2025 Trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina: Reconstruction, Reconciliation, and Remembrance in a Post-Conflict Society

This article provides an account of one of Grimshaw's trips last summer. It reflects on the conversations had with various organisations operating within BiH, and provides historical context to the current political environment. This piece was written by Johanna Seppälä.

Introduction

Few post-conflict societies present as intricate a web of ethnic divisions, institutional arrangements, and politicised peacebuilding as Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) after its devastating war from 1992 to 1995. These complexities are further compounded by competing international influences and a constitutional crisis brought by Milorad Dodik, the leader of the Bosnian Serb entity Republika Srpska, prompting fears of state dissolution and renewed conflict.

In June 2025, our student delegation visited BiH to understand how it is faring thirty years after the Srebrenica genocide and the Dayton Peace Accords. We met with institutions focused on Dayton implementation (European Union; United Nations; Office of the High Representative), and organisations working on transitional justice and rule of law (TRIAL International; High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Balkan Investigative Reporting Network) and economic reconstruction and development (Žene za Žene International; European Bank of Reconstruction and Development). We explored Sarajevo, where the bullet holes in buildings serve as daily reminders of the war, visited the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial, where over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) are buried, and travelled around Herzegovina, full of ancient cities and picturesque views which showcase the country beyond its turbulent history.

Our discussions with representatives and local Bosnians were profound. Virtually everyone we encountered had lived through the war and lost loved ones, yet they were remarkably willing to share candid perspectives on the country's trajectory. These conversations helped us understand BiH’s political situation, the status of its post-conflict reconstruction, reconciliation, and remembrance practices, and how international involvement shapes these processes.

“We are ruled by Dayton”

This frank assessment captures the paradox of BiH’s post-conflict governance. While the Dayton Peace Accords ended the bloodshed and held together the fragile state emerging from Yugoslavia’s collapse, the agreement created “the world’s most complicated system of government”, with “three presidents, 13 prime ministers and as many governments, more than 180 ministers, and over 700 members of parliament,” and two ethnically-based entities (with one split into an additional ten cantons), and an autonomous district.

Though many hoped that “we would be like Switzerland in five years,” Dayton’s duplication of responsibilities has undermined governmental efficacy and remains a major obstacle to EU accession as reforming even a single institution requires consultation with over a dozen ministers. Observers also linked Dayton to the country’s high levels of corruption, arguing the complexity fosters a lack of accountability and discourages reform. One even called BiH a “captured state.” Dayton’s institutionalisation of ethnic divisions furthermore creates undemocratic consequences, excluding national minority groups (e.g. the Roma and Jews) from politics because they do not belong to the three constituent peoples (the Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs). Additionally, the oversized government makes elections disproportionality important, incentivising some political actors to exploit ethnic divisions rather than govern effectively.

Another paradox is the role of international actors. The Office of the High Representative, tasked with Dayton implementation, retains sweeping powers, such as the ability to remove public officials from office or impose legislation. Though originally intending to withdraw as BiH stabilised, the EU and UN continue to maintain large presences because as remain too volatile. However, as one observer noted, these actors prioritise stability over reform, “throwing money” at the structural issues responsible for the precarious political situation instead of fixing them. Thus, while their presence keeps the peace, the system remains frozen.

“The threats we are currently facing are novel in their intensity”

During our time in BiH, we found that Republika Srpska (RS) has increasingly threatened the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by attempting to nullify national institutions and policies. RS has passed laws deemed unconstitutional by national courts and the High Representative, then ignored the rulings. The entity threatened to withdraw from the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, a national institution that oversees and regulates the judicial system, and create their own. They have claimed that Bosniaks want to strip RS of its autonomy and make BiH a unitary state; subsequently, RS has threatened secession. Dodik has loudly proclaimed the Srebrenica genocide to be a “fabricated myth” despite the criminalisation of genocide denial. Dodik’s close connections to the illiberal leaders of Serbia, Hungary, and Russia further complicate the situation; for instance, RS recently adopted Putin’s “foreign agents” law to threaten civil society organisations.

2025 marked the inflection point of this crisis. Following a nullification “tug-of-war” with High Representative Christian Schmidt, Dodik was charged with defying his decisions. In February, Dodik was found guilty by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina; in response, he refused to recognise the ruling and introduced laws barring state courts and law enforcement from operating in RS. During our visit in late June, Dodik remained a fugitive and was one of the main topics of discussion. One representative described the political situation as the worst since the war, while another argued that even if full-scale war was unlikely, societal unrest could spark serious consequences.

On July 4^th, three days after we left the country, Dodik voluntarily appeared before the Court. On August 1^st, the Court confirmed his guilty verdict, and Dodik was officially removed from his position as RS President, banned from politics for six years, and fined heavily to avoid prison. While the RS regional assembly initially rejected the ruling, as of September 24^th, they have dropped opposition to a presidential election in November to select Dodik’s successor.

Although secession and war appear averted, the crisis underscores deeper issues. One observer cautioned that while Dodik claims to fundamentally oppose another war, political posturing could still escalate into “a game of political chicken” that ends in war. His acceptance of the verdict is promising, but he is also not the only nationalist politician in the country. Several representatives emphasised that most Bosnians, including Serbs, oppose secession and renewed conflict, but warned of a “political mafia” of opportunists fuelling nationalism.

“Here, peacebuilding is political”

Prior to the trip, we had read about the war’s immense human impact, but our experiences at Srebrenica helped us truly understand why reconciliation remains so difficult. Our guide, a Bosniak from Sarajevo, explained that the war had “come out of nowhere”. He hadn’t even realised his neighbours were Serbs until the conflict began, because “the only differences between us were our last names”. His brother-in-law had escaped Srebrenica, fleeing through the woods for days. Our driver had been medevacked from Srebrenica as a child; had he stayed, he would have been executed alongside his two brothers and father, now buried at the memorial. The museum, located inside the Dutch UN peacekeeping base that failed to protect thousands of civilians, and the memorial cemetery, where over 8,000 Bosniaks are buried, were haunting.

Yet, at Srebrenica, one museum employee described a recent encounter with a Bosnian Serb visitor who had dismissed everything as “Western propaganda” and claimed the footage of mass executions was doctored. While driving through RS, we saw murals celebrating Ratko Mladić, the genocide’s perpetrator. This contrast encapsulates why peacebuilding and transitional justice are especially challenging in BiH.

Despite identification of an “environment conducive to reconciliation” as a key priority for EU accession, little progress has been made. Every aspect of dealing with the past is contested along ethnic lines, including whether the war was a civil war, ethnic war, or war of independence. Most memorials serve only one ethno-national group, despite civilians on all sides suffering greatly. The war was not part of the educational curriculum until recently; it remains unstandardised, and different parts of the country teach wildly different versions of history, with some even glorifying the war crimes committed by their ethnonational group. International and non-governmental organisations rely on facts determined during the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to remain “neutral”, but since the tribunal ruled Srebrenica a genocide and prosecuted individuals like Mladić, their work remains contested. Meanwhile, the international community’s failure to protect civilians at Srebrenica created lasting mistrust that hinders peacebuilding efforts by institutions like the UN.

However, while many noted that the pursuit of justice is never-ending, they also emphasised that there has been progress over time. Though not all perpetrators have been convicted and proving the guilt of rank-and-file soldiers is difficult, there have been convictions for every atrocity site. Often through confessions in court, more bodies have been found and identified, and families are finally able to lay their loved ones to rest. Srebrenica is internationally recognised as a genocide, and the legacy of mistakes made there have been used to improve future peacekeeping missions. Finally, compared to Serbia and Croatia, BiH has a more developed judicial system for prosecuting war crimes.

“We face many challenges, but the economy is functioning”

BiH’s economic reconstruction has been uniquely challenging. The country had to simultaneously recover from a devastating war and transition from socialism to capitalism, a shift so difficult that one representative admitted they did not understand how the country survived. While Dayton has succeeded in maintaining peace, the oversized government and public sector it created have stifled economic growth. A healthy private sector is desperately needed, but the complex legal system and constitutional crisis make foreign investors hesitant. Demographic trends add to the strain: low birthrates and a brain drain of young people have resulted in labour shortages.

Despite these challenges, many representatives maintained hopeful attitudes. BiH’s private sector, though small, is steadily expanding and the country retains clear advantages: a strategic geographic location, relatively low debt, cheap labour costs, and support from the international community. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development remains the largest funder of infrastructure projects, though Chinese banks have also become active investors, particularly in RS. At the grassroots level, non-governmental organisations have helped fill gaps. For example, Žene za Žene International runs many reconstruction initiatives, including a micro-finance foundation which has supported 63,000 women.

Looking forward, the prospect of EU accession continues to serve as the country’s strongest economic incentive. For many, integration would not only bring political stability but economic opportunity, and, as noted by one observer, the latter has served as a “carrot” motivating reform more effectively than abstract appeals to human rights standards.

Conclusion

Thirty years after Dayton, BiH exists in a paradox of stability and stagnation. The agreement that ended the war has maintained the peace, but the system it created—with its ethnic divisions, governmental complexity, and international oversight—has also trapped the country in limbo. Reconstruction has progressed, yet economic growth remains constrained by political dysfunction. Justice has been pursued, yet reconciliation remains tenuous due to politicised narratives. The crisis with Dodik illustrates how fragile this peace remains. Yet, our visit also revealed the remarkable resilience of the Bosnian people. The countless individuals we spoke with work every day to reform their country for the better. Their willingness to share their stories and perspectives with us, despite the profound losses they endured, demonstrated that hope persists even in the most complex post-conflict societies.