The silence of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Hercegovina, the High Representative and subjects that can initiate a procedure for the establishment of the constitutionality indicates that everything with the filed suit is fine, while forceful opposition of all political parties from the Republic of Srpska indicates that the suit against Yugoslavia is viewed as a suit against Serbs from Bosnia-Hercegovina.
In the flood of semi-information and semi-explanations, a clear answer whether the suit is unconstitutional is missing.
For the sake of reminder, let us mention that the Dayton agreement recognized the international continuity of BH, but did not recognize the continuity of its internal organization. The constitutional order from 1992 was displaced by a new constitutional order which secures equality of nations and human rights, because this agreement was not only an international treaty with the goal of stopping war, it is also a lasting arbitration of the internal constitutional and inter-ethnic matters in BH.
The suit against Yugoslavia does not enjoy unanimous support of the BH Presidency, because Radisic [Serb representative in the Presidency] has already used his right of veto, and the National Assembly of Srpska has confirmed his veto with a two-third majority. According to the constitution, this issue should have thereby been resolved and the decisions related to it were null and void. If the constitution, as the highest legal act in BH is respected, then the suit is both illegitimate and illegal. It is unclear why Dr. Kasim Trnka, as a constitutional law expert, is persistently insisting on the suit against Yugoslavia, if he knows better than anyone else that it counters the BH Constitution.
The intention of the Council of Ministers to allocate significant funds for the representative of the suit in front of the Court in the Hague through the budget of joint institutions indicates that deeper and hidden motives and goals are to be found behind the whole affair.
The suit against Yugoslavia is actually a suit against the Republic of Srpska, because if the court verdict were to state that Yugoslavia carried out an aggression and created the Republic of Srpska, then the government institutions in Srpska, and especially the military and police, can be treated as a part of aggressor's forces, and only Serbs would be tried for genocide in the Hague.
A definition of the war as that between an aggressor and a victim places one nation in the position of the aggressor, while the other nation becomes a defender of the state, so that the defender nation earns the right to try the aggressor nation.
Is the legacy of Alija Izetbegovic in the form of a suit against Yugoslavia more valuable than peace and coexistence in BH, because it is obvious that the two have nothing in common and cancel each other?
If the BH Constitution is respected, then there will be no suit. However, the recent events indicate that constitution is being ignored in this case.
If the suit results in a verdict against Yugoslavia, it could also be a verdict against Bosnia-Hercegovina, because further development of the state based on inequality of nations and dominance of one nation over others is impossible based on the Dayton agreement, while the functioning of the BH outside of this agreement is a risky game that should not be permitted by any responsible and democratic politician.
In parallel with the suit in BH we could witness discussions about the nature of the statehood of BH, whether it is a shared value of all three nations or whether it is some sovereign value unrelated and above the three nations. If BH is a state with shared sovereignty of all three nations, and Dr. Trnka claims that much, than its only valid international will is the one resulting from that shared sovereignty. The theory about state sovereignty that is more important and unrelated to the will of the three nations is based on historical theories about several centuries of statehood in the mediaeval period. Consequently, as the Bosnian state dates to the mediaeval times, while the three constituent nations were formed only in the nineteenth century, then the state is older than nations. However, even this argument contradicts itself, because even the mediaeval Bosnia had three ethnic groups as its three constituent elements. The right of Bogumils to convert to Islam is neither greater nor lesser than the right of other Bosnians to remain faithful to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, so that even the mediaeval statehood had three distinct elements.