«Martina Fischer/Ljubinka Petrović-Ziemer Forschung DSF Nº 36 Dealing with the Past and Peacebuilding in the Western Balkans1 Martina ...»
Finally, the interviews reveal that misunderstandings and tensions have arisen among members of the CMPs in the three countries due to divergent understandings of key terms related to the war. Concepts like “genocide”, “aggression”, and “civil war” are defined in very different ways. Terms like “concentration camp”, “detention camp”, “detention centre”, and “collection centre” also need clarification. Disputes over these terms show that conflicting interpretations of war events exist. The interviewees therefore suggest that terminological clarification is needed to pave the way for better cooperation and understanding.
4.6. Further perspectives and challenges
Given the negative reputation and lack of trust in legal institutions, all interviewees agree that it is essential to improve the public relations activities of the courts and prosecutors. It is seen as very important to explain the courts’ decisions to the public in a more comprehensive manner, to highlight the diverse achievements in reforming the judiciary, and in particular to illustrate that impartiality is a guiding principle for the work of legal institutions. Above all, they emphasise that judicial proceedings need to be presented in a way that non-experts are able to comprehend.
Improving witness protection, according to the interviewees, also requires special attention.
Representatives of legal institutions from all three countries explain that the protection measures applied by the domestic courts and the police are so far very limited. Many witnesses are in serious danger after the trial. A witness who testifies abroad is protected in the country where the trial takes place but left unprotected as soon as they leave that country. According to the interviewees, state institutions should set up specialised services for witness protection after the trials. For this purpose, it should also cooperate with NGOs that have experience in witness support and understand victims’ needs. Furthermore, the authorities in the communities to which the witness returns after the trial should be encouraged to take measures to guarantee their safety. An alternative network of witness protection needs to be established. As the interviews reveal, improvement of witness protection can only be achieved by better regional cooperation among governments and by cross-border communication of local authorities.
Representatives of the Commissions for Missing Persons in all countries emphasise that the most important challenge still remaining is to gather additional data on undiscovered mass graves. They also point out that exhumation, storing and identification of human remains will require further funding. The interviewees from Bosnia and Serbia say that international support in this area of dealing with the past is still very much welcome and needed. In contrast, the representative of the CMP in Croatia is convinced that institutions in this country are capable of closing this chapter without external assistance. This view is shared by the ICMP, which has now closed its office in Croatia, on the grounds that the Croatian Office for Missing Persons has proved to be capable of conducting the search for missing persons without international assistance.
Representatives of the domestic legal institutions in all three countries are also convinced that international assistance will be needed in the future in order to improve mechanisms of transitional justice. In Bosnia, they state that external actors are welcome in the capacity of facilitators to support processes of state-building, and they should also continue to monitor the implementation of institutional reforms. Furthermore, they are needed as mediators in a polarised society. In Croatia, the expiry of some international organisations’ mandates (OSCE left the country in 2011) is appreciated by the legal experts and seen as a consequence of the international organisations’ assessment that governmental and nongovernmental organisations are well prepared to solve their problems by themselves.
However, the representatives of legal institutions in this country say that international support is still desired, and should take the form of an exchange of know-how and education on topics related to transitional justice. They also think that external assistance is needed to maintain the databases and archives related to war crimes cases. In Serbia, the interviewees also see an ongoing need for international assistance, especially in the field of institutional reforms. At the same time, they insist that any kind of international support should aim to support capacity-building, thus enabling the society concerned to solve its problems on its own.
References and Literature
Allcock, John B. 2000. Explaining Yugoslavia, New York: Columbia University Press.
Allcock, John B. 2009. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, in:
Ingrao, Charles and Thomas A. Emmert (eds.) 2009. Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies. A Scholars’ Initiative, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 347-389.
Allen, Beverly 1996. Rape Warfare. The Hidden Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Arzt, Donna E. 2006. Views on the Ground. The Local Perception of International Criminal Tribunals in the Former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, in: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603, 226-239.
Assefa, Hizkias 2005. Reconciliation. Challenges, Responses and the Role of Civil Society, in: van Tongeren, Paul et al. (eds.) 2005. People Building Peace 2, Successful Stories of Civil Society, London: Lynne Rienner, 637-645.
Backer, David 2009. Cross-national Comparative Analysis, in: van der Merwe et al. (eds.) 2009, 23-89.
Bar-On, Dan 2007. Reconciliation Revisited for More Conceptual and Empirical Clarity, in:
Beč-Neumann, Janja (ed.). War Crimes, Genocide and Memories, Sarajevo: Center for Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Studies of the University of Sarajevo, 62-84.
Bar-Tal, Daniel and Gemma H. Bennink 2004. The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and a Process, in: Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov (ed.) 2004. From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 11-38.
Basić, Natalija 2004. Kampfsoldaten im ehemaligen Jugoslawien. Legitimationen des Kämpfens und Tötens, in Seifert (ed.) 2004, 89-111.
Baumann, Gabriele and Nina Müller 2006. Vergangenheitsbewältigung und Erinnerungskultur in den Ländern Mittelost- und Südosteuropas. Working Paper 164/2006, Berlin / Sankt Augustin: Konrad Adenauer Foundation, October 2006.
Becker, Jens and Achim Engelberg 2008. Serbien nach den Kriegen, Frankfurt: Ed.
Belloni, Roberto and Bruce Hemmer 2010. Bosnia-Herzegovina: Civil Society in a Semiprotectorate, in: Paffenholz, Thania (ed.). Civil Society and Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment, Boulder, CO/London: Lynne Rienner, 129-152.
Bieber, Florian 2006. Post-War Bosnia: Ethnicity, Inequality and Public Sector Governance, London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bliesemann de Guevara, Berit 2009. Staatlichkeit in Zeiten des Statebuilding. Intervention und Herrschaft in Bosnien und Herzegowina, Frankfurt a. M..
Bloomfield, David 1997. Peacemaking Strategies in Northern Ireland: Building Complementarity in Conflict Management Theory, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Bloomfield, David 2006a. On Good Terms. Clarifying Reconciliation. Berghof Report No 14, Berlin: Berghof Research Center.
Bloomfield, David 2006b. Civil Society as the Location for the Integration of Top-Down and Bottom-up Approaches to Reconciliation. Unpublished Concept Note, Berghof Research Centre for Constructive Conflict Management, Berlin.
Bloomfield, David 2008. Reconciliation, in: Volker Rittberger and Martina Fischer (eds.).
Strategies for Peace. Contributions of International Organisations, States, and NonState Actors, Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Pub., 261-269.
Bloomfield, David, Teresa Barnes and Luc Huyse 2003. Reconciliation after Violent Conflict. A Handbook. International IDEA Handbook Series, Stockholm: IDEA.
Boraine, Alexander 2006. Transitional Justice. A Holistic Interpretation, in: Journal of International Affairs, 60, 1, 17-27.
Calic, Marie-Janine 1995. Der Krieg in Bosnien-Herzegowina. Ursachen, Konfliktstrukturen, Internationale Lösungsversuche, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Calic, Marie-Janine 2005. The Western Balkans on the Road towards European Integration. Beitrag für Internationale Politikanalyse, Frieden und Sicherheit 12/2005, Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Centre for Nonviolent Action 2002. Four Views. How I Found Myself in War, How to Reach Sustainable Peace. Translation of special articles published in Vreme, No 600, Belgrade, 4 July 2002, 24-26. Belgrade/Sarajevo: CNA.
Clark, Janine 2008. Serbia in the Shadow of Milosević. The Legacy of Conflict in the Balkans. London: I.B. Tauris.
Chandler, David 2008. Post-Conflict Statebuilding: Governance without Government, in:
Pugh, Michael et. al. (eds). Whose Peace? Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 337-355.
Despot, Andrea and Dušan Reljić 2011. Kroatiens Drängen in die EU. SWP-Aktuell 26, Mai 2011.
Despot, Andrea, Dušan Reljić and Günther Seufert 2012. Zehn Jahre Einsamkeit. SWPaktuell, 23, Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.
Đurić-Kuzmanović, Tatjana et al. 2008. Gendered War, Gendered Peace. Violent Conflicts in the Balkans and their Consequences, in: Pankhurst (ed.) 2008, 265-291.
Donais, Timothy 2002. The Politics of Privatization in Post-Dayton Bosnia, in: Southeast European Politics, Vol. III, No. 1, 3–19.
Dvornik, Srđan 2010. Actors without Society. The Role of Civil Actors in the Postcommunist Transformation, Democracy, 15, Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation.
Dvornik, Srđan 2013. Analysis of Interviews with Representatives of Political Parties in Croatia, in: Fischer and Petrović-Ziemer (eds) 2013, 119-130.
Džihić, Vedran 2010. Ethnopolitik in Bosnien-Herzegovina: Staat und Gesellschaft in der Krise, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Fischer, Martina (ed.) 2007. Peacebuilding and Civil Society in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Ten Years After Dayton. 2nd edition, Münster: Lit-Verlag.
Fischer, Martina 2007b. Friedenskonsolidierung im westlichen Balkan? Zur Ambivalenz des Beitrags internationaler Missionen, in: Die Friedens-Warte, Journal of International Peace and Organization, 82, 1, 41-67.
Fischer, Martina 2007c. Confronting the Past and Involving War Veterans for Peace:
Activities by the Centre for Nonviolent Action, Sarajevo, Belgrade, in: Fischer (ed.) 2007, 387-416.
Fischer, Martina 2008a. Friedens- und Versöhnungsprozesse im westlichen Balkan – Von den Schwierigkeiten des Umgangs mit gewaltsamer Vergangenheit. Berghof Working Paper, 4, Berlin: Berghof. http://www.berghof-center.org/uploads/ download/wp4d_mf_znf.pdf.
Fischer, Martina 2010. Zivilgesellschaft und Friedenskonsolidierung. Erfahrungen in Bosnien-Herzegowina, in: Die Friedens-Warte, Journal of International Peace and Organization, 85, 4, 77-97.
Fischer, Martina 2011a. Struggling for Justice, Truth and Reconciliation in the Western Balkans, in: Buckley-Zistel, Susanne and Thomas Kater (eds.) 2011. Nach Krieg, Gewalt und Repression: Der schwierige Umgang mit der Vergangenheit. AFKFriedensschriften, 36, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 59-80.
Fischer, Martina 2011b.Transitional Justice and Reconciliation: Theory and Practice, in:
Beatrix Austin, Martina Fischer and Hans J. Giessmann (eds). Advancing Conflict Transformation. The Berghof Handbook II, Opladen/Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publishers, 405-430.
Fischer, Martina 2013a. Analysis of Interviews with International Actors, in: Fischer and Petrović-Ziemer (eds.) 2013,71-87.
Fischer, Martina 2013b. Summary Analysis, in: Fischer and Petrović-Ziemer (eds) 2013, 131-157.
Fischer, Martina and Ljubinka Petrović-Ziemer (eds) 2013. Dealing with the Past in the Western Balkans. Initiatives for Peacebuilding and Transitional Justice in BosniaHerzegovina, Serbia and Croatia, Berghof Report 18, Berlin: Berghof Foundation.
Fletcher, Laurel and Harvey Weinstein 2004. A World unto itself? The Application of International Justice in Former Yugoslavia, in: Eric Stover and Harvey Weinstein (eds.) 2004. My Neighbour, my Enemy. Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 29-48.
Franović, Ivana 2008. Peacebuilding and Dealing with the Past in the Context of Ethnonationalism. The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia.
Berghof Occasional Paper 29, Berlin: Berghof Research Center.
Galtung, Johan 1996. Peace by peaceful Means, London: Sage.
Gentile, Valentina 2008. The Role of Civil Society in Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The Case of the Associations of Victims and Relatives of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina. SHUR Working Paper 5/08, Rome: Cersdu-Luiss University.
Gromes, Thorsten 2007. Demokratisierung nach Bürgerkriegen. Das Beispiel Bosnien und Herzegowina. Studien der HSFK, Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Gromes, Thorsten 2008. Gemeinsame Demokratie, geteilte Gesellschaft. Die Unmöglichkeit einer Friedensstrategie in Bosnien und Herzegowina. HSFK-Report, 9/2008, Frankfurt a. M.: HSFK.
Gromes, Thorsten 2012. Ohne Staat und Nation ist keine Demokratie zu machen: Bosnien
und Herzegowina, Kosovo und Makedonien nach den Bürgerkriegen. Baden-Baden:
Hatschikjan, Magarditsch 2005. Regional Overview. Western Balkans, in: Hatschikjan, Magarditsch, Dušan Reljić and Nenad Sebek (eds) 2005. Disclosing hidden History.
Lustration in the Western Balkans, Thessaloniki: CDRSEE et al., 23-32.
International Crisis Group 2008. Will the Real Serbia Please Stand Up? Europe Briefing No. 49, Belgrade/Pristina/Brussels, 23 April.
International Crisis Group 2009. Bosnia’s Incomplete Transition. Between Dayton and Europe. Europe Report No 198, Sarajevo/Brussels: ICG, 9 March.
International Crisis Group 2010. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina – A parallel Crisis.
Europe Report No 209, Sarajevo/Istanbul/Brussel, 28 September.