On the eve of Wednesday's session of the Republika Srpska National Assembly (RSNA), where the heads of the RSNA caucuses were presented with "Information on the need to initiate the procedure regulating relations between the Republika Srpska and the Federation of BiH in accordance with the Dayton Agreement and international acts", High Representative Christian Schmidt sent a letter to the RSNA Speaker, Nenad Stevandic, in which he pointed to "several problematic conclusions" in the document that are "in direct contradiction" to the Dayton Agreement, and announced that, in the event of any legal acts stem from that document, "he will submit a report to the Steering Committee of the Peace Implementation Council without hesitation and appropriately and decisively in accordance with his mandate".

Below you can read the letter in full:

“Dear Speaker,

I am writing to you in advance ofthe RSNA session which, I am told, is due to take place beginning on the 2nd of July. During this session, the “Declaration on the Protection of National and Political Rights and the Common Future of the Serb People” (the Declaration) promulgated on the 8th of June 2024 is on the RSNA agenda for discussion and vote.

This brings me to address you as speaker of the RSNA and, after having read the Declaration, to bring to your attention and to the attention of the Members of Parliament the legal situation and the constitutional position of Republika Srpska as an Entity of the State of Bosnia Herzegovina and its competencies.

The Republika Srpska is part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and is protected by the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP) and its Annex 4, the Constitution of BiH. The RS Constitution defines the RS as a multiethnic entity of three constituent peoples, the Serbs, the Bosniaks and the Croats, and Others, with an explicit clause prohibiting discrimination against anyone. Republika Srpska owes respect to all its people. There is a standing obligation to observe this.

Though Article 4 of the Constitution of the RS provides for special relations with Serbia, this right is conditioned by the framework set in the Constitution ofBiH (Art ii 2). As a result, the cultural and ethnic identity of Serbs must be respected by everybody just as the cultural and ethnic identity of Bosniaks and Croats and others must be respected by everybody, too. The Declaration, as we can read, contains several problematic conclusions that are in direct conflict with the terms ofthe GFAP and its annexes, in particular annexes 4 and 10.

At the outset, as I have already underlined, under the BiH Constitutional Framework, Republika Srpska is a multi-ethnic entity where three constituent peoples (and Others) are equal, and its authorities do not represent only Serb people. The declaration fails to acknowledge this constitutional principle. This principle is also enshrined in the Constitution of the RS under Article 1. The entities, furthermore, have no right to secession.

Let me clarify that Republika Srpska is neither a signatory to the GFAP nor is it entitled to introduce unilateral interpretations of the GFAP and its Annexes.

Membership in the European Union is the ultimate aim of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is becoming more tangible after the historic decision of the European Council on March 21* of this year. It is not the case that the entities have an individual invitation in this respect, rather the entities are part of the state of BiH. Any other interpretation would result in significant irritation on the part of the International Community, in particular European states.

The wording in conclusions 18 through 25 implies a unilateral interpretation of Annexes 4 and 10 to the GFAP that is neither compatible with its term nor with the interpretation of it made by the institutions in charge of its implementation and enforcement. This includes the High Representative, which under Annex 10 to the DPA is the final authority regarding the interpretation of the Agreement on civilian implementation of the Peace settlement, and the Constitutional Court, which has rendered decisions on most of the issues that are deemed as violations of the GFAP in the Declaration.

In its Communiqué of the 20th of June, the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council clarified that while the Republika Srpska is not a signatory to the GFAP, “The parties to the Agreement have committed to fully respect the sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to fully respect and promote the fulfilment of the commitments made in the annexes to the GFAP, including its constitution.”

Conclusion 29, which recognizes that Sretenje, February 15th, should be both the Statehood Day of the Republic of Serbia and the Statehood Day of Republika Srpska is also problematic. Without going into the details, | must underline that an Entity Day is no Statehood Day.

The BiH Constitutional Court clearly ruled in the past that designating such a day in a way that represents the historical heritage, tradition, and customs of only Serb people results in placing members ofthe Serb people in a privileged position when compared to Bosniacs and Croats, Others, and citizens of the Republika Srpska, and is unconstitutional. A celebration day honouring Republika Srpska must refer to all its citizens. Besides this, there should be a constructive way, to celebrate the cultural and ethnic identity of every people or ethnic or cultural or religious group.

Considering the problematic elements of the Declaration, its adoption by the entity-parliament of Republika Srpska would represent an official act that would put into question the Republika Srpska’s obligations and commitments under the GFAP.

Let me reiterate that the peace agreement not only safeguards the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and internal administrative structure of BiH but also the very existence of the Republika Srpska. The Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council was very clear in this regard when in its last Communiqué of the 20th of June, it stated that:

Sovereignty resides in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single state, with its territorial integrity guaranteed by the GFAP. The entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina are not states; they exist solely by virtue ofthe BiH Constitution and lack any sovereignty of their own.

Therefore, the PIC SB calls upon the RS ruling coalition to cease all actions that undermine the State, its authorities, and its multi-ethnic character. The PIC SB reiterated that the international community retains the necessary instruments to uphold the GFAP.

I call on the RS authorities to seize the opportunities given by the EU integration process to make progress, advance economic development, raise living standards, and accelerate and broaden reforms for the benefit of citizens of the RS, instead of continuing with a policy aiming at undermining the fundamentals of the Dayton Peace accords. I would like to be clear however, that it is my mandate to counter any threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity ofthe State, and any attempt to undermine the constitutional and legal order of BiH and its institutional framework, stability, and functionality. I will, in the case of legislative acts deriving from this declaration, not hesitate to report to the PIC SB and act appropriately and decisively in accordance with my mandate.

Finally, I also call upon the RS authorities to come to terms with the past and to promote reconciliation, which is a crucial component of a sustainable peace based in the Dayton GFAP and as well as an embodiment of EU principles and values.

The European Union has since its foundation been and remains a project of peace and reconciliation that promotes the principle of ‘unity in diversity’. It is not a project of segregation and willful misinterpretation. I would encourage you to be mindful of that in order to avoid unhelpful and challenging complications.“