Proposed Topic: "Assessment of Multinational Federalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina" Registered in SIS: Yes Date of registration: 21.10.2011 Topic Characteristics: This research proposal will basically refer to functionality of federal values that lead to a federal political culture in the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the Dayton Peace Agreement signed in 1995 by focusing on the federal model that has been applied with Constitution, as a part of the said agreement. Hence, it will show to what extent the conflict that had led to the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 was resolved by implementing a federal model and constitution in 1995 and if so, what is the role of federalism in it. I have chosen the way of assessing multinational federalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina to evaluate federal system in post-war period in order to have a better perspective to observe the ability of federal state to enhance Bosnia as a unity. Today Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks constitute the main national identities, in Republika Srpska and in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, two constituent entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina .Republika Srpska, as it could be understood from the name- Serb Republic, is led by an administration representing a Serbian majority whereas Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), known...

This dissertation explains the extent and durability of the institutions of territorial autonomy in multinational states. Its main argument is that the viability of territorial autonomy hinges on the relative economic importance of the minority-inhabited region for the central government. If the fiscal resources of the minority-inhabited region are critical for the funding of the central government’s policy objectives, autonomy is likely to be limited and short lived. If those resources are not as crucial for the governability of the entire state, autonomy is likely to be more extensive and durable. The importance of the minority-inhabited region depends on two sets of factors. The first is the relative level of economic development of majority and minority-inhabited areas. The second is the strategy of governance adopted by the central state elites. Strategies of governance determine the extent of the fiscal burden that the central government will place on the population of the state, thereby exerting significant influence on accommodative outcomes. The theoretical framework developed in this dissertation refers to statist (high spending) and laissez-faire (low spending) strategies of governance. The framework is tested in four multinational states: the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, Canada and Spain. The empirical chapters combine structured-focused comparison with longitudinal case study analysis. The cases largely bear out the hypotheses presented in the dissertation. However, analysis of the cases also demonstrates the importance of minority-group influence at the central state level in accounting for accommodative outcomes. In cases where minority elites have extensive influence at the centre, attempts at limiting the autonomy of minority-inhabited regions tend to be unsuccessful. This thesis contributes to a greater understanding of the design and durability of the institutions of territorial autonomy, which have important consequences for the stability and viability of multinational states.

This dissertation explains the extent and durability of the institutions of territorial autonomy in multinational states. Its main argument is that the viability of territorial autonomy hinges on the relative economic importance of the minority-inhabited region for the central government. If the fiscal resources of the minority-inhabited region are critical for the funding of the central government’s policy objectives, autonomy is likely to be limited and short lived. If those resources are not as crucial for the governability of the entire state, autonomy is likely to be more extensive and durable. The importance of the minority-inhabited region depends on two sets of factors. The first is the relative level of economic development of majority and minority-inhabited areas. The second is the strategy of governance adopted by the central state elites. Strategies of governance determine the extent of the fiscal burden that the central government will place on the population of the state, thereby exerting significant influence on accommodative outcomes. The theoretical framework developed in this dissertation refers to statist (high spending) and laissez-faire (low spending) strategies of governance. The framework is tested in four multinational states: the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, Canada and Spain. The empirical chapters combine structured-focused comparison with longitudinal case study analysis. The cases largely bear out the hypotheses presented in the dissertation. However, analysis of the cases also demonstrates the importance of minority-group influence at the central state level in accounting for accommodative outcomes. In cases where minority elites have extensive influence at the centre, attempts at limiting the autonomy of minority-inhabited regions tend to be unsuccessful. This thesis contributes to a greater understanding of the design and durability of the institutions of territorial autonomy, which have important consequences for the stability and viability of multinational states.

Le multiculturalisme est considéré comme l’une des principales théories politiques contemporaines de la gestion de la diversité, particulièrement chez les penseurs libéraux. À cet égard, les travaux pionniers du philosophe Will Kymlicka ont permis de montrer que les questions de justice devaient dépasser les enjeux de distribution des ressources pour aussi inclure les questions de justice culturelle. En reprenant plusieurs des intuitions libérales de ses prédécesseurs, Kymlicka est parvenu à proposer un modèle original de gestion des droits culturels. On peut cependant se demander dans quelle mesure les théories de ces prédécesseurs ont pu influencer le multiculturalisme libéral. N’est-il pas raisonnable de supposer que les théories de la diversité culturelle comme le multiculturalisme libéral ont reconduit certains éléments théoriques des premières réflexions libérales sur la diversité? Et, si oui, quel impact cet héritage impérial a-t-il eu sur les solutions envisagées et sur la façon dont le problème de la diversité a été posé? Dans l’optique où les espaces impériaux furent parmi les premiers ensembles à devoir gérer la diversité culturelle, on peut se demander dans quelle mesure les théories contemporaines de la gestion de la diversité culturelle rompent avec les théories impériales de la gestion de la diversité culturelle. Plus précisément, on peut se demander s’il existe des continuités théoriques entre une théorie du multiculturalisme libéral telle que celle proposée par Kymlicka et la façon dont les libéraux du XIXe théorisaient le problème de la diversité culturelle à l’époque des empires plurinationaux. Les théories du multiculturalisme libéral auraient-elles reconduit certains biais impérialistes ou coloniaux? Ou, à l’inverse, les critiques faites à leur endroit ne sont-elles pas infondées et ne manquent-elles pas leur cible en s’attaquant aux théories du multiculturalisme? Comment doit-on penser la relation entre empire, colonialisme et multiculturalisme? Dans le cadre de cette thèse, nous avons donc cherché à répondre à ces interrogations en partant de deux questions : existe-t-il un biais impérial dans les théories du multiculturalisme et, si oui, comment peut-on le corriger? Ces deux questions ont pour but de nous aider à comprendre comment le passé impérial des sociétés peut nous aider à mieux saisir les enjeux philosophiques et politiques liés à la question de la diversité culturelle. La présente thèse propose donc de repenser les théories du multiculturalisme libéral à l’aune de leur passé impérial. Pour ce faire, notre réflexion sera construite autour d’une analyse critique des travaux de l’un des principaux penseurs du multiculturalisme libéral : Kymlicka. En partant des travaux de ce dernier, nous tenterons de reconstruire les lignes de continuité théorique qui ont pu exister entre le multiculturalisme libéral et les libéraux impériaux du XIXe siècle. Nous mettrons ainsi en dialogue la théorie libérale de Kymlicka avec les théories de certains de ses prédécesseurs libéraux, notamment John Stuart Mill, Lord Acton et Alfred Zimmern. Cette reconstruction historique nous permettra de mieux comprendre sur quels aspects les propositions de Kymlicka se distinguent de celles de ses prédécesseurs ou, à l’inverse, quels biais elles reconduisent en s’appuyant sur celles-ci. En retour, nous nous pencherons sur les critiques contemporaines qui ont été faites à l’endroit du multiculturalisme libéral, notamment afin de comprendre dans quelle mesure ces critiques se rattachent à la question du passé impérial d’une société comme le Canada. En mettant en place cette double perspective critique, à la fois historique et philosophique, notre ambition est de mieux comprendre les limites des théories du multiculturalisme libéral, et ce, afin de pouvoir en arriver à proposer de nouvelles avenues pour penser la cohabitation des peuples. Pour répondre à ces objectifs, nous soutiendrons dans un premier temps que les théoriciens du multiculturalisme libéral reconduisent un biais impérial en prenant pour acquise la question de la légitimité. Ce faisant, ils laissent de côté la question de l’autorité politique : qui possède le pouvoir sur qui? Dans un deuxième temps, nous argumenterons que les théories du multiculturalisme libéral peuvent mieux réaliser l’idéal d’autonomie des groupes culturels qu’ils défendent en utilisant une conception de l’autonomie fondée sur le concept de non-domination. En partant des travaux d’Iris Marion Young, nous soutiendrons que les concepts d’autonomie relationnelle et d’autodétermination comme non-domination permettent de mieux réaliser le principe d’égalité entre les peuples que ne le font les conceptions classiques de l’autodétermination interne défendues par les libéraux. Cependant, si les propositions théoriques de Young nous permettent d’accroître le potentiel critique des théories du multiculturalisme, nous montrerons qu’elles doivent néanmoins intégrer une conception plus forte des groupes culturels et donc, recourir à une ontologie sociale légèrement différente pour le faire de manière effective. / Multiculturalism is considered one of the main contemporary political theories of diversity management, particularly among liberal thinkers. In this regard, the pioneering work of philosopher Will Kymlicka helped to show that questions of justice must go beyond issues of resources distribution to also include issues of cultural justice. By taking up many of the liberal insights of his predecessors, Kymlicka has succeeded in proposing an original model of cultural rights management. However, it is questionable to what extent the theories of his predecessors have influenced liberal multiculturalism. Is it not reasonable to assume that both theories of cultural diversity and liberal multiculturalism have carried over some of the theoretical elements of early liberal thinking on diversity? And, if so, what impact has this imperial legacy had on the solutions envisioned and on how the problem of diversity has been posed? Since imperial spaces were among the first sets to have to manage cultural diversity, one may ask to what extent current theories of cultural management break with imperial theories of cultural diversity management . Specifically, one might ask whether there are theoretical continuities between a theory of liberal multiculturalism as the one proposed by Kymlicka and the way nineteenth-century liberals theorized the problem of cultural diversity in the era of plurinational empires. Do theories of liberal multiculturalism have renewed certain imperialist or colonial biases? Or, conversely, are the criticisms leveled at them not unfounded, and do they not miss their target in attacking theories of multiculturalism? How should we think about the relationship between empire, colonialism, and multiculturalism? In this thesis, we sought to answer these matters based on two questions: is there an imperial bias in theories of multiculturalism and, if so, how can it be corrected? These two questions are intended to help us understand how the imperial past of societies can help us better understand the philosophical and political issues related to the question of cultural diversity. This thesis, therefore, proposes to rethink theories of liberal multiculturalism by considering their imperial past. To do so, our reflection will be built around a critical analysis of the work of one of the main thinkers of liberal multiculturalism: Kymlicka. Starting from his work, we will attempt to reconstruct the lines of theoretical continuity that may have existed between liberal multiculturalism and the imperial liberals of the 19th century. We will thus put Kymlicka's liberal theory in dialogue with the theories of some of his liberal predecessors, notably John Stuart Mill, Lord Acton, and Alfred Zimmern. This historical reconstruction will allow us to better understand in which aspects Kymlicka's proposals differ from his predecessors or, conversely, which biases he reproduces by relying on them. At a second level, we will look at contemporary critiques of liberal multiculturalism, particularly to understand how these critiques relate to the question of the imperial past of a society like Canada. By putting in place this double critical perspective, both historical and philosophical, our ambition is to better understand the limits of theories of liberal multiculturalism and to be able to propose new avenues for thinking about the cohabitation of peoples. To address these objectives, we will first argue that theorists of liberal multiculturalism reproduce an imperial bias by taking for granted the question of legitimacy. In doing so, they leave aside the question of political authority: who has power over whom? Second, we will argue that theories of liberal multiculturalism can better realize the ideal of autonomy for cultural groups that they defend by using a conception of autonomy based on the concept of non-domination. Drawing on Iris Marion Young's work, we will argue that the concepts of relational autonomy and self-determination as non-domination better realize the principle of equality among peoples than do classical conceptions of internal self-determination defended by liberals. However, if Young's theoretical proposals allow us to increase the critical potential of theories of multiculturalism, we will show that they must nonetheless incorporate a stronger conception of cultural groups and thus, a slightly different social ontology if we want this alternative to be effective.