Academic literature on the topic 'Bosnia and Herzegovina History 1992-'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Bosnia and Herzegovina History 1992-.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Bosnia and Herzegovina History 1992-"
1
Dzihic, Vedran. "Comments on Gerard Toal's ‘“Republika Srpska will have a referendum': The rhetorical politics of Milorad Dodik”." Nationalities Papers 41, no. 1 (January 2013): 205–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2012.754746.
Full textAbstract:
The history of modern Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) is a history of referenda. The referendum as a tool to shape the political fate and future of a particular society has seemingly always been an integral part of the Bosnian past. The first two referenda in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the beginning of the so-called “democratic era” following the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia marked the beginning of a period of war and violence in the country. The referendum in November 1991, organized by the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) and asking participants about the status of BiH within the Yugoslav federation, was the first step toward the formation of Republika Srpska (RS). On the other side, the referendum in March 1992 about the question of independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Yugoslavia, which was attended by Bosnian Muslims and Croats and boycotted by the Serbs, plunged Bosnia into war.
2
Selimović, Sead. "Preventing return: Implementation of annex VII of the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995-2020)." Historijski pogledi 4, no. 6 (November 15, 2021): 206–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.206.
Full textAbstract:
The armed aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Agreement), initialed in Dayton on November 21, 1995, and signed on December 14, 1995 in Paris „in Bosnian, Croatian, English and the Serbian language“. The Dayton Agreement confirmed the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had real control (power) over the so-called Republika Srpska. Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement determined the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are two entities in the internal structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which consists of 10 cantons, and the Republika Srpska. Apart from the two entities, there is also the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was created by the Decision of the International Arbitration Court. It was established on March 8, 2000. According to the Dayton Agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose official name became „Bosnia and Herzegovina“, continues its legal existence under international law as a state with its internationally recognized borders. It remains a member of the United Nations, and as Bosnia and Herzegovina may retain membership or request membership in organizations within the United Nations system and in other international organizations. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement) guarantees human rights and „fundamental freedoms“. Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Entities, according to the Constitution, will ensure „the highest degree of internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.“ For this purpose, the formation of the Commission for Human Rights is also envisaged, as provided for in Annex 6 of the General Framework Agreement. The issue of the return of refugees and displaced persons is addressed in Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement, entitled „Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons“. According to Annex 7, all refugees and displaced persons have the right to return freely to their homes and have the right to restitution of property confiscated from them during hostilities since 1991 and to receive compensation for all property that cannot be returned to them. The „Agreement“ states that the return of refugees and displaced persons is an important goal of resolving the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the period 1995-2020. The authorities of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity of Republika Srpska did not give up on the project of „separation of peoples“. The implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement has been obstructed in various ways: by killings, beatings, intimidation, attacks on religious buildings and in other ways. Obstructions in the implementation of Annex 7 were also carried out in the entity of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, this was not as pronounced as in Republika Srpska. The first return of displaced persons (refugees and displaced persons) was to the settlement of Mahala, which until the Dayton Agreement was located in the municipality of Kalesija and after Dayton in the municipality of Osmaci in the entity of Republika Srpska. It was August 24, 1996. This was followed by the return of Bosniaks to the settlements of Jusići and Dugi dio in the municipality of Zvornik and Svjetliča in the municipality of Doboj. These events also marked the official start of the implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although the Dayton Agreement guaranteed the return of the exiles, everything went much harder on the ground, and there were also human casualties. Between 1992 and 1995, approximately 2.2 million people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were forced to flee their homes as a result of the war against Bosnia and Herzegovina. About 1.2 million people have applied for refugee protection in more than 100 countries around the world, while countries in the region have accepted about 40% of the total number of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Almost one million people were internally displaced in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the beginning of 2003, the Strategy of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement was adopted. It was the first, at the level of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, harmonized, framework document which sets goals and plans the necessary actions and reforms towards the final implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement. According to the 2015 UNHCR Annual Statistical Report, the number of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina outside the country was 18,748. Of these, 9,080 had refugee status in Serbia, 4,055 in France, 2,274 in Switzerland, 1,412 in Germany, and the remaining number in other countries. It is estimated that at the end of 1995 there were about one million displaced persons, accounting for almost a quarter of Bosnia and Herzegovina's pre-war population. The first comprehensive, official census of displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina was conducted at the end of 2000, when 557,275 displaced persons were registered. The 2005 audit of the status of displaced persons identified 186,138 displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the data of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees from 2016, there were 98,574 displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which 38,345 or 40.6% were displaced in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 59,834 or 58.8% in the Republika Srpska and 395 or 0.5% in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the ethnic structure of displaced persons, according to the head of household - families, 32.7% (10,667 families and 30,920 persons) are Bosniaks, 60.0% (19,565 families and 60,737 persons) Serbs, 6.7% (2,195 families and 6,374 persons) Croats and 0.6% (184 families and 542 persons) Others. According to the 2016 data of the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees, by the end of 2016, around 341,000 housing units had been built or renovated in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska, the Bosnian language is denied. Teaching in the Bosnian language is prohibited, and the language is called the non-existent Bosniak language. This discriminates against students who want their language to be called Bosnian. In addition, high-ranking officials from the Republika Srpska in public appearances deny the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosniaks as a people, deny genocide against Bosniaks, which affects the perspective of the people of this area. Streets in cities bear the names of war criminals from the Second World War and the period of aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, busts of war criminals are being built, schools and other state institutions are being „sanctified“, etc. In the period 1995-2020. Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement was not fully implemented in 2006, as an important factor in the reintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the recognition of the results of armed aggression and genocide against Bosniaks.
3
Hodžić, Jasmin. "Stavovi srpskih političara o jeziku u Bosni i Hercegovini 1991–1995." Historijski pogledi 5, no. 8 (November 15, 2022): 370–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2022.5.8.370.
Full textAbstract:
The topic of this article does not cover the views of all Serbian politicians on the language in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the beginning of the 1990s, at least not those who remained in the convocation of the Assembly of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and who were opponents of the policy of the Serbian Democratic Party, that is, they did not agree with it. In this paper, we analyze shorthand notes from the so-called Assembly of the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1991 to 1995 (from January 1992, the so-called Republic of the Serbian People of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and from March 1992, the so-called Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and from September 1992, the Republic of Srpska). The aim of this paper is twofold. One is analyzing the nationalist attitudes of Serbian politicians about the language in Bosnian society from the beginning of the 1990s, while the other is pointing out the presence of some open and tolerant attitudes. Topic wise, we follow the narrative about the use of the alphabet or the discussion about the relationship between the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Moreover, particular focus is on the discourse about the name of the language and the mutual relationship between the linguistic identities of Serbs, Croats and Bosniak Muslims. Lastly, we will pay special attention to the issue of Ekavica (ekavian speech) and the model of political partialness and imposition of the Ekavian language of identity in the dialect space to which it does not originally belong. As the use of Ekavica was the biggest point of contention in the debates of Serbian politicians, in this paper we will additionally refer to a brief historical overview of the status of Ekavica in the Bosnian society, especially in education. Documents about the usage of Ekavica in special circumstances will also be presented in this paper. As the documents show, however, Ekavica is a means of spreading Serbian national interests in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Following some ideas of proposed or adopted legislative acts on language from the beginning of the 1990s, we will analyze the transcripts from a total of thirteen parliamentary sessions where language was discussed, along with about twenty individually expressed views during parliamentary procedures. As a thorough presentation or analysis of all of the above would exceed the usual article length, we will present only some parliamentary positions directly as sources. Other views will be systematized and analyzed as a group through the discussion and conclusions. Views that directly concern the current organization of our society and state will be particularly dealt with. In that regard, significant data on how Serbian is positioned in relation to the Bosnian and Croatian languages through the directly stated views of Serbian political representatives on several occasions and at separate parliamentary sessions can also be observed. Two opposing models were found – tolerance in language views, on one hand, and open discrimination and linguistic imperialism in the misuse of language for political purposes on the other hand. The starting motive for research of this type is a contextualized relationship to the current situation in connection with official negative attitudes towards language rights in the Bosnian entity the Republic of Srpska, with a special contextual connection with the latest legislative acts – the so-called unity of the Serbian cultural space, the guidelines for the unified cultural and educational policy of the Serbian people (from 2019), and the Declaration on the borders of the Serbian language (from 2022) – without directly entering into the content elements thereof.
4
Moll, Nicolas. "Fragmented memories in a fragmented country: memory competition and political identity-building in today's Bosnia and Herzegovina." Nationalities Papers 41, no. 6 (November 2013): 910–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2013.768220.
Full textAbstract:
Bosnia and Herzegovina is politically fragmented, and so is the memory landscape within the country. Narratives of the 1992–1995 war, the Second World War, Tito's Yugoslavia, and earlier historical periods form highly disputed patterns in a memory competition involving representatives of the three “constituent peoples” of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks – but also non-nationalist actors within BiH, as well as the international community. By looking especially at political declarations and the practices of commemoration and monument building, the article gives an overview of the fragmented memory landscape in Bosnia and Herzegovina, pointing out the different existing memory narratives and policies and the competition between them in the public sphere, and analyzing the conflicting memory narratives as a central part of the highly disputed political identity construction processes in postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina. The paper also discusses the question whether an “Europeanization” of Bosnian memory cultures could be an alternative to the current fragmentation and nationalist domination of the memory landscape in BiH.
5
Omerbegović, Sead, and Izudin Šarić. "Border disputes between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia." Historijski pogledi 2, no. 2 (October 28, 2019): 414–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2019.2.2.414.
Full textAbstract:
Bosnia and Herzegovina has been fighting for centuries through centuries in order to remain a unique, complete, independent and sovereign state. Throughout its many years of history, the various rulers who shared, appropriated, gave and took parts of its territory without any consequences were replaced in its territory. Following the independence referendum held on February 29 and March 1, 1992, the international recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina followed on 6 April 1992 by the European Community (EC) in its existing borders. On June 30, 1999, Bosnia and Herzegovina signed the Border Agreement with the Republic of Croatia, but it has never been ratified by the Croatian Parliament or by the Bosnia and Herzegovina Parliament. When it comes to the territorial demarcation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the neighboring countries, the opinion of the Badinter Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia, which defined the boundaries of delimitation based on some rules of international law, is important. In this regard, it is necessary to point out the legal significance of Opinion no. 3. Arbitration commissions which read: "The borders between former federal units are considered to be the borders of the successor states, and can not be changed by force, but only by agreement". The principle of "uti possidetis" can serve as a basis for defining the land borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina with neighboring countries. The gaining of Bosnia and Herzegovina's independence and its international recognition has sparked an interest in the issue of identification, that is, determining its land borders with neighboring countries, as well as the sea delineation with the Republic of Croatia. The international recognition of new states implies clearly and undoubtedly the limits of its sovereignty.
6
Gibas-Krzak, Danuta. "The Development of Muslim Nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina." Review of Croatian history 16, no. 1 (August 1, 2020): 177–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.22586/review.v16i1.11491.
Full textAbstract:
The main goal of this article is to show the conditions and circumstances of the formation of Muslim nation in communist Yugoslavia and the increase of its significance during and after the civil war 1992-1995. Furthermore, author presents the characteristics of contemporary nationalism, and distinguishes specific Balkan nationalism, which is often chauvinistic, ahistorical, militant and exclusive, of ethnocultural character. The identity of Bosnian Muslims originated from belief that their origin, language and culture related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which makes them different from the Turks and other Islamic nations living in the Ottoman Empire. The genesis of forming Muslim nation in Yugoslavia is interpreted in various ways by the researchers. There is a hypothesis that it has been developed thanks to activity of young people who convinced Josip Broz Tito that such decision would reduce tensions between the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the Author, Muslim inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina can’t be a separate nation, above all, since the followers of Islam were nationally indifferent, and their cultural legacy is completely different than Serbian and Croatian legacy.
7
Pečenković, Vildana. "Issues of Identity in Trilogija o Bosni by Valerija Skrinjar-Tvrz." Društvene i humanističke studije (Online) 7, no. 4(21) (December 30, 2022): 219–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.51558/2490-3647.2022.7.4.219.
Full textAbstract:
The paper questions the construction of identity in the novels of Slovenian-Bosnian authoress Valerija Skrinjar-Tvrz: Na svojoj, na plemenitoj, Jutro u Bosni and Bosna i Soča, which were combined and published as a trilogy this year. Integrating the period of medieval Bosnia, the First World War, and the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992-1995 into one whole, the trilogy achieves multiple coding. Although distant in time, driven by different motivations, and intersected by different ideologies, wars shape the lives of the heroes of this trilogy. In this unique poetic entity, the authoress managed to show the complexity of common life through individual destinies and “small stories” and to deconstruct the conception that history is made up of “big stories”. The identities of individuals in the novels represent the identities of communities whose borders are porous and threaten to destroy the established systems, while individual unfortunate destinies are a mirror of collective traumas from the Middle Ages to modern times. The Trilogy covers almost the entire Bosnian history, trying to include identity constructions and their associated identification features, which the authoress considers representative of contemporary identity re/configurations.
8
Savoskin, A. M., and O. Yu Kurnykin. "Participation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in the Settlement of the Bosnian Crisis of 1992-1995." Izvestiya of Altai State University, no. 3(125) (July 12, 2022): 45–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.14258/izvasu(2022)3-07.
Full textAbstract:
The Bosnian Crisis became a milestone in the process of disintegration of Yugoslavia. An important role in the development and settlement of the conflict was played by external actors, represented both by the countries of the West, as well as NATO and the EU, and by the Muslim community, which actively supported their co-religionists in Bosnia. On behalf of the latter, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC, since 2011 — the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is the most authoritative and representative Muslim international organization, spoke. The position of the OIC, its interaction with the Bosnian leadership and other parties to the conflict significantly influenced the outcome of the Bosnian Crisis, despite the fact that most researchers tend to classify the OIC as a secondary participant in the process. The topic of the Bosnian conflict became one of the key ones at several conferences of foreign ministers of the OIC member countries, and the consolidated position of Muslim states developed at them in support of the Bosnians, according to the authors, prompted other stakeholders in the issue of resolving the conflict to more decisive action. The organization itself pursued the goal of including Bosnia and Herzegovina in its sphere of influence, but in the future this Balkan state will never become a member of the OIC, being content with observer status to this day. Nevertheless, the impact of international Islamic structures and, above all, the OIC on the course of hostilities and the political settlement in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a significant factor that retained its significance in the post-war period. Thus, the study of the history of interaction between the OIC and the Bosnian side seems relevant in order to identify the role and influence of the Islamic world on political processes in the Western Balkans and, above all, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9
Arnaut Haseljić, Meldijana. "The Dayton peace agreement – The end of greater state claims?" Historijski pogledi 4, no. 6 (November 15, 2021): 135–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2021.4.6.135.
Full textAbstract:
The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton Peace Agreement) accepted in Paris on December 14, 1995 was signed by: for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović, for the Republic of Croatia dr. Franjo Tudjman and Slobodan Milosevic for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There are good reasons why the international community has demanded that these people be signatories to the Dayton Peace Agreement. Namely, after unsuccessful attempts to establish an agreement on constitutional solutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting with Cutileiro's plan (cantonization of Bosnia and Herzegovina on ethnic grounds), on which talks in Sarajevo began in February 1992, until the conference in London on 26 and On August 27, 1992, it was obvious that the positions of the Serb and Croat sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina were being harmonized with the positions of Belgrade and Zagreb, that is, the policies previously agreed and agreed upon on the Milosevic-Tudjman route. Three delegations participated in the conference in London. On behalf of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Government were President Alija Izetbegović, Minister of Foreign Affairs Haris Silajdžić, Ejup Ganić and General Sefer Halilović. The Bosnian Serb delegation included Radovan Karadzic, RS President Momcilo Krajisnik, RS Vice President and VRS General Ratko Mladic, who were in direct consultations with Belgrade throughout the negotiations. Representatives of Bosnian Croats were the President of HZ HB Mate Boban, then the Prime Minister of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mile Akmadžić (although he was a member of the Government of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina, he participated as a member of the Croatian delegation) and General Milivoj Petković. Croatian President Franjo Tudjman also took part in the negotiations and was the unofficial but de facto head of the Croatian delegation. Following the London Conference and the failure of the previous negotiations, the European Community Conference on Yugoslavia was expanded to include the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, chaired by Cyrus Vance (US diplomat on behalf of the UN) and Lord David Owen (on behalf of the EC / U). a new era of peace negotiations. Vance-Owen's plan foresaw the decentralization of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the existing borders with a constitutional order based on federal principles contained in a number of constitutive elements - regions (ten cantons formed on ethnic principles) and with the Sarajevo district where the central government would be located. This plan, after the refusal of the Serbian Assembly from Pale to ratify it, was definitely rejected. This was followed by the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace Plan (Constitutional Agreement on the Alliance of the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina) which offered a confederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina composed of three republics made up of ethnicity, but this plan also proved unacceptable. The Contact Group's plan followed the establishment of the Washington Agreement, which established the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in March 1994. This plan provided for the preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a union within its internationally recognized borders, and territorial division according to the percentage of territory (51:49). The Serbian leadership in Pale also refused to accept this proposal. The international community had to look for new solutions. The Contact Group's plan was a step towards negotiations that will result in the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. However, it is important to note that all the plans offered led to the discovery of hidden policies created by the eastern and western neighbors of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, all the proposed proposals for "peace plans", which the international community tried to impose in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were based on constitutional devastation and territorial division, thus accepting armed conquests and occupation of the area with the ultimate goal of destroying its territorial integrity and statehood. sovereignty, which made it obvious that the international community was not ready to protect the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state guaranteed by international law, which was especially denied by the introduction of an arms embargo, which prevented it from protecting its own sovereignty and territorial integrity. What was the role of the signatories of the Dayton Agreement in the preparation and execution of bilateral aggression against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim of implementing plans for the partition of Bosnia and the realization of large-scale projects, and whether it determined their position as signatories to the General Framework Agreement? and the topic of trials of international courts with the aim of establishing, proving and convicting committed crimes. What is the significance of the signatories in the establishment and preservation of peace, and whether large-scale projects and plans for their implementation ended with the signing of the Dayton Agreement are questions whose answers are still being sought 25 years after the signing of the agreement. Namely, Slobodan Milosevic, the then president of the Federal Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), before the signing of the Dayton Agreement, appeared before the ICTY as an indictee for crimes committed in the Republics of the former Yugoslavia - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo. The trial was not terminated due to the death of the accused, but the Trial Chamber rendered a decision on the motion for acquittal (Interim Judgment of the Hague Tribunal of 16 June 2004), which established his responsibility for genocide committed in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Franjo Tudjman, the then President of the Republic of Croatia, was identified as a participant in a joint criminal enterprise in a verdict handed down for crimes committed by the Croatian Army (HV) and the Croatian Defense Council (HVO) against the civilian population of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Case IT-04-74 Prlić etc). In its appeal verdict against the Bosnian six, the ICTY Appeals Chamber found that there was an international armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the state of occupation, but also confirmed the existence of a Croatian joint criminal enterprise aimed at "ethnic cleansing" certain areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croatia's Franjo Tudjman as one of the participants in this JCE. Thus, persons who found themselves in court proceedings and were held responsible for the consequences of the policies they implemented, the commission of crimes and joint criminal enterprises realized in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, became signatories of the Dayton Peace Agreement and guarantors of peace.
10
Karčić, Hikmet. "Percepcija stvaranje ‘Muslimanske države’ u presretnutim telefonskim razgovorima između srpske političke elite 1991-1992." Historijski pogledi 5, no. 8 (November 15, 2022): 350–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2022.5.8.350.
Full textAbstract:
During 1991, the security services of Bosnia and Herzegovina began to monitor the telephone conversations of high-ranking officials of the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS). These recorded conversations reveal part of the truth to the preparations for the war and the genocide that followed. Intercepted conversations also show the connections that Serbian officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina had with Belgrade, that is, with Slobodan Milošević and other officials of the Yugoslav leadership. These conversations were recorded until the beginning of the aggression, that is, until they left the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in March and April 1992, by persons whose phones were tapped. This paper will deal with conversations that were recorded in the period from May 1991 to March 1992. One of the most common topics of these conversations was the issue of Islam, that is, the thematization of terms such as „Islamic Republic“, „Islamic Declaration“, „Islamic way of life“, „Islamic fundamentalism“, etc. The paper shows how the Serbian political elite used this terminology to instill fear in public opinion, but to a certain extent they also believed that an increased birth rate would lead to the establishment of a Muslim-majority state. For the purposes of writing this paper, research was done on primary sources, i.e. transcripts of intercepted conversations. The transcripts were used as evidence by the Prosecutor's Office of the Hague Tribunal during the trial of high-ranking Serbian officials. In addition to the research, sorting and analysis of the transcripts, this paper will also identify the most prominent participants in the conversation of the Serbian leadership. Also, given the aforementioned specificity of telephone conversations through their private nature, it is possible to dissect important topics in the conversations, which are often not military and political, and will contribute to finding additional answers. This makes these conversations even more important because they show a more intimate side of the genocidal strategist. Participants such as high-ranking officials Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, Biljana Plavšić, Nikola Koljević, Momčilo Krajišnik, Dobrica Čosić and others, shows what and how those at the top thought in their private telephone conversations in those days in 1991 and 1992. On the other hand, through the conversations, one can see how well the SDS leadership managed the situation on the ground. Low-ranking figures who performed various political and social tasks such as Todor Dutin, director of the SRNA, Rajko Dukić, president of the SDS Executive Committee and a local strongman in Milići appear in the conversations; Vojo Kuprešanin, member of the Main Board of SDS and a key man in Krajina; Vitomir Žepinić, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Radoslav Brđanin, head of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, Zvonko Bajagić, a prominent member of the SDS in Vlasenica, Gojko Đogo, writer and essayist, a close friend of Karadžić, Momčilo Momo Mandić, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina and later wartime Minister of Justice of the so-called „Republic Serbian“,; Trifko Komad, head of Radovan Karadžić's Cabinet and member of the SDS Main Board and many others. Also, what is important to mention is the visible 'radicalization' of the participants in the talks. As the political situation on the ground worsened, hate speech and threats became more frequent and serious. This paper aims to further approach this important topic of intercepted conversations and to popularize its greater use in scientific research works. With the advancement of technology and means of communication, the primary sources for research are slowly shifting and taking on a new look. Thus, this paper also tries to analyze these intercepted conversations to give some insight into the complexity of understanding the genocidal intentions of the Bosnian Serb leadership.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Bosnia and Herzegovina History 1992-"
1
Peres, Andréa Carolina Schvartz. "Contando histórias = fixers em Saravejo." [s.n.], 2010. http://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/280792.
Full textAbstract:
Orientador: Omar Ribeiro ThomazTese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas
Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-17T09:53:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Peres_AndreaCarolinaSchvartz_D.pdf: 10660559 bytes, checksum: 71a38dbde9e434ec7f46703f12dcfb11 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010
Resumo: A partir de pesquisa de campo em Sarajevo sobre fixers e outros que trabalharam para os jornalistas estrangeiros durante a guerra na Bósnia-Herzegóvina, pretendo pensar o lugar desses sujeitos na constituição de uma fala sobre o conflito. Paralelamente, penso a guerra enquanto um contexto de elaboração de discursos e identidades, que se revelaria de modo especial por meio destes sujeitos que procuro analisar. Os fixers são os intérpretes, os guias que tornaram possível o fazer jornalístico durante a guerra - em um lugar estrangeiro e de língua estrangeira para os grandes veículos internacionais de imprensa, predominantemente norte-americanos e europeus, que realizaram a cobertura do conflito e a transmitiram para todo o globo. Penso os fixers, portanto, como reveladores dos processos elencados acima e, também, como emblemáticos para se pensar o próprio fazer antropológico e o lugar do intermediário, sempre presente no campo, mas, na maioria das vezes, ausente nas etnografias. Esse trabalho é sobre eles, e como contam e entendem a sua história e a construção do estado na Bósnia
Abstract: Considering the field research in Sarajevo about fixers and those people ho worked for foreign journalists during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I analyze their role in the making of the history about the conflict. Besides that, I consider the war as a context of elaboration of discourses and identities that can be noticed through the subjects I analyze. Fixers are the translators, the guides who made the work of journalists during the war possible - in a foreign country, a strange language - for the great Media Corporations, mainly American and European, who covered the conflict and broadcasted it worldwide. I think that the research about fixers shed light on the processes quoted before, and eventually, on the anthropological work itself, concerning the role of the "intermediary", always present on the field, but mostly absent in the ethnographies. Hence, this thesis is about those people and about how they are telling history and thinking the building of the State
Doutorado
Antropologia Social
Doutor em Antropologia Social
2
Tošić, Mladen. "State-building processes in post-1995 Bosnia and Herzegovina." Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2011. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.609479.
Full text
3
Jungić, Ozren. "Ideology and war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1992-95 : evidence from the tribunal." Thesis, University of Oxford, 2015. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:8bdd4a0a-12c4-4c32-a716-e9b7da51320d.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis relies on evidence from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to argue that systematic ethnic violence occurred during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina because of the implementation of extreme ideological visions promoted by top political leaders. The first section demonstrates how Serb and Croat nationalist politicians in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia determined to create expanded monoethnic states as Yugoslavia collapsed in 1991-92. The second section illustrates how institutions dominated by Serbian President Slobodan Milos̆evic and the Croatian government led by Franjo Tudman sponsored the military campaigns conducted by Bosnian Serb and Croat forces, which attempted to realise the visions imagined in 1991-92. The final section reveals how in 1994-95, leaders from Croatia and Serbia shifted their short term strategies towards Bosnia for pragmatic reasons, and while the Croatian leadership succeeded in forcing Bosnian Croat nationalists to abate their separatist campaign, Milos̆evic's efforts to pacify the Bosnian Serb leadership failed and Radovan Karadz̆ic's regime continued to pursue its state-building programme until its defeat in summer 1995. Although both Milos̆evic and Tudman yielded their pre-war ambitions in the face of battlefield outcomes and international pressure, this thesis argues that both leaders regarded the peace agreements they signed as temporary compromises on their long-term ambitions. The words of top political decision-makers reveal the ideas and reasoning that inspired programmes to homogenise multi-ethnic Bosnia and divide it between Serbia and Croatia.
4
Sheftel, Anna. "The construction of formal and informal historical narratives of violence in north-western Bosnia, World War II until present." Thesis, University of Oxford, 2013. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.669877.
Full text
5
Sadic, Adin. "History and Development of the Communication Regulatory Agency in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1998-2005." Ohio : Ohio University, 2006. http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?ohiou1142281304.
Full text
6
Thauby, Cortés Yury Francisco. "Sacralización de valores y limpieza étnica: Bosnia-Herzegovina (1991-1995)." Tesis, Universidad de Chile, 2006. http://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/110374.
Full textAbstract:
El vocabulario étnico es frecuentemente solicitado en los medios de comunicación para informar sobre masacres y violencia, en que los actores se opondrían por “su lengua”, “su religión”, “su cultura”. El sentido común tiende a considerar los grupos étnicos como naturales en la existencia humana, como una realidad primordial e inefable. El hecho de pertenecer a tal o cual grupo se relacionaría entonces con la herencia biológica de cada individuo. En cuanto a la oposición entre esos grupos, sería igualmente casi natural. El hombre estaría llevado a un comportamiento inhumano y bárbaro en presencia de una demasiado grande diversidad cultural y religiosa. En definitiva, las diferencias étnicas concluirían indefectiblemente en conflicto. Con esta lógica, los diferentes grupos nacionales, por norma, deberían ser gobernados en Estados separados, esto siendo la línea evolutiva de las relaciones entre los grupos humanos. Por ende, cabe problematizar este tema a través de concepciones etnográficas. En efecto, ésta apunta a poner de relieve el rol que pueden jugar las representaciones sociales en la construcción de la alteridad. A este respecto, uno de los conflictos que sacudió la ex-Yugoslavia ha sido generalmente pensado en las categorías: Serbios contra Croatas (ortodoxos contra católicos); Serbios contra Bosniacos (ortodoxos contra musulmanes). La elección de las categorías nacionales o religiosas parece indicar que la diferencia constituye el motor del conflicto.
7
Powell, Stephen. "The psychosocial consequences of the 1992-5 war in Bosnia & Herzegovina." Thesis, Middlesex University, 2012. http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/8402/.
Full textAbstract:
a) The research carried out: eight different samples of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina were assessed in 1998 and 1999, two to four years after the end of the 1992-5 war, covering a wide range of variables including traumatic and stressful experiences and various measures of psychosocial adaptation including PTSD. b) Main results and conclusion: the results were published in nine papers which are described in this Context Statement, and which are also included as Appendices. Taken together, the specific (and sometimes tragic) features of the conflict in B&H, and some strengths of the research design, enabled the papers to make a significant contribution to three key psychological themes. The first theme was PTSD concept and measurement. The psychometric performance of measures of PTSD in B&H were found to be similar to other published results, suggesting that the construct is as valid for the B&H population as for the comparison populations on which the instrument was developed. The case is also made for dropping Criterion A from the DSM PTSD diagnosis altogether, on the grounds of overwhelming practical and conceptual problems with assessing it using populations with multiple stressors. The second theme was epidemiology and aetiology of PTSD and other symptom groups. Quite apart from PTSD, the war had a very significant impact on general mental health across the population. Current PTSD prevalences in the non-treatment samples ranged from 11% amongst returned refugees to 36% amongst internally displaced persons (IDPs) in camps, which are in line with the literature. Beyond PTSD, impact was concentrated in particularly high levels of somatisation, paranoid ideation, and aggression. PTSD prevalences amongst returned refugees are clearly lower than those of their peers who stayed in host countries, and much lower than all known reports in refugee samples abroad. Analysis of persons in treatment suggests that those who seek treatment for PTSD (as opposed to other medical problems) do have high levels of PTSD symptoms specifically, but not necessarily because they experienced a larger number of traumatic events. The third theme looked beyond psychopathology. Findings suggest that the concept of post-traumatic growth can be validly extended to this population, but levels were considerably lower than reported in most other studies on other kinds of traumatic event. Finally PTSD and the PTSD diagnosis are discussed in a broader social context and it is concluded that while the war had many different kinds of consequences beyond the purely clinical, this should not divert attention from the fact that individual, clinically-relevant suffering was prevalent in the population at levels warranting urgent attention from public health care.
8
Peter, Mateja. "Constructing international authority : the international administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2013. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.648359.
Full text
9
Günen, Berna. "The European press coverage of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina." Paris, Institut d'études politiques, 2011. http://www.theses.fr/2011IEPP0023.
Full textAbstract:
La thèse porte sur la guerre en Bosnie (avril 1992-décembre 1995) et la diffusion de cette guerre par la presse européenne. Le travail consiste à analyser les commentaires et les éditoriaux publiés dans les presses britannique, française et allemande entre 1991 et 1995. Les journaux consultés sont les suivants: The Guardian, The Times, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung et Süddeutsche Zeitung. L’ambition est de prouver que l’intense couverture de la guerre en Bosnie ne montre pas nécessairement une bonne compréhension de celle-ci par les commentateurs. Au contraire, ces derniers se furent montrés arrogants sinon ignorants. La presse européenne réagit aux symptômes de la guerre tandis qu’elle ignora et/ou déforma ses causes et ses dynamiques. Les vieux préjugés sur les Balkans firent que les commentaires soient pleins d’erreurs factuelles et d’incohérences. Cette approche eurocentrique initiale des commentateurs les mena à se réfugier dans une interprétation eurocentrique de la guerre en Bosnie (cercle vicieux). Puisque la Bosnie était ethniquement trop hétérogène pour survivre à la désintégration yougoslave et qu’elle était donc vouée à la guerre civile, ce qui était en jeu n’était plus d’assurer une paix juste et durable en Bosnie, mais d’arrêter la guerre de sorte que les organisations occidentales et internationales puissent sauver la face. En dernière analyse, la couverture intense mais confuse de la presse européenne aboutirent à la caricaturisation du conflit, ce qui renforça les vieux préjugés parmi les lecteurs. La thèse ainsi confirme que le danger ne réside pas dans la médiatisation des événements, mais dans la caricaturisation de ceux-ciThe dissertation focuses on the war in Bosnia (April 1992-December 1995) and its coverage by the European press. Its scope has been limited to the commentaries and the editorials published in the British, French and German press between 1991 and 1995. The newspapers which have been analysed are The Guardian, The Times, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung. The aim of this dissertation is to prove that the European press’ intense coverage of the Bosnian war did not necessarily mean that it fully understood this conflict. On the contrary, the commentators’ approach was arrogant, if not ignorant. The European press responded to the symptoms of the war while it ignored and/or distorted its causes and dynamics. The commentaries written under the influence of old prejudices on the Balkans included many factual errors and inconsistencies. The commentators’ initial Eurocentric approach led them to adopt an equally Eurocentric interpretation of the Bosnian war as a defence mechanism (vicious circle). Since Bosnia was ethnically too heterogeneous to survive the disintegration of Yugoslavia and therefore doomed to civil war, so the argument went, what was at stake was not to broker a just and durable peace in Bosnia, but to stop the war somehow so that Western/international organisations could save face. In the final analysis, the press’ intense yet chaotic coverage led to the caricaturisation of the Bosnian war, which in turn reinforced the existing prejudices among the readers. The dissertation thus confirms that the real danger lies not in mediatisation as such, but in caricaturisation of world events
10
Osmanovic, Sheila. "Muslim identity, 'Neo-Islam' and the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina." Thesis, University of East London, 2015. http://roar.uel.ac.uk/4295/.
Full textAbstract:
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, Yugoslavia was entangled in a fratricidal break-up. In none of the other former Yugoslav republics did the conflict turn as violent as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which suffered genocide, the greatest number of victims and the highest percentage of infrastructural destruction. Although its three ethnic communities – Muslims, Serbs and Croats – were previously well integrated, the break-up of Yugoslavia exposed Bosnia’s unique Islamic component, which both Serbs and Croats perceived to be the major impediment to the continuation of a pluralistic society. Islam, however, only turned into a divisive and decisive factor in the conflict when combined with ethnic nationalism. Previous research into the causes of the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the break-up of Yugoslavia has identified Bosnia’s long Islamic heritage and large Muslim population on the doorstep of Europe as specific features influencing both its rationale and resolution. Yet there has been no analysis of the role and impact of ‘neo-Islam’ (a term I explained below) in the conflict – an omission this thesis seeks to redress. The thesis uses historical analysis to demonstrate that Bosnia and Herzegovina was frequently subject to international intervention during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it explores whether the unique Islamic component was the reason behind this phenomenon, and seeks to comprehend why Bosnia and Herzegovina has always appeared to pose a problem for the international community, from the papal persecutions of the medieval Bogumils through to the present day.
Books on the topic "Bosnia and Herzegovina History 1992-"
1
Hassan, Mohamad Rashidi. Bosnia Herzegovina. Setapak Jaya, Kuala Lumpur: Tawheed Publication, 1992.
Find full text
2
Bosnia-Herzegovina: The end of a legacy. London: Frank Cass, 2003.
Find full text
3
Ivanišević, Milivoje. Expulsion of the Serbs from Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1992-1995. Belgrade: Arda-promet, 2000.
Find full text
4
V Corps in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1995-1996: An oral history. Fort Leavenworth, Kan: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2009.
Find full text
5
Cox, Marcus. Strategic approaches to international intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Geneva: Center for Applied Studies in International Negotiations (CASIN), 1998.
Find full text
6
Dervišević, Ibrahim. Prva slavna i viteška brigada: Herojstvo i žrtve u odbrani Sarajeva 1992.-1995. godina. Sarajevo: Vijeće Kongresa bošnjačkih intelektualaca, 2009.
Find full text
7
Delić, Rasim. Armija Republike Bosne i Hercegovine: Nastanak, razvoj i odbrana zemlje. Sarajevo: Vijeće Kongresa bošnjačkih intelektualaca, 2007.
Find full text
8
Forgotten future: The politics of poetry in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010.
Find full text
9
Paul, Shoup, ed. The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Ethnic conflict and international intervention. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, 1999.
Find full text
10
Wolfe, Murray Rupert, and IFOR (Organization), eds. IFOR on IFOR: NATO peacekeepers in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Edinburgh: Connect, 1996.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "Bosnia and Herzegovina History 1992-"
1
Pingel, Falk. "A Clash of Communication? Intervening in Textbook Writing and Curriculum Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina After the War of 1992–1995." In History Education and Conflict Transformation, 231–55. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54681-0_9.
Full text
2
Batarilo-Henschen, Katarina. "Bosnia and Herzegovina." In The Palgrave Handbook of Conflict and History Education in the Post-Cold War Era, 113–27. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05722-0_7.
Full text
3
Donia, Robert J. "Bosnia-Herzegovina under Austria-Hungary." In The Routledge Handbook of Balkan and Southeast European History, 135–43. First edition. | New York: Routledge, 2021.: Routledge, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429464799-19.
Full text
4
Čvoro, Uroš. "Monumentalisation of History." In Post-Conflict Monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15–34. New York: Routledge, 2020.: Routledge, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780367138448-2.
Full text
5
Čvoro, Uroš. "Privatisation of History." In Post-Conflict Monuments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 35–54. New York: Routledge, 2020.: Routledge, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780367138448-3.
Full text
6
Aka, Philip C. "Background History: Constitutional Law of Healthcare in Bosnia and Herzegovina." In Genetic Counseling and Preventive Medicine in Post-War Bosnia, 21–30. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7987-5_2.
Full text
7
Majstorović, Danijela. "A Short History of a Mobilizable Postsocialist Body Politic: The Banja Luka Social Center." In Discourse and Affect in Postsocialist Bosnia and Herzegovina, 103–46. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80245-5_5.
Full text
8
Jozelic, Jasna. "Reconfiguring and Imposing Identity: Politicization of Identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina." In Nationalism and the Politicization of History in the Former Yugoslavia, 323–34. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65832-8_16.
Full text
9
Šimić, Goran. "To Believe or Not to Believe: Current History Textbooks in Bosnia and Herzegovina." In Nationhood and Politicization of History in School Textbooks, 155–79. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38121-9_9.
Full text
10
Sheftel, Anna. "“I don’t fancy history very much”: Reflections on Interviewee Recruitment and Refusal in Bosnia-Herzegovina." In Oral History Off the Record, 255–71. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137339652_15.
Full textConference papers on the topic "Bosnia and Herzegovina History 1992-"
1
Hladký, Ladislav. "Czech Historiography on Bosnia and Herzegovina (2000–2018)." In Međunaordna naučno-kulturološka konferencija “Istoriografija o BiH (2001–2017 )”. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.5644/pi2020.186.08.
Full textAbstract:
This paper provides a synopsis and characterization of the most important historiographically, politologically, and ethnologically oriented works published in the Czech Republic between 2000 and 2018 on the history and current evolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Czech works on the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be divided into two main groups. The first group includes monographs by historians who were familiar with the reality of Bosnian multiethnicity in the period before the breakup of Yugoslavia and in that context, therefore, continue in their books to support the idea of preserving Bosnia within its existing borders and in the form of a multinational state. The second group comprises books by Czech authors who primarily focus on analysing political events in the contemporary, socalled post-Dayton Bosnia, of which they are highly critical and as a result also highly skeptical when it comes to the prospect of continued coexistence between the nations of Bosnia. During the period in question, several works were published in the Czech Republic dedicated to the history of Czech-Bosnian relations and the synthetical treatment of the history of the Czech national minority living in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2
Suto, K., M. Urosevic, and S. Komatina. "An MASW Survey for Landslide Risk Assessment in Novi Seher, Bosnia and Herzegovina – A Case History." In 23rd European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics. Netherlands: EAGE Publications BV, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201702110.
Full text
3
Suto, K., J. Sugawara, M. Urosevic, S. Arsenovic, and S. Komatina. "Integrated Geophysical and Geotechnical Analyses at a Landslide Area - Case History in Lopare, Bosnia and Herzegovina." In 24th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics. Netherlands: EAGE Publications BV, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802538.
Full text
4
Suto, Koya, Milovan Uroševic, and Snežana Komatina. "An MASW survey of landslide risk area in Bradic, Bosnia, and Herzegovina: A Geoscientists Without Borders® case history." In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2017. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2017-17746367.1.
Full text
5
Fotova Čiković, Katerina. "COVID-19 CRISIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM’S RESPONSE IN SOUTHEAST EUROPEAN ECONOMIES: A CAS FRAMEWORK." In 5th International Scientific Conference – EMAN 2021 – Economics and Management: How to Cope With Disrupted Times. Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade, Serbia, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.31410/eman.s.p.2021.75.
Full textAbstract:
The global COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the world in 2020 and it has been recognized as the biggest stress test in the history of the European Union. The pandemic is inflicting high and rising human costs worldwide, and the necessary protection measures are severely impacting economic activity. As a result of the pandemic, the global economy had been projected to contract sharply by –3 percent in 2020, which is much worse than during the 2008– 09 Global financial crisis. In these difficult and challenging times, countries and societies need to adapt to the new situation while minimizing the negative social and economic implications. This paper discusses how different governments in the South East Europe region (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia) have managed and dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic. A review of the current literature on COVID-19 is conducted. This paper should enable a better understanding of how different governments have faced the pandemic and how and to which extent they facilitated a proactive and timely approach towards crisis management. The objective of this study is to theorize a CAS (Complex Adaptive System) framework to evaluate the prevention, preparedness, response and crisis management and strategies used during the pandemic and assess the steps taken so far by the selected Southeast European transitional countries for tackling the COVID-19 crisis up to September 2020.
6
Damjanović, Srđan, Predrag Katanić, and Vesna Petrović. "HUMAN MOBILITY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES." In Economic and Business Trends Shaping the Future. Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty of Economics-Skopje, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.47063/ebtsf.2021.0021.
Full textAbstract:
At the end of 2019, a new coronavirus appeared in the Chinese province of Wuhan, causing the appearance of the disease COVID-19. The disease spread very quickly to other countries in the world, including the Balkans. The governments of many countries have decided to combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus in the community through social distancing measures. Decisions to ban the movement of people were easy to make, but they were very difficult to implement and enforce in practice. Some of the countries monitored their citizens through various applications installed on smartphones. This led to criticism by many NGOs, as they felt that this violated basic human rights of freedom of movement and privacy. Some lawsuits were even filed in the courts because the citizens felt that they were denied rights guaranteed by the respective constitution. Google uses the ability to monitor all those citizens around the world on a daily basis who use smartphones or handheld devices, which provide the option to record the "location history" of the users. This is possible for them, since most people have voluntarily agreed to this option on their devices. In early 2020, Google began publishing global mobility data on a daily basis through a report called “Community Mobility Reports”. The report shows the percentage change in human activity at six grouped locations. Data obtained in the reference days before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic are used as a basis for comparison. In this paper, we studied the dynamics of human mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic in 7 countries of the Balkans: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania. For Montenegro and Albania Google did not provide data on human mobility. We present the processed data graphically. For all examined countries, we statistically analyzed the obtained data and presented them in a table.