Talk:Brčko/Archive 2

arbitration discussion
So, this is covered in Article 5 in Annex 2:


 * 1) The Parties agree to binding arbitration of the disputed portion of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line in the Brcko area indicated on the map attached at the Appendix.
 * 2) No later than six months after the entry into force of this Agreement, the Federation shall appoint one arbitrator, and the Republika Srpska shall appoint one arbitrator. A third arbitrator shall be selected by agreement of the Parties' appointees within thirty days thereafter. If they do not agree, the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice. The third arbitrator shall serve as presiding officer of the arbitral tribunal.
 * 3) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the UNCITRAL rules. The arbitrators shall apply relevant legal and equitable principles.
 * 4) Unless otherwise agreed, the area indicated in paragraph 1 above shall continue to be administered as currently.
 * 5) The arbitrators shall issue their decision no later than one year from the entry into force of this Agreement. The decision shall be final and binding, and the Parties shall implement it without delay.

Read carefully: binding arbitration of the disputed portion of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line. Creation of a third entity is not arbitration of the disputed portion of a boundary, especially as it runs counter to the rest of the agreement. Nikola 07:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a proof that the arbitration was set up by this agreement. Noone is talking about the third entity. Read carefully: the area indicated in paragraph 1, is related to Brcko. Also, The decision shall be final and binding, and the Parties shall implement it without delay. Emir Arven 12:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand anymore do you know to read. Arbitration of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line was set up by the agreement. That was never done, the IEBL was never arbitrated. Rather, de-facto third entity was created. Nikola 01:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * De iure, the third entity was not created. You should base ur edits on relevant documents not POV. Emir Arven 15:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * De iure, third entity was created, even if it doesn't have "entity" in its name. Nikola 12:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "De iure" means that there is an official decision about creation of the third entity? Can you show me that decision? Emir Arven 12:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Read the article: "an independent unit of local self-government". Is that not true? Nikola 13:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * All municipallities in Bosnia are "an independent unit of local self-government". Emir Arven 13:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So, to which entity this particular municipality belongs? Nikola 21:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To both entities, which have obligations to Brcko Distrikt as well as the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Emir Arven 00:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that Dayton foresaw such a possibility. Nikola 11:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I dont care what u think (which is ur POV). I act according to official documents...Emir Arven 11:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dayton is an official document. Nikola 07:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and proves my edit. Emir Arven 18:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

When you count demographics in Brcko you count it on Distict level just as you count demopraphics of Zenica for example on municipality level.

And on District level serbs do not form majority in Brcko.

Besides, serbs doesnt even form majority in the city itself. Visca el barca 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical Brcko
What about Brcko history prior to the Dayton Accord? I've been there, and it's clearly older than Dayton. What is a good source on history of the city -- I'm particularly interested in the medieval history. CsikosLo (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)