Responsibilities necessary to preserve the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and international personality of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with the division of responsibilities between the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has relied upon the “state sovereignty” segment of Article III.5(a) to establish several new State institutions or systems.

In U 9/00, the Court concluded that legislation establishing a State Border Service was consistent with the Constitution. In reaching its conclusion, the Court referred to Article III.5 of the Constitution and held, inter alia, that the notion of State sovereignty included the right for Bosnia and Herzegovina to take all necessary actions for the protection of its territorial integrity, political independence and international personality and that the establishment of a State Border Service contributed to guaranteeing this principle.²⁶⁷⁴ In U 42/03, the Court concluded that contested provisions of a law adopted by Bosnia and Herzegovina regulating the public broadcasting system of Bosnia and Herzegovina were constitutional.²⁶⁷⁵

In AP 164/04, the Court paid particular attention to the “state sovereignty” segment of Article III.5(a) to conclude that Bosnia and Herzegovina was obliged to undertake several measures vis-à-vis other States in order to resolve the issue of old foreign currency savings. In doing so, the Court indicated that a failure to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and the non- fulfilment of international obligations would unavoidably lead to the international isolation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the potential disappearance of its international personality.²⁶⁷⁶

The “state sovereignty” segment of Article III.5(a) was also relied upon by the Court in order to conclude the constitutionality of a law establishing a court at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina with jurisdiction, inter alia, over criminal offences defined in the criminal code of Bosnia and Herzegovina and with jurisdiction to review the administrative acts of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.²⁶⁷⁷ The Court went even further in U 16/08 and concluded to the constitutionality of an amendment to the Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, enacted by Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to cover criminal offences prescribed by the laws of the Entities and the Brčko District. The amendment stipulated that the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina had jurisdiction over such offences when they endangered, inter alia, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina or when such offences could have serious repercussions on the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina.²⁶⁷⁸ The Court concluded that the amendment was consistent with Articles 1.2, III.1(g), III.3(a) and III.5(a) of the Constitution.²⁶⁷⁹

The responsibilities of Bosnia and Herzegovina relating to the preservation of its sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and international personality do not, however, exclude the capacity of the Entities to enter into special parallel relationship-agreements with neighbouring states through which they can agree to foster cooperation in the field of defence. In U 42/01, the constitutionality of such an agreement was challenged. The applicant in this case argued that Republika Srpska had violated Article III.5(a) by entering into an agreement on a special parallel relationship with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia pursuant to which both parties would foster cooperation regarding defence matters.²⁶⁸⁰ While recognising that the Entities are entitled, pursuant to Article III.2(a) of the Constitution, to establish special parallel relationships with neighbouring states consistent with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the applicant argued that the provision of the agreement on cooperation in the field of defence was incompatible with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina guaranteed by the Constitution under Article III.5(a). It was also argued that the agreement infringed upon Bosnia and Herzegovina’s responsibilities under the same Article.²⁶⁸¹ The Court rejected both of the applicant’s argument and held that the contested provisions could be interpreted in a manner that was consistent with the Constitution.²⁶⁸²