Bosni i Hercegovini i njenom susjedstvu. Umjesto odgovornosti za nesprečavanje genocida, u Srbiji se i dalje veličaju ratni zločinci koji su doveli do izvršenja genocida. Upornim i neskrivenim javnim veličanjem zločina i međunarodno presuđenih ratnih zločinaca, praveći od njih nacionalne heroje s jedne, i stigmatiziranjem kritičkoga govora i priznavanja genocida od strane grupacija ili pojedinaca u njihovom javnom angažmanu na tu temu, s druge strane, ohrabruju se politike i zagovornici opetovanja genocidnog zla i njegovo javno, nekažnjeno, stadionsko i medijsko veličanje, poput transparenata tokom utakmica na kojima se zanavlja napis: Nož, žica, Srebrenica.
More...