Skip to main content

The “Transitional Citizen”: Civil Society, Political Agency and Hopes for Transitional Justice in Bosnia–Herzegovina

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transitional Justice and Civil Society in the Balkans

Abstract

Over the past 5 years there has been a concerted effort by the newly-established Court of Bosnia–Herzegovina to build its legitimacy within local communities through processes of public outreach and civil society capacity building. Although particular understandings of the “transitional citizen” are implied within such activities they have, to date, been left under explored in the literature on transitional justice and Bosnia–Herzegovina. However, the way in which political subjectivity is understood and is shaped at times of transition is fundamentally important for understanding how transitional justice is practiced. Thus this chapter will address a significant yet underexplored aspect of transitional justice: that of its citizen. We know from transitional justice scholars amongst others that the fostering of civic virtues, trust and behaviours are seen as vital for supporting transition towards democracy in post-war societies (de Greiff, 2008). This is the anticipated political community in reference to which reconciliation is enacted and over which it is assumed a consensus can and will develop. We suggest that there is a need to examine in detail this dynamic, both theoretically and empirically. This chapter draws on qualitative fieldwork undertaken by the three authors in both independent and collaborative projects between 2009 and 2011 in BiH to examine the type/s of citizen and political subjectivity that have emerged through processes of public outreach and civil society capacity building. This argument challenges a vision of the transitional citizen as a passive recipient of new legal or political programmes and illustrates the emergence of alternative understandings of justice and democracy through public outreach programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is interesting to note that in cases of war crimes the state and entity level sentencing vary greatly. For example, the CBiH uses the 2003 Criminal Code Procedure which allows for a maximum sentence in war crimes of 45 years, while in the entities the Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia is most often applied which brings with it a maximum sentence of 20 years (OSCE 2011).

  2. 2.

    The language is Bosnian/Croatia/Serbian.

  3. 3.

    ICTY Liaison Officer and co-instigator of the CSN, Sarajevo, 9 October 2009.

  4. 4.

    Many of these associations are often run by the survivors themselves who lack formal training in programme development and management and often speak little English. See for example Delpla (2007), Rangelov and Theros (2009), and Zupan (2007).

  5. 5.

    Interview with representative from Helsinški komitet, Bijeljina, 18 October 2009.

  6. 6.

    Interview with representative from Helsinški komitet, Bijeljina, 18 October 2009.

  7. 7.

    Official statistics suggest 20,000 women (mainly Muslim) were raped in BiH (European Community 1993). Yet we must remember that these statistics fail to take into account those who choose not to come forward, who have not been able to come to terms with their experiences, those who were killed, and non-Muslims victims. The statistics also do not include men who suffered sexual violence and/or rape (see Zawati 2007, p.1).

  8. 8.

    This focuses on monetary assistance even though the law includes entitlement to professional training, employment priority, etc. which was never experienced by the survivors I spoke with.

  9. 9.

    There is a similar law present in Republika Srpska which is the Law on the Protection of Civilian Victims of War in the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of the RS No. 25/93, 1/94—special edition, 32/94, 37/07 and 60/07) but no existing State law and/or harmonisation of laws between the entities.

  10. 10.

    In theory access should be granted to all entitlements under the law. The survivors I spoke with only focused on and indicated that they could access the personal monthly allowance (Jakala 2010).

  11. 11.

    De Grieff (2008) defines reparations as “… measures that provide benefits to victims directly. This use contrasts with measure which may have reparative effects, and which may be very important (such as punishment of perpetrators, or institutional reforms), but do not distribute a direct benefit to victims themselves” (2008, p.436).

  12. 12.

    This can be experienced in the retelling of experiences, in feeling they need to justify their experience and making public their experiences which can lead to retraumatisation. See Track Impunity Always (TRIAL 2010), and Jakala (2010).

  13. 13.

    Life history interviews were conducted with ten female research participants from a survivor’s organisation in Sarajevo, BiH along with 22 months of intensive participant observation at the organisation.

  14. 14.

    This is a pseudonym for the organisation.

  15. 15.

    Whilst this research focussed on wartime rape survivors in the Federation it is known that wartime rape survivors in Republika Srpska also have means, albeit much more limited than the Federation, of claiming social assistance (see note 7). The law in Republika Srpska, “… limits the recognition of the civilian victim of war entitlements with a 5 year deadline, from the day the application of the Law started, that is from the day the person suffered damage to the body, or was killed, or went missing” (ICMP 2007a, b, introduction). This law has been amended a few times with the deadline for application set at 31 December 2007 and then later extended with a 6 month deadline (Human Rights Ombudsman BiH 2010).

  16. 16.

    This is an issue as the organisation is known to be biased towards Muslims and not physically accessible to all survivors especially those who are unable to travel from rural areas. It also is an issue because they do not have proper psychological support available to the survivors when they retell their experiences and do not account for the fact that many already belong to victim associations and have already told these associations of their experiences (see for example Amnesty 2009; Jakala 2010).

  17. 17.

    This is problematic as it appears to be used as leverage—sign the form and get social assistance and if you do not sign it, then you do not get social assistance. The survivors also do not know what their statements will be used for. See for example Amnesty (2009), Jakala (2010) and TRIAL (2010).

  18. 18.

    The social assistance is funded by the Federation and the cantons with 70% contributed through the Federation budget and the remaining 30% contributed by the local cantons. See Jakala (2010) and Popić and Panjeta (2010).

  19. 19.

    See for example Amnesty International (2009), Jakala (2010), TRIAL (2010).

References

  • Adejumobi, S. 2001. Citizenship, rights and the problem of conflicts and civil wars in Africa. Human Rights Quarterly 23(1): 148–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akanji, O.O. 2011. Researching conflict in Africa: A researcher’s account of Ife-Modakeke, South-Western Nigeria. In Researching violence in Africa: Ethical and methodological challenges, ed. C. Cramer, L. Hammond, and J. Potter, 23–174. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International. 2009. Whose justice? The Women of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Still Waiting. London: Amnesty International. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR63/006/ 2009. Accessed 5 November 2010.

  • Bajrović, R. 2005. BiH municipalities and the EU: Direct participation of citizens in policy-making at the local level. Sarajevo: Open Society Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley-Zistal, S. 2006. Dividing and uniting: The use of citizenship discourse in conflict and reconciliation in Rwanda. Global Society 20: 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C., and C. Turner. 2008. Utopia and the Doubters: Truth, transition and the law. Legal Studies 28(3): 374–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Grieff, P. 2008. Justice and reparations. In The handbook of reparations, ed. P. De Grieff, 436. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delpla, I. 2007. In the midst of injustice: The ICTY from the perspective of some victims associations. In The new Bosnian mosaic: Identities, memories and moral claims in a post-war society, ed. X. Bougarel, E. Helms, and G. Duijzings, 2007. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domi, T. 2002. Advancing women’s political rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Harriman Review 14(1–2): 36–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Community. 1993. European community investigative mission into the treatment of Muslim women in the former Yugoslavia: Report to European Community Foreign Ministers, U.N. SCOR, Annex I, U.N. Doc. S/25240 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, A. 2005. Civil society in Bosnia ten years after Dayton. International Peacekeeping 12: 406–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulks, K. 2000. Citizenship. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. 2006. Introduction: Moving out of the Dayton era into the era of Brussels? In Peacebuilding and civil society in Bosnia-Herzegovina ten years after Dayton, ed. M. Fischer. Berlin: Lit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibney, M. 2006. Who should be included? Non-citizens, conflict and the constitution of the citizenry. CRISE Working Paper 17. www.crise.ox.ac.uk/pubs.shtml. Accessed 10 January 2012.

  • Greback, K., and E. Zillen. 2003. Endangering the peace process: A study on the Dayton accords. Ottawa: United Nations Division on the Advancement of Women. EMG/Peace/2003/EP.2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. 2004. Citizenship beyond the state. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Ombudsman BiH. 2010. Special report on the rights of persons with disabilities. Sarajevo: Human Rights Ombudsman BiH. http://www.ombudsmen.gov.ba/docs/Invaliditet_ENG.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2012.

  • Ilif, F. et al. 2011. Adverse consequences of reparations. Colchester: Essex Transitional Justice Network, University of Essex. http://www.essex.ac.uk/tjn/documents/Paper_6_Adverse_Consequences.pdf. Accessed 1 November 2011.

  • ICMP. 2007a. Guide for civilian victims of war: How to enjoy the right to protection as a civilian victim of war in the federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo: ICMP. http://www.ic-mp.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/guidebook-wictim-of-war-fbih.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2011.

  • ICMP. 2007b. Guide for civilian victims of war: How to enjoy the right to protection as a civilian victim of war in the Republika Srpska. Sarajevo: ICMP. http://www.ic-mp.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/guidebook-wictim-of-war-rs.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2011.

  • Initiative Group of ‘For Dignity of the Survivors’. 2006. Proposal for amendments to draft law on amendments to law on basic social protection measures, protection of civilian victims of war and protection of families with children of march 2006. Sarajevo: Initiative Group of ‘For Dignity of the Survivors’. http://www.stopvaw.org/uploads/a_FD_letter_to_parliament_FBiH.doc. Accessed 10 January 2012.

  • Ivanišević, B. (2008). The war crimes chamber in Bosnia and Herzegovina: From hybrid to domestic court. New York: International Center for Transitional Justice. http://ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-FormerYugoslavia-Domestic-Court-2008-English.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2011.

  • Jakala, M. 2010. Wartime rape: War’s worst experience? a feminist grounded theory study of female non-raped and wartime rape survivors in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bradford, Bradford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, A. 2007. The geopolitical framing of localized struggles: NGOs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Development and change 38: 251–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, A. 2011. The political geographies of transitional justice. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36(3): 344–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. 2009. Examining reconciliation’s citizen: Insights from the multi-ethic district of Brčko, Bosnia-Herzegovina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester, Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabeer, N. 2005. Introduction: The search for inclusive citizenship, meanings and expressions in an interconnected world. In Inclusive citizenship, meanings and expressions, ed. N. Kabeer, 1–27. London: ZED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambourne, W. 2012. Outreach, inreach and civil society participation in transitional justice. In Critical perspectives in transitional justice, ed. Phil Clark et al. Intersentia: Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lister, R. 2003. Citizenship: Feminist perspectives. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamdani, M. 2001. When victims become killers: Colonialism, nativism and the genocide in Rwanda. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy, K., and L. McGregor (eds.). 2008a. Transitional justice from below: Grassroots activism and the struggle for change. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy, K., and L. McGregor. 2008b. Transitional justice from below: An agenda for research, policy and praxis. In Transitional justice from below: Grassroots activism and the struggle for change, ed. K. McEvoy and L. McGregor. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy, K. 2008. Letting go of legalism: Developing a ‘thicker’ version of transitional justice. In Transitional justice from below: Grassroots activism and the struggle for change, ed. K. McEvoy and L. McGregor, 15–45. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mujkić, A. 2008. We the citizens of Ethnopolis. Sarajevo: Centar za Ljudska Prava Universiteta Sarajevu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettlefield, L. 2010. Courting democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Hague Tribunal’s impact on the Postwar State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E. 2002. Transitional justice: The impact of transnational norms and the UN. In Recovering from civil conflict: Reconciliation, peace and development, ed. E. Newman and A. Schnabel, 31–50. Portland: Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • OHR (2004). War crimes chamber project: Project implementation plan registry progress report. Sarajevo: OHR. http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/rule-of-law-pillar/pdf/wcc-project-plan-201004-eng.pdf. Accessed 18 November 2011.

  • OSCE (2011). Delivering justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina: An overview of war crimes processing from 2005 to 2010. Sarajevo: OSCE. http://www.oscebih.org/documents/osce_bih_doc_2011051909500706eng.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2011.

  • Ó Tuathail, G., and J. O’ Loughlin. 2009. After ethnic cleansing: Return outcomes in Bosnia-Herzegovina a decade beyond war. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99(5): 1045–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popić, L., and Panjeta, B. 2010. Compensation, transitional justice and conditional international credit in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Attempts to reform government payments to victims and veterans of the 1992–1995 War. Sarajevo: Norwegian Embassy. http://www.norveska.ba/PageFiles/417487/Study_Linda_Popic_english.pdf. Accessed 13 November 2011.

  • Porter, N. 2003. The elusive quest: Reconciliation in northern Ireland. Belfast: Blackstaff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangelov, I., and Theros, M. (2009). Maintaining the process in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coherence and complementarity of EU institutions and civil society in the field of transitional justice. Bonn: Working Group on Development and Peace. http://www.frient.de/downloads/RangelovTheros_kompl_071127.pdf. Accessed 4 January 2012.

  • Sejfija, I. 2006. From the “civil sector” to civil society? Progress and prospects. In Peacebuilding and civil society in Bosnia-Herzegovina ten years after Dayton, ed. M. Fischer. Berlin: Lit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R., L. Waldorf, and P. Hazan. 2010. Localizing transitional justice: Interventions and priorities after mass violence. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sriram, C.L. 2009. Transitional Justice and the Liberal Peace. In New perspectives on liberal peacebuilding, ed. R. Newman, R. Paris, and O.P. Richmond, 112–130. Tokyo and New York: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transition Council. 2011. Medium-term institutional development plan for the court and prosecutors office of BiH. BiH: Sarajevo.

    Google Scholar 

  • TRIAL. 2010. Written information for the examination of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s combined second to fifth periodic reports. Sarajevo: TRIAL. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/ngos/Trial_BosniaHerzegovina45.pdf. Accessed 10 November 2011.

  • Van De Merwe, H., V. Baxter, and A.R. Chapman. 2009. Introduction. In Assessing the impact of transitional justice: Challenges for empirical research, ed. H. van de Merwe, V. Baxter, and A.R. Chapman, 1–11. Washington D.C: United States Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zawati, H. 2007. Impunity or immunity: Wartime male rape and sexual torture as a crime against humanity. Torture Journal [online], Vol. 7, No. 1. http://www.irct.org/Files/Filer/TortureJournal/17_1_2007/impunity_or_immunity.pdf. Accessed 25 October 2011.

  • Zupan, N. 2007. Facing the past and transitional justice in the countries of the Former Yugoslavia. In Peacebuilding and civil society in Bosnia-Herzegovina, ed. M. Fischer, 2007. Berlin: LIT.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Briony Jones .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jones, B., Jeffrey, A., Jakala, M. (2013). The “Transitional Citizen”: Civil Society, Political Agency and Hopes for Transitional Justice in Bosnia–Herzegovina. In: Simić, O., Volčič, Z. (eds) Transitional Justice and Civil Society in the Balkans. Springer Series in Transitional Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5422-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics