80 Club Lecture - 19 June 2003

“”The Rule of Law in a Post-War Society:  the Latest Developments from Bosnia and Herzegovina

by

The Rt Hon Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hampton KBE PC

 

 

 

[Explains the Office of  the High Representative and the virtue of an “ad hoc” structure.]

 

The OHR was created to address the needs of one country, but it may nonetheless offer lessons for other post-conflict and transition states.  The International Community’s peace-implementation strategy in Bosnia and Herzegovina has evolved over the last eight years to deal with sifting opportunities and challenges.

 

But there are elements in that strategy that could productively be applied elsewhere.

 

Let me start by describing my job.

 

The OHR was established at Dayton as an ad hoc institution charged with supervising civilian implementation of the peace agreement.  The NATO-led Stabilisation Force – SFOR – has responsibility for military and security implementation.

 

The reason for establishing the OHR – an entirely new institution – was largely because the well-intentioned but inept and ineffective UN intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war had seriously damaged the organisation’s credibility.  otherwise, the UN would have been the obvious choice for a supervising authority.

 

This has led to reporting lines which are – often rather advantageously – somewhat confused.

 

The primary – but still undefined – reporting line for the Office of the High Representative, which numbers some 750 staff and has a budget of a little over 20 million Euros is to the Peace Implementation Council, itself an ad hoc structure made up of a “coalition of the willing” major funding contributors to the OHR budget.

 

I also report twice year, to the UN Security council through the UN Secretary General, but am not formally accountable to them.

 

The OHR was created outside the UN family as a matter of political expediency, but this arrangement has over time displayed certain advantages

 

  • It brings with it flexibility in operating, reporting and funding.
  • It allows greater freedom of manoeuvre than is accorded to our sister organisation, UNMIK in Kosovo, which is directly accountable to UN structures and has consequently, in the past, been subject to micro management on a five thousand mile screw driver from New York.
  • The powers accorded to the High Representative – more sweeping than might have been accorded to a UN Head of Mission – have proved indispensable in maintaining the effectiveness of this temporary post.

 

These two features have enabled successive High Representatives to respond quickly and decisively to a broad range of situations that have arisen in the course of peace implementation.

 

Supervising implementation of the Dayton Agreement has since the very beginning, involved coordinating the humanitarian and reconstruction efforts of a host of international agencies operating in BiH.  At the start of OHR’s mandate, the technical and administrative machinery with which to do this job was effectively absent.  My predecessor, Carl BLit, famously arrived in Sarajevo in January 96 with little more than a brief-case full of cash and a handful of staff.  That was a modest beginning for what became a major and institutionalised international peace-implementation effort.

 

Because OHR began life under-resourced and under-staff, the huge influx of aid in the immediate post-war period was inadequately coordinated and the space where the rule of law should have been was left unoccupied.

 

The forces of crime an corruption which always follow war swiftly moved in and now infect the marrow and the blood stream of the state in every one of it its organs.

 

And we are still grappling with the consequences today.

 

In addition to the physical limitations of a small, ad hoc office staffed by an endlessly changing roster of diplomats and secondees, many of them posted to BiH for six months to a year, the peace-implementation strategy during the first five years was strongly oriented towards kick-starting the democratic process.  An emphasis on forging political compromised among the Dayton signatories – in many cases the same individuals who had driven the war and gained money and power from it – meant that peace took hold amid a climate of corruption.

 

This has led to bureaucratic sclerosis, widespread cynicism among the general public, lost opportunities and wasted international resources on a massive scale.

 

Inadequate resources for coordinating a sudden influx of international aid, and a preoccupation with assembling the institutional and operating framework for democracy diminished the International Community’s ability to resolve fundamental problems.  Effectively, these policies made it harder not easier to establish the Rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially in the early days.

 

More recently, however, significant progress has been made in beefing up the OHR’s capacity to coordinate the work of international agencies.  Our relationship with other agencies has not always been easy, especially since each agency has different reporting lines, but in the last year we have been able to improve coordination and as a result raise the quality of the work of the International Community in BiH.  I now chair a weekly meeting of the principals of the main organisations – SFOR, UNHCR, OSCE, the EC, the World Bank, and the IMF.  This “Board of Principals” acts as a kind of cabinet.  It has dramatically improved the coherence of the International Community’s strategy and the cohesiveness of its operations.  Its inauguration coincided with a major streamlining effort aimed at identifying core tasks that must be achieved before the international agencies can withdraw from BiH, and attaching timelines to each of these tasks.  The OHR, the Board of Principals, and the international organisations in their own right are not pursuing an exit strategy, but rather an entry strategy for BiH into broader European structures, with EU membership as the ultimate goal.

 

The Powers of the High Representative.

 

In December 1997 the Peace Implementation Council, the association of 55 countries and organisations that support the peace process, expanded the High Representative’s powers significantly, granting authority to impose legislation and dismiss elected officials.

 

Again, this was a decision made for political reasons – recalcitrant officials were sabotaging the provisions of the Dayton Agreement through blatant procedural foot-dragging, and the various parliamentary assemblies were hopelessly gridlocked and had proved incapable of passing the legislation necessary to cement democracy and re-start the economy.

 

And again, a decision taken for immediate political reasons has had a significant long-term impact on efforts to establish the Rule of Law.

 

A very high number of Decisions by the High Representative have been used to enact core reforms.  These Decisions are made on a provisional basis until the domestic authorities are in a position to adopt identical legislation by themselves.

 

This kind of intervention under powers given to an international official by the International Community has raised questions about the justiciability of the High Representative’s Decisions before the BiH courts.  In what is now well-established jurisprudence, the Constitutional Court has declared that, even though it is not competent to review the use of the powers of the High Representative, it can review the constitutionality of laws put in place by the High Representative when he “substitutes” for local authorities.

 

 

I have sought to be as sparing as possible in my use of the power to dismiss elected officials.  This had come to be seen as an immediate and effective sanction in the absence of efficient courts and against the backdrop of an inadequate system of parliamentary or popular political accountability.  Yet each dismissal by the High Representative, it could be argued, diminishes the impetus to set in place the kinds of structures of accountability whose absence makes these dismissals necessary.  By solving the problem by fiat, we remove the incentive for BiH to set in place it own mechanisms for solving the problems.  Because of this, I have striven to avoid the easy fix – I have resisted the temptation to engage in wholesale dismissals.

 

I have also tried to follow a broad policy framework for the use of my powers.

 

Stripped to its bare essentials, my job is to stop the powerful abusing their power.  In a normal state this is done by two things.  The checks and balances of independent institutions:  and the power of public opinion.

 

My actions, therefore, should be primarily aimed t encouraging the growth of the civil society and creating the institutions of a modern European state; an independent judiciary, police force and communications regulator; a clean political system; the rule based structures which govern a modern free market economy etc.

 

It is thus, as I view it, more legitimate for me to use my powers to create these institutions of a modern state than it is to interfere in the decisions my Bosnian colleagues take within those institutions.

 

From peace implementation to transition.

 

The first two years of peace implementation were devoted to organising refugee return, reconstruction, property repossession and democratic elections.  The second phase began in 1998 with a broadening of the International Community’s agenda.  Media reform, the creation of multi-ethnic administrations, negotiating constitutional reform, an anti-corruption campaign (albeit, unfortunately, a rather timid one) and an attempt to weaken the grip of destructive nationalism were part of this second wave of reforms.

 

It quickly became apparent that the sustainability of these reforms would require in-depth transformation of the legal framework.  This was especially the case because the legal profession was suffused with principles and operating methods left over from the old communist regimes.  The out-dated laws put in place before the war made economic recovery all but impossible.  At the same time, the shortcoming s of the judicial system, rather than being a target of reform, were being used by the wartime elite to maintain their hold on power.

 

When I arrived in BiH in May last year to take up my duties, I laid out a comprehensive reform agenda around the slogan “First Justice, then Jobs, through Reform”.  This programme encompassed an ambitious series of Rule of Law targets.  It also envisaged implementation of an economic reform agenda that had until then been pushed off track by conflicting domestic  party-political interests and the lack of coordination which I referred to earlier among international agencies.

 

It was clear to me that without substantial progress on the Justice and Jobs agenda, the sustainability of Bosnia and Herzegovina was little more than an illusion.

 

I am convinced that this combination of legal and economic reform should have been applied at the very beginning of the peace process – not seven years on.  But of course it is easy to be certain with hindsight.  We did not know then what we know now.  yet, this may be one of the crucial lessons that can be taken from Bosnia and Herzegovina and applied to Iraq.

 

I have repeatedly been asked to compare peace implementation in the Balkans and in Iraq.  Most comparisons are inevitably superficial – but the absolute necessity of focusing on the Rule of Law from day one is surely relevant for Iraq.  This is not a luxury – it must be done.  Unless law and order is consolidated quickly and comprehensively, crime will fill the space, peace will not take hold and the benefits of the coalition victory will be swiftly lost as criminals and corruption swarm into the vacuum.

 

A year ago when we stepped up the campaign to establish the Rule of Law we did to in a fundamental way.  We launched a comprehensive review and restructuring of the judiciary.  The project was based on establishing the principle of accountability of public officials and transparency of public administration.   It was designed to reform a judicial system that was inert and inefficient.

 

The BiH judiciary had not merely been ravaged by war;; it bore all the flaws of its origin in a culture where there was no separation of powers and no tradition of judicial independence.

 

Under the former system, judges and prosecutors were servants of the executive power.

 

This flaw in the judiciary has had a knock-on effect:  when judges are not – and are not perceived to be – independent and honest, the Rule of Law cannot take root in the popular culture.

 

So our object has been to establish an independent judiciary capable of dispensing justice effectively and efficiently.  This is a prerequisite for economic as well as political and social recovery.

 

Businesses are reluctant to invest in Bosnia and Herzegovina because they lack the assurance that the judicial system can adjudicate claims and enforce judgments effectively.

 

The process of refugee return has been slowed because refugees and displaced persons have not been able to turn to the courts and regain legal title to their property and their jobs.  Or access to social services to which they have a legal right but only on paper.  The shortcomings of the judiciary have meant that alleged war criminals cannot be tried in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

Corruption had become endemic.

 

The judicial system will only gain the confidence of citizens and investors and begin to underpin the democratization process in a fundamental and effective way if it is thoroughly reformed, upgraded and strengthened.

 

And that is what we have set out to do.

 

The programme we put in place to reform the judiciary combines an institution-building component with a near-term strategy to fight crime.

 

·        A High Judicial Council, independent from the legislative and the executive powers, has been established made up, for a transitional period, of international and national members.  The HJPC has the authority to appoint and discipline judges and prosecutors;  the first  disciplinary cases have now been heard under this system.  This measure brings to an end half a century of interference by political authorities in the judicial matters.

·        New modern criminal/civil procedure codes and a law on enforcement procedure have been prepared by a group of international and national lawyers and have been enacted; 

·        Courts and prosecutors’ offices are being restructured in order to increase efficiency, and the internal court administration is currently being reformed;

·        A Law on training institutes has been enacted, and the IC will use these training institutes as the vehicle for disseminating the new codes of procedure among judges, prosecutors and solicitors;

·        Special chambers in the criminal division of the State Court and special departments in the prosecutors’ offices have been established for economic crime and corruption cases.  These departments are staffed by a partnership of international and national judges and prosecutors.

·        Finally, a unit within my office was set up to assist prosecutors in putting together important cases against economic crime and corruption.  This unit acts on an ad hoc basis and on the basis of information gathered from different sources.

 

The judicial system’s ability to administer justice fairly and effectively is essential to preventing abuse of public office, to enforcing the rights of citizens, and to maintaining social order.  In sum:  a strong judicial system in Bosnia and Herzegovina is beginning, albeit slowly, to enhance the effectiveness of every other reform.

 

Legal reform goes hand in hand with immediate policing and judicial initiatives aimed at facing the problem of criminality head on.

 

After six years of intensive work by the UN Mission to restructure the police, the first large-scale EU Mission has taken over this crucial task and I am “double hatted” as an EU Special Representative to oversee the process.

 

The EUPM’s police officers, from EU and non-EU countries, working together at duty stations all over Bosnia and Herzegovina are, day by day, week by week, helping their BiH police colleagues to prevail in the battle against crime.  They are working to provide Bosnia and Herzegovina with a first-class police force, a force that meets the highest professional standards, a European police force that can stand shoulder to shoulder with the very best in Europe.

 

The new Court of BiH is now prosecuting its first case – the biggest human trafficking and prostitution case ever to come to trial in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  This case has illustrated that a coordinated approach between international and national authorities and between law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities to tackle crime ca bear fruits.

 

We still need to rid BiH of war criminals.  To this end we have recently widened the battle against those who support and fund war criminals, freezing their assets, sequestrating their bank accounts and preventing them from travelling to Europe.  Life has got much tougher for those who support war criminals, and it is going to get tougher still.   For the first time since Dayton, we have initiated a concerted approach to hit those who support war criminals.   The US Government has frozen 150 accounts of people who have obstructed the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords.  The EU is putting together a list of people who will be banned from entering the Union.  SFOR is using its power more robustly than ever before and has been searching and seizing material which give evidence of connection between the current political establishment and war-time leaders.  And I have been using my powers to ensure that those accounts which are used to fund war criminals are blocked.

 

We have also drastically reduced the legal immunity enjoyed by p9oliticians, and we have put in place comprehensive legislation on conflict of interest.  We are now building up the capacity of the Election Commission to enforce this legislation.

 

We are also engaged in a program aimed at strengthening the audit institutions of BiH.  Last year, I appointed a team of Special Auditors and gave them a mandate to look at the management and financial records of the major State-owned companies, starting in the public utilities sector.  The audit has unearthed a culture of corruption and calculated mismanagement among most sectors of the public utilities infrastructure.  Those who should have been serving the citizen were instead robbing them.  In the wake of these reports, structural measures were taken to address the most egregious cases of corruption, whilst a broader programme of corporate governance restructuring is being launched under the aegis of the World Bank.

 

The murder of Zoran Djindjic in Belgrade showed that the struggle between the Rule of Law and the rule of the mob in the Balkans is not yet over.  It underlined that this region is still all too vulnerable, that its institutions are too weak.  Politics, corruption and criminality still live far too close together in the region and in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

We are working flat out to break these links.

 

Conclusion

Bosnia and Herzegovina, an eye wateringly beautiful country, is now almost completely devoid of the sort of random violence that is the scourge of cities in the north and west of Europe.  You can walk around Sarajevo and Mostar and Banja Luka late a night, my wife says, more safely than in London;  you will not be molested.  You can visit out of the way parts of the country and expect to be greeted by strangers with courtesy.

 

It is a society in which bureaucratic corruption has a long history, but it is not a society of corrupt citizens.

 

It is a society in which criminal gangs and war profiteers have wormed their way into positions of influence, but the people of BiH are neither criminal nor violent.  We are not swimming against the tide in our efforts to establish the Rule of Law in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  BiH citizens want to rid their country of crime and corruption and they want to take their rightful place as citizens in the mainstream of Europe – eventually as EU citizens.  We must continue to help them do this, for three reasons.

 

The first is that a stable, prosperous, democratic and law-abiding Bosnia and Herzegovina will be a positive asset to Europe.

 

The second is that the front line against crime in London, Berlin and Paris runs through the Balkans.  60% of the trafficked women and much of the drugs in our inner cities comes through the Balkan corridor.  A lawless space there means more crime for us here.

 

And lastly, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina deserve a break.  They have suffered much yet they are capable of great things.

 

Helping them to build a state, establish the Rule of Law, create the conditions for economic success and make their way on the long party to Europe has been a necessary and worthwhile effort and I am proud to have played a part in it.