{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":24,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":24,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[6,2,6,3],[7,2,7,3],[8,2,8,3],[9,2,9,3],[17,2,17,3],[18,2,18,3],[21,2,21,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910494590403321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Pehar Dražen <1967->"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Peace as War : BosniaHerzegovina PostDayton / / Dražen Pehar"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"New York : , : Central European University Press, , 2019"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Baltimore, Md. : , : Project MUSE, , 2019"]
[{"$nulls":4},"©2019"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"963-386-301-5"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (295 pages)"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"949.74203"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"War and society - Bosnia and Herzegovina"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Peace-building - Bosnia and Herzegovina"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Yugoslav War, 1991-1995 - Peace"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Electronic books."]
[{"$nulls":4},"Bosnia and Herzegovina Foreign relations United States"]
[{"$nulls":4},"United States Foreign relations Bosnia and Herzegovina"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Bosnia and Herzegovina Ethnic relations Political aspects"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Bosnia and Herzegovina Politics and government 1992-"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,null,"Nota di bibliografia","Includes bibliographical references and index."]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"Document/law reading as peace unmaking -- Dediscoursification, or, The Dayton peace implementation as a continuation of the state of war -- UN GA S/1995/1021 : a \"backward-looking\" treaty? -- Politische Justiz, fictive histories, and irrationalizing interpretation at the Bosnian Constitutional Court (U 5/98-III) -- The issue of the Bosnia and Herzegovina election law : the curious case of Željko Komšić, our \"Vidkun Quisling\" -- Recognizing Bosnia's constituent ethnic identities -- Discursive mechanisms of political power -- The high representative : an engine of progress? -- \"Junkyard dogs,\" \"Viennese stable tenders\" and the \"savior of Bosnian Muslims\" : American peace/war-making politics in Bosnia, to Dayton and beyond -- Misrepresentation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the US Congress."]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","\"The book is about the peace implementation process in Bosnia-Herzegovina viewed, or interpreted reasonably, as a continuation of war by other means. Twenty years after the beginning of the Dayton Peace Accords, we need to summarize the results: the author shares the general agreement in public opinion, according to which the process is "]
[{"$nulls":4},"a failure. Pehar presents a broad, yet sufficiently detailed, view of the entire peace agreement implementation that preserves 'the state of war,' and thus encourages the war-prone attitudes in the parties to the agreement. He examines the political and narratological underpinnings to the process of the imposed international (predominantly USA) interpretation of the Dayton constitution and peace treaty as a whole. The key issue is the--perhaps only semi-consciously applied--divide ut imperes strategy. After nearly twenty years, the peace in document was not translated into a peace on the ground because, with regard to the key political and constitutional issues and attitudes, Bosnia remains a deeply divided society. The book concludes that the international supervision served a counter-purpose: instead of correcting the aberration and guarding the meaning that was originally accepted in the Dayton peace treaty, the supervision approved the aberration and imposed it as a new norm under the clout of 'the power of ultimate interpretation'\"--"]