certain practices do not appear improvised is a consequence of the accrued symbolic and material resources of the performer, rather than an intrinsic legitimacy that stands behind any assertion of sovereignty. In what follows I explore this interplay between performance and resourcefulness in the establishment of the CBiH and the controversies that have surrounded its practices. Geopolitics of Justice On the 6th June 2002, the newly-appointed replacement to Wolfgang Petritsch as High Representative, Paddy Ashdown, attended the inaugural session of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBiH). To the assembled dignitaries and the newly-appointed domestic and international judiciary, Ashdown outlined the significance of the inauguration of the Court to the establishment of the Bosnia and Herzegovinian state: [The inauguration] is about protecting the people of this country, protecting their rights and protecting their status as free citizens in a functioning democracy. This court enshrines a simple truth that everyone is equal before the law. Justice is the foundation on which – every society is built. Everything else we want to do here, from jobs to refugee returns to establishing a democratic system, depends on the rule of law […] A functioning judicial system is a key component of BiH’s integration into European structures (OHR, 2002b). From the outset the Court’s creation has been about more than simply providing a new space to pursue legal redress. As indicated in Ashdown’s comments, the Court has a symbolic function of constructing the internal and external legitimacy of BiH sovereignty. In internal terms, this has been a slow process involving the adoption of a new criminal procedure code in early 2003, based on US-common law. This move aimed to transform prosecution and trial processes, in particular eliminating the need for an investigative judge, and introducing adversarial trial arrangements and introducing plea bargaining (see OSCE, 2004). The commencement of trials at
certain practices do not appear improvised is a consequence of the accrued symbolic and material resources of the performer, rather than an intrinsic legitimacy that stands behind any assertion of sovereignty. In what follows I explore this interplay between performance and resourcefulness in the establishment of the CBiH and the controversies that have surrounded its practices. Geopolitics of Justice On the 6th June 2002, the newly-appointed replacement to Wolfgang Petritsch as High Representative, Paddy Ashdown, attended the inaugural session of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBiH). To the assembled dignitaries and the newly-appointed domestic and international judiciary, Ashdown outlined the significance of the inauguration of the Court to the establishment of the Bosnia and Herzegovinian state: [The inauguration] is about protecting the people of this country, protecting their rights and protecting their status as free citizens in a functioning democracy. This court enshrines a simple truth – that everyone is equal before the law. Justice is the foundation on which every society is built. Everything else we want to do here, from jobs to refugee returns to establishing a democratic system, depends on the rule of law […] A functioning judicial system is a key component of BiH’s integration into European structures (OHR, 2002b). From the outset the Court’s creation has been about more than simply providing a new space to pursue legal redress. As indicated in Ashdown’s comments, the Court has a symbolic function of constructing the internal and external legitimacy of BiH sovereignty. In internal terms, this has been a slow process involving the adoption of a new criminal procedure code in early 2003, based on US-common law. This move aimed to transform prosecution and trial processes, in particular eliminating the need for an investigative judge, and introducing adversarial trial arrangements and introducing plea bargaining (see OSCE, 2004). The commencement of trials at
YUDHMUS_R0emiXkKyokTvg.docx