Symbols that Keep Us Apart

In a significant development for Bosnia and Herzegovina, in February 2025, the Constitutional Court suspended the controversial amendments to the Republika Srpska Law on Emblems (“Emblem Law Amendments”) allowing the use of foreign state symbols alongside the symbols of Republika Srpska in public institutions and official documents. This ruling emphasizes the ongoing struggles over national symbols and identity in a country still grappling with the legacy of its 1992-1995 conflict. The Emblem Law Amendments are one of the latest legal maneuvers challenging the constitutional framework established by the Dayton Peace Agreement, including the principles of state sovereignty and political stability. They highlight Republika Srpska’s ongoing efforts to redefine its relationship with the central state, risking deepening ethnic divisions. By reinstating national symbols of the Republic of Serbia under the pretext of “parallel relations,” Republika Srpska’s leadership has not only reaffirmed its political autonomy but also advanced its efforts to reshape its status within Bosnia and Herzegovina while disregarding the country’s constitutional order.

Symbols and the struggle over identity

Symbols play a central role in the formation of national identity. Flags, anthems, and coats of arms are more than mere decorations; they serve as tangible representations of a nation’s shared past, values, and culture. States have long used these emblems to define and reinforce nationhood, fostering a sense of unity and common belonging among their citizens. As Michael Walzer notes, “The state is invisible; it must be personified before it can be seen, symbolized before it can be loved, and imagined before it can be conceived.” Similarly, David Kertzer argues that symbolism is not a superficial aspect of nationhood but its very foundation: “Far from being window dressing on the reality that is the nation, symbolism is the stuff of which nations are made.”

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, efforts to create a unified national identity have been obstructed by the divisive legacy of the 1990s war, which set ethnic groups against each other and left deep scars. The 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement, which ended the conflict and established a post-war constitutional framework, did not create a typical nation-state but instead a complex political structure consisting of two entities (Republika Srpska and the Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and three constituent peoples (Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Serbs). Rather than promoting a common civic identity, this arrangement has institutionalized ethnic divisions, making the adoption of national symbols a contested and often polarizing issue.

The imposition of state symbols

Efforts to establish common state symbols began with Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 1992 independence and were enshrined in the 1993 Constitution. Initially, the state adopted a coat of arms featuring a blue shield with six golden lilies (Lilium bosniacum), and a flag displaying a white background and the same emblem at its center. Chosen for its historical reference to the medieval Bosnian state, the lily was intended as a unifying emblem that emphasized national neutrality, as it did not represent any specific ethnic group. Similarly, the national anthem Jedna si jedina (You are the only one) was introduced during this period.

With the outbreak of conflict, these symbols became increasingly contested and associated solely with the Bosniak community, facing growing opposition from Bosnian Serbs and Croats. After the war, the country’s institution failed to agree on new national symbols, leading to external intervention by the High Representative, an ad hoc international institution responsible for overseeing the civilian implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement.

In 1998, the High Representative imposed the Law on the Flag, introducing a design featuring a blue field divided by a yellow right-angled triangle, with a row of white stars along its hypotenuse. The three points of the triangle represent Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constituent peoples while also alluding to the country’s shape. The stars, replacing the lilies, symbolize Europe. That same year, the Decision on the Shape and Design of the Coat of Arms introduced a three-pointed shield that mirrored the flag’s design, replacing the golden lilies with the blue and yellow color scheme and diagonal bend with stars. In 1999, the High Representative also imposed the Law on the National Anthem, introducing a new anthem initially without lyrics. Efforts to adopt lyrics were delayed for nearly a decade as political divisions made an agreement nearly impossible. For Serbs, for example, a common anthem was viewed as an acceptance of a unified state, further highlighting the deep divisions between Bosnia and Herzegovina’s three main ethnic groups.

Rather than fostering a sense of national unity, these externally imposed symbols underscored the country’s ongoing fragmentation, making the development of a shared identity even more challenging.

Symbols of the entities and constitutional disputes

The struggle over symbols also extended to the entities. Republika Srpska’s 1992 Constitutional Law on the Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem introduced symbols nearly identical to those in Serbia. The coat of arms featured the House of Nemanjić’s red shield with a double-headed eagle with a crown; its flag mirrored Serbia’s red-blue-white tricolor and its anthem Bože pravde, the Serbian national anthem. The 1993 Law on the Use of the Flag Coat of Arms and Anthem further stated that these symbols “represent the statehood of the Republika Srpska” and must be used “in accordance with moral norms of the Serb people.”

The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Federation) adopted the 1996 Law on the Coat of Arms and Flag, though it failed to adopt an anthem. The coat of arms combined the golden lily and the red-and-white checkerboard, representing the Federation’s two constituent peoples – Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. Additionally, white stars on a blue background symbolized the Federation’s ten cantons, giving the design a resemblance to the EU’s flag.

In 2006, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ruled that the entities’ symbols must represent all three constituent peoples and ordered their revision within six months. The Federation’s emblems failed to reflect Bosnian Serb identity, while Republika Srpska’s emblems were entirely monoethnic. Since the entities failed to change their symbols within the prescribed period, the Court repealed the relevant provisions in 2007.

Since then, the Federation has struggled to agree on new emblems and has temporarily used the coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnian Croats insist on including the checkboard, while Bosnian Serbs demand the inclusion of the ocila (four Cyrillic “C”s). Many Bosniaks, however, view the ocila as a symbol of Greater Serbian nationalism and genocide, making compromise impossible. As a result, the Federation remains without an official coat of arms, flag, and anthem. Republika Srpska, by contrast, introduced new symbols, including a seal displaying the entity’s flag and the letters “RS” in Cyrillic, alongside a new anthem, Moja Republika (My Republic). Svein Mønnesland notes, however, that not only did the new anthem not mention Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that the lyrics “We have no other land” also indicate the opposition to the common state.

The controversial Emblem Law Amendments and their purpose

The latest dispute over symbols erupted on February 1, 2025, when Republika Srpska passed the Law on Amendments to the Law on the Use of the Flag, Coat of Arms, and Anthem (Emblem Law Amendments), significantly altering its approach to official symbols. The law allowed foreign state flags, coats of arms, and anthems to be displayed alongside Republika Srpska symbols in official settings. It also permitted the use of foreign state symbols on government buildings, institutions, and public spaces, as well as their incorporation into official Republika Srpska seals, stamps, and documents.

The law particularly applied to states with which Republika Srpska had signed an Agreement on Special Parallel Relations, that is, states with which some or all constituent peoples or other citizens in Republika Srpska share a common cultural and traditional heritage. Notably, Serbia is the only neighboring country with which the entity has such an agreement (signed in 2006), underscoring the law’s intent to align Republika Srpska symbolically and politically with Serbia rather than Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole.

The law’s primary aim was to bypass the 2006 Constitutional Court decision that repealed the originally established Republika Srpska symbols. In fact, the amendment reintroduces Serbia’s national symbols – such as the coat of arms of the House of Nemanjić and the Serbian anthem Bože pravde – into Republika Srpska institutions, offices and municipalities. This move effectively reinstated the 1993 version of the Law on the Use of the Flag, Coat of Arms and Anthem, which had been declared unconstitutional. By doing this, the law sought to revive elements of Republika Srpska’s pre-Dayton nationalist policies, reinforcing the dominance of Serbs over non-Serb populations.

The controversial law was rejected by the Bosniak Caucus in the Council of Peoples – the chamber responsible for reviewing decisions of the Republika Srpska National Assembly and holding veto power over issues affecting constituent peoples. It referred the law to the Constitutional Court of Republika Srpska, a body widely regarded as a rubber stamp for the entity’s authorities. Predictably, the Court ruled that the law did not violate the vital national interests of the Bosniak people, despite public statements by Republika Srpska officials indicating that its primary purpose was to enable the use of Serbia’s state symbols.

Constitutional Court’s rationale for suspension

The controversial Emblem Law Amendments were then challenged by the Presidency member of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denis Becirovic, in front of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court temporarily suspended the law on several grounds, primarily focusing on concerns over sovereignty, legal stability, and the broader political consequences of the law’s implementation.

First, the Court emphasized that allowing foreign state symbols to be displayed alongside Republika Srpska symbols in public institutions could be interpreted as a move that challenges Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty. The Court referred to the preamble to the 1995 Constitution, which affirms the country’s commitment to “sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence in accordance with international law.” By permitting foreign symbols on official institutions, Emblem Law Amendments could create a perception that the entity operates with a degree of autonomy that exceeds its constitutional status as an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Second, the Court warned that the law could facilitate the entity’s authorities to engage in a form of parallel foreign policy. It cautioned against the unrestricted use of foreign state symbols in the entity’s institutions which could lead to actions that contradict Bosnia and Herzegovina’s official foreign policy, causing confusion in international relations.

Third, the Court highlighted the legal uncertainty that could arise if the law were later declared unconstitutional after having already been implemented. If foreign state symbols were placed on public buildings, official documents, and seals, their removal would create legal and administrative complications. The Court stressed that suspending the law now would prevent a scenario in which Republika Srpska authorities would have to undo actions that might be deemed unconstitutional in the future.

Finally, the Court recognized that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s recent history makes the question of state symbols particularly sensitive. In this sense, the potential for Republika Srpska institutions to display foreign symbols could be seen as an assertion of allegiance to external powers, fueling political tensions between the entity and the central government in Sarajevo. That might further destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina’s already fragile political landscape.

What comes next?

The Constitutional Court’s suspension of the Emblem Law Amendments represents an important step in reaffirming Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional framework and countering ongoing challenges to state sovereignty. However, it remains unclear whether the entity will comply with the decision, given that its 2023 Law on Non-Application оf Decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina explicitly banns the implementation of rulings by the Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Constitutional Court in Republika Srpska. This raises serious concerns about the country’s ability to uphold the rule of law and enforce judicial authority.

Despite these uncertainties, the Court’s decision is significant because it reinforces the fundamental legal principles that define Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional order. By suspending the law, the Court has sent a clear message that attempts to undermine state sovereignty and territorial integrity through symbolic or legislative maneuvers will not go unchallenged.

At the same time, the decision highlights the persistent struggle over identity and statehood in post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina, where national symbols remain powerful instruments of division. This conflict over symbols reflects a broader reality in which the past continues to shape the present, keeping the potential for renewed ethnic tensions alive. Thirty years after the war, Bosnia and Herzegovina remains locked in an unresolved constitutional conflict, with Republika Srpska’s leadership continuously testing the limits of its autonomy in a long-standing effort to distance itself from Bosnia and Herzegovina as a unified state.