HARVARD RAISED A TOUGH QUESTION: Here’s America’s real interest in Bosnia and why the shift toward Republika Srpska matters!

Lawyer Ognjen Tadić reflected in his column on an article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy titled “Bosnia and Herzegovina: What Is the Interest of the American People?”, written by American attorney Joseph E. Schmitz and American Strategy Group president Brian T. Kennedy.

We are publishing the column in full:

Major changes rarely begin with dramatic speeches by statesmen. More often, they emerge in academic journals, research institutes, and intellectual circles, where the language that politicians will use tomorrow is first shaped.

The latest article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, titled “Bosnia and Herzegovina: What Is the Interest of the American People?”, written by American attorney Joseph E. Schmitz and American Strategy Group president Brian T. Kennedy, at first glance appears to be a legal discussion about Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Dayton Peace Agreement, and the role of the High Representative. However, beneath the dense network of footnotes, constitutional references, and discussions of American legal doctrine and practice lies a far more significant story—the end of an era.

From experiment to failure: A new American assessment of Bosnia and Herzegovina

For nearly three decades, the international narrative about Bosnia and Herzegovina was simple. Republika Srpska was portrayed as a problem that needed to be disciplined, while the Office of the High Representative was presented as an indispensable tool for building a functional state. Anyone who questioned the so-called Bonn Powers was automatically labeled an opponent of peace. Bosnia and Herzegovina was viewed as a place where Western powers sought to prove that complex societies could be reshaped through external governance. The High Representative became the symbol of that experiment. His powers expanded far beyond the limits envisioned by the Dayton Peace Agreement. What was introduced in 1995 as a temporary mechanism for preserving peace became a permanent model of what the authors describe as illegal and illegitimate governance.

The authors of the Harvard article reject that logic. They do not begin with emotions or wartime narratives. Instead, they ask a question characteristic of the new American foreign policy school: What is the interest of the United States in Bosnia and Herzegovina? From that question, they conclude that nearly thirty years of international tutelage has proven unsuccessful for both Bosnia and Herzegovina and the West.

What has been said for years in Banja Luka now appears in one of America’s most influential legal journals—not as a political slogan, but as the subject of serious constitutional analysis.

Illegal Bonn Powers, illegal decisions by High Representatives

It is particularly noteworthy that the authors do not challenge the Dayton Peace Agreement. On the contrary, they place it back at the center of the debate. Their main argument is that the problem began when the agreement itself started being disregarded. Annex 10 envisioned the High Representative as the coordinator of the civilian implementation of peace—not as a legislator. The authors argue that the Bonn Powers never became part of the agreement signed by its parties. They challenge not only specific decisions made by High Representatives but the very concept of an international protectorate. Their central claim—that no international representative can possess legislative authority unless it has been explicitly granted by the constitutional order of the country in which they operate—is presented as a constitutional, not political, argument. From this premise, they conclude that the Bonn Powers, as a later political construct, are legally questionable because they were never adopted with the consent of the Dayton Agreement’s signatories.

If that is the case, they argue, then a series of questions that have long been considered untouchable in international circles naturally arise: Can someone who has not been elected enact laws on behalf of a sovereign state? Can laws imposed in that way survive within a country’s legal system? And why should Bosnia and Herzegovina be an exception to the universal principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic legitimacy, allowing a foreign official to suspend parliamentary procedures, impose legislation, and alter the constitutional order?

Interestingly, the authors do not rely on Russian or Serbian sources, as their critics will likely claim. Instead, they base their arguments on the American Declaration of Independence, the constitutional tradition of the United States, and rulings of American courts. In other words, they draw upon the very sources that Western political thought regards as the foundation of its own society.

From sanctions to the prospect of a strategic partnership

Under the new approach promoted by the Harvard article, Republika Srpska is no longer presented as a constitutional problem or merely a target of political sanctions. Instead, it is described as a region of strategic resources and a potential partner within American policy toward Europe. Milorad Dodik is portrayed as a politician maintaining close ties with President Donald Trump’s administration. According to the column, this interpretation is not accidental but reflects a broader shift in how the current American establishment is beginning to view the Balkans compared to previous administrations.

These changing views within the American intellectual establishment represent both an opportunity and a challenge for Republika Srpska. If it wishes to establish itself as a consistent defender of the Dayton Peace Agreement, it must continue relying on arguments based on law, international treaties, and democratic legitimacy. Emotions may produce short-term political effects, but legal arguments reshape paradigms.

At the same time, the article also sends a message to Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The joint statement by SNSD and HDZ is interpreted not as a daily political event but as a possible beginning of a return to the original principles of the Dayton Peace Agreement. This opens the possibility of viewing political relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina through a different lens—not as a conflict between alleged reformers and obstructionists, but through the question of whether the constitutional order can be forcibly changed and then maintained without the consent of its constituent peoples.

That question will not disappear with the eventual departure of the High Representative. On the contrary, according to the column, it is only beginning to define the new debate about Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is why, the author argues, the Harvard article deserves attention far beyond academic circles.

Is Sarajevo still what it used to be?

There is one more interesting point that is difficult to ignore.

For more than three decades, political Sarajevo has closely monitored every word about Bosnia and Herzegovina coming from the United States. At one time, even a brief comment published in a small local American newspaper—or even a school publication—could become the main topic of television programs, front pages, panel discussions, and press conferences in Sarajevo. Columns by unknown authors, statements from former diplomats, or analyses by marginal think tanks were often presented as proof that American policy was unwavering and that the international order would not change.

Today, however, there is an unusual silence.

The article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, one of America’s most influential legal and political journals, has been met with what the author describes as complete silence in political Sarajevo. There have been no emergency analyses, no attempts to dismiss the authors as insignificant or the publication as irrelevant, and even less effort to seriously challenge the arguments presented.

“For the second day, we have been listening to hear whether a voice will come from the bazaar,” Tadić writes. “Sometimes silence is the loudest answer. Then again, perhaps we are listening from the wrong side? Perhaps political Sarajevo is no longer standing where its voice once came from?”

As previously reported, the article by Joseph Schmitz and Brian Kennedy of Harvard University was published two days ago. Among other things, it states that High Representatives have caused enormous damage to Bosnia and Herzegovina, that American taxpayers are financing what it describes as the failed nation-building experiment known as Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that Dodik is portrayed as a fighter against the globalist agenda.