No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this essay was to study the impact the Dayton Accords has had on the political society and the judicial society in Bosnia and Herzegovina today. In order to do so, the following questions were asked in the essay:“What does the political society look like in Bosnia and Herzegovina?”,“What does the judicial society look like in Bosnia and Herzegovina?” and ”What type of relation is there between the political and judicial society?”. By using consolidation theory and applying qualitative textual analysis it was conducted that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a consolidated democracy yet. The country is a transitional or hybrid regimecharacterized by a political society that: partially meets the criteria required in the organization and issuance of political elections, it does not meet the criteria for an autonomous political society, it has a wide range of political parties, and alliances between parties are common, it has election rules that benefits the three largest ethnic groups, and lastly legislators have a partly independent role as long as new legislation does not contribute to any form of sabotage of the Dayton Accords. The country has a judicial society that is: complex and inefficient when it comes to the legal system, it has striking shortcomings in the judiciary and the rule of law, there has been only marginal progress in legislation, and the Dayton agreement has not promoted stability in the country but has instead enabled segregation and discrimination. To conclude, the relation between the political and judicial society is fragile. A reform of the Dayton Agreement, in which the agenda is greater civic inclusion, would enable Bosnia and Herzegovina to move towards a more consolidated democracy.

BackgroundThis research paper examines the criminal legal regulations applied to Female Genital Mutilation in France and Finland. Female genital mutilation is a form of violence against women, and a violation of the Human Rights. The procedure has life-long negative consequences to the victims and their communities. Female genital mutilation is a tradition of certain cultures and ethnicities. Through immigration from Female Genital Mutilation practicing regions, Female Genital Mutilation has become prevalent in European Union area. The practice is a criminal act in all European member states but treated under each member state’s national law. Methods France’s and Finland’s criminal regulations treating Female Genital Mutilation, are examinedusing legal text and secondary source documents from trusted sources. The findings will be analyzed through intersectional theory. Furthermore, the determinants for the countries differences in regulations are examined through demographics and gender equality.ResultsNeither, France nor Finland has a separate regulation treating female genital mutilation, nor a specific notion to Female Genital Mutilation in their criminal laws. The cases of Female Genital Mutilation are dealt under the general criminal law. France has a notion to “mutilation” in two of its regulations which do not solely refer to Female Genital Mutilation. France also emphasizes victim’s minor age as a base for more severe punishment and wider extraterritorial prosecution coverage. Finland applies different degrees of Assault-charges to FGM cases, covering all age groups. ConclusionFrom intersectional theory’s point of view, females encounter discrimination and oppression in both Finland’s and France’s legal regulations applied to Female Genital Mutilation cases. From those legal regulations, the study identified social identity factors predisposing the victim to discrimination and oppression: gender, class, age and ethnicity. Explaining the differences between France’s and Finland’s regulations the study concludes that demographics show causal correlation with female benefitting law formation. France has a historically longer time spam and greater volume of immigrants arriving from Female Genital Mutilation practicing countries. This has enabled France to adjust its criminal legislation to, if not explicitly but in part, to refer to incidents related to Female Genital Mutilation. Another determinant, gender-equality cannot be linked to causal correlation with female benefitting law formation. This is due to short time spam of high female representation in parliamentary and as ministers in both France and Finland.

No description available.