|KINGDOM OF BOSNIA
Bosznia Királyság (hu)
PRINCEDOM OF BOSNIA
Bosznia Hercegség (hu)
"Bosna i Hercegovina" (bs)
|Moto: "In neutrality wisdom!"|
|Himna: In Medio Virtus
Tropolis (since 2015)
|Službeni jezik||Bosnian language|
|Državno uređenje||usurped monarchy|
|-||Suverenitet od||1141 (by division from the Hungarian Crown, out of free will by King Geza II to Prince Boris Kalamanos)|
|-||Ukupno||68 846 km2 (123)|
|-||Ukupno (procjena '14)||4 100 000 (116)|
|-||Gustoća stanovništva||100/km2 (112)|
2 386 m
|-||Najveće jezero||Buško blato
Sovereignty usurped by foreign persons and their quislings, while foreigners rig elections as needed. Usurpation transferred via international conferences: Berlin 1878, Paris 1919, Tehran 1943, Dayton 1995.
Ova stranica na Bosanskom/srpskom
Bosnia (cf. Bosma, Old-Bosnian and nowadays Frisian for highlanders, people from/of the forest) or Illyria Proper, is a country of the Old Bosnian civilization from which Ancient Greek civilization and Ancient Rome originated, making Bosnia the cradle of Western and other civilizations. Bosnia was first mentioned in writing in PAX NICEPHORI (the 803 CE peace treaty between Western Roman Emperor Charlemagne and Eastern Roman Emperor Nicephorus I), which today is allegedly lost, but was described in detail by the 19th century renowned English classicists. The fact that Bosnia and other Illyrian countries must have existed as such long before the 8th century debunks the Austrian myth on the 6th/7th-century arrival of "wild Slavs from the marshlands of Belarus". Thus the local states were known in the late Antiquity under the same names as today, and PAX NICEPHORI is available but hidden because it contradicts Austria's colonial version of history of the Balkans (and replaced by the infamous 17th century Porphyrogenitus forgery on Bosnia's first mention only in the 10th century - fitting to the Slavs arrival myth). Furthermore, this debunks most of Roman sources on Illyrian tribes as fakes, as well as confirms that the locals hold the historic right over the Balkans. Those same classicists from before 1878 (the Austrian invasion of Bosnia under the auspices of colonial exploitation but primarily for the destruction of archaeological evidence) believed that Pannonians (today's Croats/Slavonians and Serbs) originated in Illyria proper (Bosnia). That continuity (broken off only during the Austrian influence over the Balkans) became obvious again today thanks to modern DNA studies, and it supports the Bosnia-centered Illyria belief by modern-day leading scholars. The same conclusion follows from the spreading of stećci from Bosnia radially outward, into Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro.
The denial of the historic right of Slavs to the Balkans (as based on the myth of their 6th/7th-century arrival, and the Austrian-designed forgery on the Albanians as Illyrians) was presented to Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito in the 1950s by the Vatican-led State Department - as "new scientific facts" and the legal basis in their demand for the breakup of Yugoslavia and the rise of Greater Albania. Tito initially objected, believing it was a bluff. As a counter-bluff, he caved in somewhat, taking localized actions while faking national-level measures: prevented WW2 Serb refugees from returning to Kosovo, amended Yugoslav Constitution in 1968 to make the country a fake Federation, etc. But faced with growing threats of "justified attack" by the unimpressed West (accompanied by quisling activities: late-1968 Kosovo irredentism, 1969 MASPOK mass protests, 1970-1974 assassinations of high-ranked state officials and diplomats, 1972 Ustasha terrorist intrusion at Bugojno, etc.) he amended the Constitution again in 1971, and then finally gave in - amending it again in 1974. The latter move has finally turned his Republic into a full-fledged Federation. He took these desperate measures - including refusing to name his successor - in a hope they would allow his people a peaceful breakup. His Yugoslavia was the second attempt at restoring the historic Illyria while constantly under attacks by powerful foreign enemies and their openly quisling officials led by one Slovenian nationalist Kardelj who since 1937 advocated federalization of Yugoslavia as a road to Slovenian independence.
Legally (under international law), Bosnia is a monarchy where royalist sovereignty right has been usurped to the royal family and the country turned into a colony under a non-sovereign regime of the US-led International Protectorate. An authorized representative of international community governs the constitutionally impossible quasistate of Protectorate BiH. Indeed, countless scientific references by leading experts in international law also call Bosnia only a protectorate (a state cannot exist in several regimes simultaneously!), however, the Vatican as the main usurper of Bosnia sovereignty has used its quislings - primarily in Bosnia, Austria, Germany, and the United States - to hide this essential fact from the local and international public. That makes the Protectorate unproclaimed, which under international law renders Bosnia a colony - civilization's downfall to the shame of western nations from the era in which the US State Department - controlled by papists - created or aided foreign policy of the US and its so-called allies. During the entire period since 1995, the Vatican and the rest of Bosnia's enemies have been masking the Protectorate under the appearance of the alleged Federal constitutional order, for which they even published a few pseudo-scientific works that support their claim of a federal state with the Dayton Accords no less. However, the English (the only relevant) version of the Dayton Accords defines BiH as a state that ...shall consist of the two Entities... (Article I-3) not one that shall be composed of the two Entities as found in the said fake references. In any contractual agreement, and thus in the international law arena as well, the only relevant meaning is that which is based on the exact letter of the contract.
The Protectorate's name cf. Bosznia Hercegség (Hun.) for Princedom of Bosnia. Then Bosna i Hercegovina (Bos.) and Herceg-Bosna (Cro.) stand for "Princedom of Bosnia". Bosnia began its legal existence in 1141 when Hungarian Prince Borisz (Bos. Borić) as a member of Árpád dynasty has gained sovereignty rights over Bosnia , and, as customary in Europe, was later transformed into a kingdom under Kotromanićs. When that dynasty got extinguished in 1463, Berislavićs as also direct descendants of Bosnia's founding father Borić, kept the monarchy by arms. This Second Princedom lasted until the fall of the capital Jajce in 1527, from where princes Berislavić ruled as sovereigns.
After 1527, Bosnia continued under the rules of international legal order ("on paper"), like the League of Nations continued "on paper" between 1938 and 1945 when the Organization of United Nations succeeded it. Ahead of switching the Ottoman for Hapsburg usurpation (Berlin, 1878), the land in 1853 got back its name in Hungarian legalese since the sovereignty rights had been obtained from Hungary's Crown: Bosznia Hercegség (hun.) of which "Bosnia and Hercegovina" was a sophism designed by Austrians who introduced the conjunction "and" so to lose the original Princedom in renderings of the Hungarian legalese. Sovereignty usurpation has been transferred under rules of the international legal order (of which the UN International Law is a small part and current framework), always in the form of peace treaties: Berlin 1878, Paris 1919, Tehran 1943, and finally Dayton 1995 where solutions got created so to fail, not succeed.
The status of Jajce was also frozen, in 1527, so it remained the capital. It was always assigned, as normal, the lowest postal and area codes regardless of regime type. This is why Sarajevo, featuring postal and area codes that are not the country's lowest, although officially "BiH" capital, is no capital at all. In fact, the entire "BiH" regime does not exist under the international legal order, to begin with. This was the reason the CIA World Factbook (one of the most cited sources in geopolitics, despite being unscientific!) listed for a long time Bosnia's regime bizarrely in the future tense (as "emerging republic") instead of present tense. For if they listed the regime in the present tense, the entry would have to say Princedom/Kingdom of Bosnia, admitting that colonialism is still acceptable within the international legal order. (The CIA updated the record in the meantime, falsely stating the regime in present tense as "federal republic" though according to the Protectorate's constitution "BiH" is neither federation nor republic.) Not only that, but the CIA does not even list the 1991-1995 Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina as though never existed, so Bosnia and Hercegovina officially (according to the Dayton Peace Accords) is the legal successor of a phantom (the 1991-1995) republic. This, in fact, is legally correct, since Bosnia and Hercegovina under the rules of international legal order is already a monarchy, as seen in the above. As a monarchy (princedom or kingdom), Bosnia and Hercegovina obviously can have no prefix like a republic. Lately, the wandering CIA (dubbed by Americans and especially their top military brass as the "Catholics In Action" as the pope's right hand modeled after Gestapo and SS), again changed its own label for the Protectorate's regime - into "parliamentary republic". That, of course, is again not based on facts as written in the Protectorate's constitution, and is also obviously incorrect since protectorates (because they are not truly parliamentary democracies) do not have sovereign parliaments but fake ones instead - so-called parliamentary assemblies - just like any international organizations do (such as OSCE, NATO, etc.) as well as other protectorates such as Northern Ireland.
A monarch is the source of all legal and legitimate rights in a monarchy, and so would be in Bosnia proper (Bosnia as a legal entity based on eternal rules of the international legal order), and in Bosnia also the sole owner of the so called societal property (a communist sophism) - the landmass that makes around 60% of the Bosnian territory and that was usurped directly from the Bosnian monarch on first occupation. The foreign powers have bartered the usurpation at international conferences ever since.
After assuming his powers in foreign affairs and international law, His Majesty on 24.5.2015 abrogated the Dayton Peace Accords international agreement of 1995 that served as the excuse for colonialism. The King abrogated Dayton agreement in all of its international aspects immediately, as well as in all of its other aspects pending national consensus within a reasonable timeframe. Due to anti-civilization move by colonial judiciary ordering the sale of Geodetic Institute of BiH public company (key in proving territorial span of sovereignty rights) and so usurping executive authorities, HM on 31.5.2015 proclaimed absolute monarchy pending parliamentary monarchy and announced a state of emergency which is still on.
- 1 History of the monarchy
- 2 Continuation of Bosnia within international legal order
- 3 Normal Bosnia
- 4 Insignia
- 5 Notable individuals
- 6 See also
- 7 References
History of the monarchy
Legal beginning, First and Second Kingdom
The Princedom began legally in 1141 when Hungary's Crown named Hungarian prince Borisz (Bos. Borić) as Viceroy of Bosnia. The land was later ruled by Kotromanićs who, as a branch of Borić's dynasty Berislavićs, stayed in power until invading Turkish hordes extinguished them in 1463. As Borić's direct descendants, Berislavićs took over most of the land, and held it in three generations of princes: Ivan, followed by his sons Franjo and Ivaniš, and then by Ivaniš's son Stjepan (Sztefan; Stefan) who was the heir to thrones of Bosnia and Croatia, as well as Serbia via his mother who was the last absolutist monarch of Serbia. Bosnia under Berislavićs endured for nearly a century, enabling parts of the country such as Krajina (to the west) to stay free until the 17th century.
The fact that Jajce always gets the lowest postal and area codes regardless of regime, and that all regimes censor the reason for such an unspoken law, cannot be a coincidence but instead evidence that under international law Jajce has been the capital until 2015 when the King moved the capital to Tropolis.
World's leading references in international law mostly ignore the current type of regime, as well as that of the preceding "Republic of Bosnia Hercegovina" (1991-1995) which, as it turns out, never existed for international legal order. Instead of stating the regime type in the present tense, the shameful Protectorate as one of the remaining colonies of the world, having a foreign governor with viceroy's absolute powers, is a taboo in practically all mainstream media. Thus instead of stating "usurped monarchy" as the current regime, the World's leading references listed Bosnia's regime in the future tense. For example, editors of CIA's World Factbook, considered a world's top authority by some, have tried craftily to keep objectivity by not telling the entire truth. So CIA under government type stated: emerging federal republic, thus avoiding to say what Bosnia is, although only real-time facts are expected from such sources; future "facts" are mere speculation. (In the mean-time, the Jesuit CIA changed this out of fear of returning monarchy, and went all the way with their forgery, calling the Protectorate's regime a "federal republic" - obviously a nonsense since neither FBiH nor RS was internationally recognized 1992-1995, meaning they had never gained statehood required to enter as a federal unit into a federal relationship.)
So for the international community, the present-day Bosnia and Hercegovina (Bosnian: "Bosna i Hercegovina") is in fact still a monarchy, but the one in which the legitimate royal dynasty Berislavićs saw their sovereignty usurped by force and then transferred. The transfer always occurred at international peace conferences. If the international community, specifically the self-appointed (via so-called Peace Implementation Council) usurpers wished to resolve the legally impossible situation in Bosnia, which is holding millions of people captive, no international conference would be necessary at all. The rules of international legal order which regulate occupations of countries, mandate transfer of power back to the Bosnian monarch in writing, along with guarantees for peace. In other words, the international community has both obligations and means to restore normal regime in Bosnia, simply by returning the usurped sovereignty as outlined, with a staggering precision, in many legal documents such as the Hague Convention of 1899, as well as vast literature in international law.
The international community and their pawns in Bosnia who rig elections since the Dayton conference of 1995 (while international community certifies such mockery) treat the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina badly when it comes to joining international unions or pacts. Namely, no country may join any structured organizations without itself being structured first. In this case: Bosnia cannot join the EU, NATO, etc. unless it is a monarchy with its own sovereign monarch. Bosnia cannot become a republic as it does not meet the Maturity test of international legal order, requiring at least 50-100 years spent in democracy and peace before that land's people could have a republic.
The naming of non-sovereign administrative units of Bosnia-Hercegovina as "Republika" (Srpska) and a "federation" (of BiH) was not a serious move by the international community, as there cannot be a republic within a monarchy, or, for that matter, a federation within a monarchy.
The only solution for the Bosnian nation lies in a pragmatic and only just solution - the return of the usurped royalist sovereignty to King of Bosnia.
Etymology of names
Aside from the continuing status of Jajce as nation's capital, and the way the usurpation gets transferred, Bosnia's monarchical status is obvious also from the etymology of names of the regime and the nation. Namely, in 1853, the country got named "Bosna i Hercegovina" as part of Austria's geostrategy for the region when Croatia too was given a colonial name "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" (a nonsense as that translates into: "Croatia and West Croatia and South Croatia"). Croatia, however, did manage to rid herself of the divide-and-rule colonial name soon after. Bosnia on the other hand, right before the Berlin Congress of 1878 where the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs would swap places as Bosnia's usurpers, got her legal name back (within Hungarian legalese, since Bosnia got her sovereignty from Hungary's Crown) Bosznia Hercegség or Hungarian for Princedom of Bosnia (Bosnian: Prinčevat Bosna). Likewise, a Hungarian term Bosznia Királyság means Kingdom of Bosnia (Bosnian: Kraljevina Bosna) In short, "Hercegovina" is a generic term stemming from the Hungarian word Herceg for a (ruling) Prince, and neither from Herczeg which in Hungarian only means a duke., nor Herzog which also means a duke but in German.
Thus, "Bosna i Hercegovina" is merely a corrupt form of Bosnian rendering of the country's legal name - the only legal and legitimate regime in Bosnia that has begun legally as a princedom'. As already mentioned, after the Kotromanićs got extinct, their parent dynasty the Berislavićs held Jajce and most of Bosnia by arms free long past 1463, and all until 1527. Thus Bosnia managed to continue legally as a monarchy, alas princedom rather than a kingdom, but it was rather a matter of formality since in the pre-Westphalian law the term "prince" meant all sovereign rulers: emperor, king, hereditary prince, great duke, archduke or sovereign duke alike. Besides, when inherited, sovereignty was/is defended by arms, which is precisely what Berislavićs had done. Finally, their original title of Ban (that which Prince Borić held) meant not only a princely status in general terms, but more specifically a hereditary status ranked "in between king and viceroy".
That the above meaning od the country's name is correct is obvious from the fact that territory under the Catholic minority in Bosnia was named Herceg-Bosna during the 1992-95 war, which is the straightforward translation of Princedom of Bosnia. In other words, the Roman-Catholic Church's permanent interest is to fetch the legal continuity of Bosnia for its Catholic minority, as Church is thus aware that Bosnia is legally a princedom.
Sophistry is defined as "quasi-arguments or false terminology planted instead of genuine terminology for the purpose of deceiving". As such, false terminology or sophism is an integral part of any strategic (active) geopolitics, which for that reason is then also termed as "a mirror room". A successful geostrategy (geopolitical attack on a state) is regularly based on double meanings - obviously the only legal and legitimate way, in addition to bluffing, for bypassing the rules of international legal order after the Antiquity era. Thus geostrategy in general terms is a game of nerves, where one side scores almost exclusively thanks to mistakes made by the opposing side. A successful countergeostrategy (geopolitical defense of a state) is then inevitably based on the success of deciphering of sophistry and unmasking of bluffs. In case of Bosnia, this encompasses a minimum of 3 categories of easily identified sophism:
- Austria has used the above-mentioned partial (German) rendering, for local (Bosnian) use in order to achieve a colonial-style sophism to cover up the full (Hungarian) rendering: of all the here relevant languages (German, Hungarian, Latin), the Bosnian word "Herceg" phonetically means both duke and prince only in Hungarian. On the other hand, as mentioned above, German word for duke is Herzog (not Herzeg!) only, and the only word for a prince in German is Prinz. If German language had a predominant influence in this case, then the German word Herzog would stand 400% more chance to transform into either Hercogovina or Hercagovina or Hercigovina or Hercugovina rather than "Hercegovina". At the same time, Hungarian language leaves no doubts whatsoever. Also, Hungarian term contains a consonant c, as seen in the Bosnian rendering ("Hercegovina"), unlike German term where a consonant z dominates; meaning the corruption in the Hungarian term would have been unnecessary as the Hungarian term is naturally much closer to the Bosnian term "Hercegovina" then the German term is. Furthermore, and as mention above: Hungarian Herceg is an expression which is reserved for a (ruling) prince only, but not for a duke - as corresponding to Herczeg in Hungarian. Also, the MARC official international list of country names lists Bosnia in English as "Bosnia and Hercegovina", not "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as often (and erroneously) believed to be the correct English rendering, which by the way transforms the Hungarian original into the (allegedly) German rendering (via insisting on "z" instead of "c"). (After posting this article the MARC list was edited so it too lists Bosnia primarily as "Bosnia and Herzegovina" - a forgery that can be verified; while the CIA added the etymological forgery on Bosnia's v. Herzegovina's names as though separate entities - the latter as stemming from the German-language forgery instead of Hungarian legalese.) Based on the above, as well as Austria's clear colonial motivation, the swapping of the two renderings could not have been coincidental. Nor is there a coincidence in the fact that this goes precisely for Hungarian language of them all. Namely, it was the Hungary's Crown that founded the first Bosnian state within Roman legal order (as a Banate), meaning it is the Hungarian sovereignty right which is the source of the Bosnian sovereignty right also. Then the first Bosnia's sovereign, Prince Borić, is the source of all legal order in the land, or "founding father" in the modern-day terminology. Austria has therefore misrepresented the southern region ruled by duke Kosača as though a princedom, however it is a common knowledge that Hum or Zahumlje (historic names for "Hercegovina") were never princedoms. In other words, Austria could have picked any other duke for its "Bosna i Hercegovina" sophism, so the matter is purely legal. It is worth noting that any legalese is unrelated to either historic or political terminology. Therefore, a thesis by historians that "Bosnia fell in 1463" has no legal weight whatsoever: within frameworks of international legal order, Bosnia "fell" only in 1527.. Otherwise the Berislavićs would not be systematically ignored (for instance: censored from the Fojnica Armorial, Bosnia's only) despite having a lion share in defending the land for over a century past 1463. Nor would the country in any, let alone original (Hungarian) legalese, be named a Princedom, and endured in that legal form for so long, until its Dayton 1995 form in fact.
- Likewise within Hungarian legalese, the allegedly ethnic term Bošnjak is in fact national: "s" is pronounced "š" (sh) in Hungarian, so that Hungarian word "Bosnyak" [bóš-niâk] simply means "a man from Bosnia", or a Bosnian. This means that, as with most countries, it was a geographic attribute (not religious, ethnic, etc.) that was taken as the national one. Therefore "Bošnjak" (a Boshnyak) and "Bosanac" (a Bosnian) are synonyms under rules of international legal order.
- Also invalid are claims that "Bosna i Hercegovina" means two geographic regions: an imaginary (undefined) "Bosnia" and, separately, a "Hercegovina" (where the latter, as mentioned, allegedly cf. German nobility title of Herzog for duke Kosača). Namely, legal considerations are far more relevant than geographic ones: Bosnia simply had to be returned her legal name prior to swapping the usurpation within the western legal system (in Berlin in 1878), as the swap was actually about to bring her back into the western civilization from Ottoman occupation. That was the only name that would have faithfully reflected the state of affairs for legal purposes within the western world, which sticks to its own legal order and where the right to nobility titles belonged to Christians only.
So in addition to the above stated proofs, given the status of Jajce as the nation's capital and the way Bosnia's sovereignty (not the sovereignty right) has been transferred (always at international conferences), even the name in its colonial form Bosna i Hercegovina (Princedom of Bosnia) is a proof that Bosnia is a continued monarchy. Undoubtedly, the main characteristic of most of western geopolitics is its firm allegiance to its (basically: Roman) international legal order that would not be jeopardized for anything or anyone, be it the powerful Austria-Hungary back then, or the the USA nowadays.
It is worth noting that the International law of the United Nations (UN) is not same as international legal order, but merely a current temporary legal framework that will cease to apply with the demise of the UN. In the same manner for example, the International law of the League of Nations (LN) ceased to be valid when the LN de facto collapsed in 1938, while at the same time rules of the international legal order remained in effect, such as Geneva conventions that saved numerous lives in wars. That was the case because the World's legal order is older than a specific law, or even an entire legal framework of an era. UN troops are often unsuccessful not because their soldiers and officers are unable or unfit for service, but because their orders within the UN legal framework often collide with rights that stem from the international legal order and which override the UN law. Generally speaking, older rules are legally stronger; such is the case with the sovereignty right that is "neither created by recognition nor destroyed by non recognition". The above example of the League of Nations, which continued as a legal person ("on paper") under rules of the international legal order until the UN was formed in 1946, is another proof that Bosnian monarchy too can legally continue - its sovereignty (right) too got usurped by force, in or around 1527.
Continuation of Bosnia within international legal order
From the late 18th until the mid-19th century, during 350 years of occupation (1527-1878) as part of the Ottoman Empire, Bosnia spanned the space that is nowadays freely referred to as "Hercegovina". Namely, the first Ottoman administrative unit, called Eyalet Bosnia, was established only in 1527(en), meaning after nearly a century of resistance, especially in northern and western parts of the country. Eyalet was transformed into Pashaluk Bosnia (which was divided into "sanjaks", one of which was Hercegovina), and which eventually became Vilayet Bosnia.(en) Thus no Ottoman administration in Bosnia has specifically mentioned "Hercegovina" in their name, not because Turks were less educated in geography than Hungarians or Austrians had been, but for purely legal reasons: namely the Ottomans did not recognize Christian nobility titles, same as Christians did not recognize Turkish ones. In other words, unlike Hungarians or Austrians, Turks never dared call Bosnia also "Bosnia and Hercegovina" because by doing so they would have admitted her monarchical continuity as well as illegality of their own presence in Bosnia (as a temporary usurper at that). Usurpers who admitted their status were rare in history; otherwise no sophisticated sophistry with such a rich vocabulary would have been invented, where we all witness various bogus justifications for usurpation, including: "spreading of civilization", "protection of ethnic minority", "national interests", "provocation reaction", and so on.
Under rules of the international legal order, present-day form "Bosna i Hercegovina" is undoubtedly a non-sovereign territory, or a colonial protectorate since it is administered by foreigners with absolutist powers of a viceroy (6 in total, always Roman-Catholics at that). At the same time, that territory makes a geographic region of Bosnia. So it is often thought that "Bosnia" is just a shorthand for Bosna i Hercegovina, but this is wrong though it can be seen often and especially in uses abroad. However, in international legalese and therefore geopolitical use as well, the term Bosnia marks only the continued legal order of Bosnian monarchy that therefore exists as such today as well, and the usurpation of which is in a covert form; meaning outside the bounds of international law of the UN, but within the international legal order since anything else would constitute a major legal precedent that would open a possibility for anarchy in international relations.
To make continued usurpation possible within that, oldest frame of all, the term "Bosna i Hercegovina" has no prefix that would normally state the country's regime type (such as: Kingdom, Republic, etc.). This because the Dayton regime, just like all others that were created for Bosnia at international conferences as mentioned above, was designed with only failure in mind: as a temporary system ahead of yet another change of the occupying foreign person(s). Besides, the name "BiH" itself already contains the regime type: "Hercegovina" is a corrupt rendering of Hungarian Hercegség for Princedom. As in the case of Jajce and the mentioned legal conflict concerning the existence of two capitals, there can be no "Kingdom Princedom of Bosnia" and especially no "Republic Princedom of Bosnia", either.
In accordance with her prefix-less name, it is obvious that "BiH" also in practical terms is under a "princely" absolute power of a foreign governor. For instance, and in the manner of a full monarchical sovereign, he unilaterally determined and enacted insignia of the current usurpation of the Princedom (which were then adopted by non-sovereign parliament, as a formality for portraying the land as free and independent, while in reality the deputies had to vote Yea or otherwise face dire consequences including imprisonment and loss of deputy status and even their civilian jobs). The governor (sophism: High Representative) also reconstructed the colonial constitution, as well as enacted laws of the usurpation, and then proceeded on to establish major usurping institutions like the "Court of BiH". He also sanctioned as well as pardoned individuals without due court process, abolished verdicts by fake Constitutional Court, etc. Just like with any governing powers, monarchical powers too can be either exercised or not, but only temporarily. An example of this is the will of English Queen Elizabeth II who is largely not using her constitutional prerogatives for the past few decades, although there is nothing whatsoever in law that stops her from doing so. Most other monarchs, and even heirs to the throne, in fact are using their powers in full capacity; thus Prince Charles (Duke of York) for example, has been publicly criticized more than once for overstepping his constitutional authority by meddling in Britain's foreign policy as well as exerting pressure on members of the UK Parliament. However, apart from public scrutiny, there is no and there can be no legal mechanism which would prevent the Prince in doing so, since he, via his dynasty, is the source of all governing authority under the rules of international order as well as British legal system. In the international legal order, hierarchy of authority is not bound by hierarchy of norm, unlike within a specific legal frame such as the international law of the UN, the EU legal system, etc. Thus within the international legal order, documents from Antiquity and after can and often do supersede documents from the UN era. Simply, chronological order is the law of all law within any legal framework and so within a current main legal framework as well. A regularly stated justification for such a "divine" status of the ancient legal system, is the supreme importance of the order itself (for World stability), which of course can be misused by powerful interests. It is the international legal order, not the international law of the UN, which enabled Israel to be restored after 2000 years, Gibraltar to remain under British rule based on a document more than 300 years old, and so on. "Divinity" in the above refers merely to the traditional fact that, in the early times of monarchism, the sovereignty right was inherited in a rather narrowed yet natural way - via male line of inheritance only; cf. Salic Law.
The southern subregion "Hercegovina" has no official borders, same as other subregions: Krajina, Podrinje, Posavina, Semberija, Uskoplje. Namely, these are subregions (undistinguishable subordinated categories) and not regions because, after naming them, all that remains is an undefined territory without its own genuine regional name, which is therefore called mid-Bosnia or midland. In other words, besides the legal and historic (and by extension geopolitical) contexts, Bosnia in geographical context is the only legitimate name for the present-day territory known as "Bosna i Hercegovina" and beyond.
The Bosnia region largely spans Meditereanean and continental climatic belts, spreading on the north to the southern frontier of the Pannonian plane, with rivers Sava and Drina as Bosnia's northern and eastern borders, respectively, and the Illyrian Sea (renamed Adriatic by invading Roman hordes) as its southern border to high seas.
Geostrategies of foreign interests
Parts of Bosnia fell under Turks due to a conspiracy of Rome, the Ottomans and other geopolitical factors of the time. As usual in a necessarily compartmentalized geostrategy, it cannot be expected for all of its participants to have been aware of all the aspects of occupation. It is certain, however, that Rome and its successor Vatican consider(ed) themselves as owners of Illyrian provinces, ever since the occupation of Illyrian Empire of 9 A.D., when Rome split the Illyrians within divide-and-conquer geotactics into "peoples" by naming them mockingly as: Serbs (servi, Latin: slave, servant) and Croats (croatini corrupted cretini, Latin: cretin). When they too grew demographically big enough to cause problems, Rome in the 10th century added the province of Bosnia (bos+nae, Latin: genuine+vo, true ox). And when Bosnian too grew into a potential danger for Rome, starting to form alliances with "Croats" and "Serbs", resulting in the most powerful kingdom in the region, Rome felt strategically endangered again, and so in the 15th century hired the Ottomans to re-conquer Illyria and obliterate any trace of its statehood primarily Bosnia's. This was done in a way that would enable Turkey to claim domestic Muslims as their own ethnic minority, the Bosniaks, which is obviously a nonsense; in practice, that has served Turks as an excuse for meddling into Bosnia's internal affairs. This is seen also from the meaning of the word Bosniak, which too is nothing but a mockery: Turkish core boşuna marks a homeless bum.
It is worth repeating here that the term "Bošnjak" (a Bosniak; also: Boshnyak) itself was introduced into legalese by Hungary's Crown, a long time before Turkish use, so that the Turkish claim on that term (which some use as an excuse for interpreting Bosniaks as Turkish ethnic minority) has no legal power unlike the Hungarian claim: "s" is pronounced "sh" (š) in Hungarian, so Hungarian "Bosnyak" [bóš-niâk] simply stands for "a man from Bosnia", "a Bosnian". As mentioned above, this means that "Bošnjak" (a Boshnyak) and "Bosanac" (a Bosnian) are synonyms under rules of the international legal order even today, and that the monarchy is continued. In the mean-time the Vatican, its "tenants"(sovereignty usurpers), and their servant quislings, have pushed these facts out of broad use and common knowledge via manipulation including censorship and self-censorship of media and education system, as well as via creation of fake public opinion using official state agencies as well as pressuring individuals and organizations alike, and so on.
Thus ever since Illyria fell to Rome in 9 A.D., her people have been at Rome's mercy so that Illyria even nowadays fills only margins in history textbooks.. The main consequence of this artificially created historic discontinuity is a long-term constant internal fighting amongst various Illyrian tribes. Today, the extremely complex (geostrategically dangerous) Dayton framework only aids such fighting as it was designed by foreigners so craftily that the local tribes never realize it is Rome and resources-starved dynasties of Europe that are behind everything.
For example, the Vatican uses a last will by medieval princess Katarina Kosača, duke Kosača's daughter and a queen consort ("via marriage") to the next-to-last king of Bosnia. In her last will she allegedly "left Bosnia to the popes", and Vatican uses this as a proof that indeed "Bosnia belongs to Rome". But as a consort and just a princess (and not even mother to heirs) on King Stephen Tomašević's regicide, she had no right to sovereignty - not even under Church's own laws - which renders her last will null and void.. By renting Bosnia to foreign sovereigns and interests, the Vatican i.e. the pope as Bosnia's fake ruler charges a fee including exploitation tax in exchange for letting "tenants" use Bosnia's natural resources. Rome thus rented Bosnia to: Ottoman, Hapsburg, Windsor (Karađorđević; Broz) and Savoy dynasties. For instance, in case of Austrian colonization 1878-1918 alone, and counting just timber (that is, without ore that was being shipped out via a specially built railway system), the value of looted timber according to detailed reports by British spies (as a primary historic source) amounts in today's value (inflation-corrected) to more than 1100 billion Euro.
After the war in which it managed to split Yugoslavia (modern-day state of all Illyrians) in blood, in order to rent its parts to new "tenants", Rome in 1995 appeared in the local political arena as the absolute ruler via "Office of High Representative", so-called OHR. As mentioned, their Coat of Arms is a golden (Caesar's) wreath, instead of a green wreath as the peace-symbol - although the mission was officially about "securing peace". The Office has been led by 6 such governors with absolute (above judicial, legislative and executive branches') powers of viceroy, and were always Roman-Catholics. Bosnia's destiny in the 1990s until today is therefore a case of destroying Yugoslavia in order to re-colonize Bosnia. Such a mischief is enabled by the would-be consequence of Katarina's last will, known as the No Man's Land status (Latin: terra nullius); however, it is clear that her last will is invalid, and as such of no legal consequences so the whole affair is just another farce in a looting campaign by Romans and its clients. To make things worse (and more obvious), the lack of legal authority was made up in the eyes of locals by glorifying Katarina's historical role and place (calling her "Queen"), despite being crystal-clear that she lacks even notability, let alone a sovereignty right.
So whenever self-awareness arises amongst Bosnians, or the Illyrians in general, the Vatican simply rents the land out to a new colonizer. Earlier, it was dynasties that appeared as tenants, while today's "customers" are also large corporations that took the role of former nation-colonizers; for example, the arrival of Dutch-British Royal Dutch Shell in the region in 2013, coinciding with murder of Bosnia's leading ecologist Academician Redžić, akin of murdering top Nigerian ecologist Ken Saro-Wiwa as Shell was enslaving that country also.
Non-sovereign economy - first and foremost in a foreign interest
Bosnia's economy is based on exploitation of electrical power, which accounts for majority of production capacities of the country income-wise. Of other branches of economy, financially most relevant are tourism and food industry. As a land of usurped sovereignty right, Bosnia is seen by foreign usurpers primarily as "their colony", as was the case with Austria according to the secret report (primary historic source) by British spies of 1919.
Illegality of exploiting Bosnia's underground resources, under Hague Convention of 1899
However, any concession for exploitation of natural resources such as gold, oil and gas, etc., other than timber and agricultural produce (but both only in exchange for just remuneration) would be illegal and illegitimate under the rules of international legal order. For example Article 52 and Article 55 of the Hague Convention of 1899 regulate this issue in detail. Namely, Bosnia was occupied by force, and her sovereignty usurped. After that, as already mentioned, the usurpation has been transferred in a correct manner under rules of the international legal order, i.e. at international conferences.
There is virtually no doubt that Kingdom of Netherlands has ordered the Dutch battalion in Bosnia in 1995 to enable Srebrenica massacre, and that, subsequently, and as part of the same geostrategy, a British judge who presided over the International Court of Justice at Hague influenced the genocide verdict in that case. (In a similar manner, German courts passed genocide verdicts in that case too - purely in the geostrategic interest of Germany.) Namely, those two strategic moves combined (hardly explainable separately: former is a dire violation of Geneva conventions, and the former ruled a summary execution of military conscripts to have been a "municipal genocide", where, to make the case for genocide completely impossible, more than 20,000 civilians were actually evacuated from Srebrenica by Serb army, in an organized manner and to safety) have created a real potential for long-term instability via the mentioned conquest geotactic of divide-and-rule, and an opportunity for looting Bosnia's Dinaric Alps using Nigerian model of "instability for irresponsibility". The intention was to drill rock in high Bosnia using a horrific method of hydraulic fracturing or oil/gas fracking for short, that has been banned globally, and in Europe already in France, Bulgaria and even Shell's own Netherlands. Shell specializes in that utterly inhumane method, called also "the raping of the Earth", as it simply destroys the environment beyond repair especially in Europe due to thick continental crust (not so much in N. America where crust is thin); permanently polluting water and soil in return for a short-term profit since supplies last for a few decades only, before they are fully exploited. Majority stake in Shell is in hands of Dutch and British Crowns. Amongst countries involved in the Bosnian war of 1990s, it was Britain and Netherlands that behaved most bizarrely overall. Germany took in most of refugees, and continues to this day to suck most valuable cadre out of Bosnia, purely for colonial purposes as well. Germany had another, purely selfish reason for passing false genocide verdicts in its courts: to mitigate shame that is on Germans as the only genocidal people of Europe; for same selfish reason, the conquering German state has proclaimed Turks a genocidal people as well, misusing for that purpose the calamity of Armenians. At the same time, the only real genocide that occurred in the lands of previous Yugoslavia - the expelling of quarter million (practically all) Serbs from catholic Croatia with assistance of Germany - has been ignored by Western media who were thus exposed as Vatican's most loyal subjects imaginable.
The genocidal plan for bringing Shell to Bosnia could also have a much wider motivation: according to a US university professor who appeared on Bosnian national television show "Centralni zatvor" (Eng. Central Prison) from mid-2000s, there exists an unspeakably horrific geostrategy by the Netherlands. According to the scientist, they plan to move the entire Dutch people over to Bosnia within the next century or so as the alleged climate-related rise of sea-level takes away most of the Netherlands. For this, Bosnians must be forced into exile by Shell using a ruthlessly intensified Nigeria-model, with millions of oil spills all over the country.
The only way to a normal Bosnia, as usual, lies in matters legal: reinstatement of the preceding legal order, in this case, the Bosnian monarchy i.e. Kingdom of Bosnia. From the above examples (Gibraltar, Israel, etc.) and many others, Bosnia clearly has all prerequisites for such a move, where time-distance is obviously not an obstacle from the legal point of view. Since it is the matter of pre-Westphalian law as well as due to other reasons, the return of usurped sovereignty under the rules of international order can occur in one of, or by a combination of the following ways:
- (1) by the free will of the international community giving up usurpation to Bosnia's legal sovereign monarch, accompanied by peace guarantees, in which case no international conference is necessary; namely, Dayton 2 or similar conferences would mean a mere transfer of usurpation to some new usurper;
- (2) by a decision of house of representatives in the domestic parliament regardless of its type (meaning a colonial parliament suffices), say at the request put forward by intellectuals, declaring by majority decision the return of the monarchy. The return requires neither referendum nor acclamation since in case of Bosnia the usurpation occurred before Westphalia Treaty;
- (3) by guarantors of the international (legal) order, primarily the US and Russia as the most relevant outside factors that contributed to liberating ex-Yugoslavia from interests of Greater Germany, that will recognize Bosnia's legal sovereign monarch's Act on abrogating the Dayton Accords, and return the usurped sovereignty right i.e. royal prerogative to the monarch.
The return of sovereignty cannot be accomplished via use of violence, revolution, etc. as that is the way for abolishing a monarchy. And since, as is shown in the above, Bosnia under international legal order is 'only a monarchy', violence can only be a part of the projected culmination of Project Dayton for final destruction of monarchy, i.e. "final solution" for Bosnia in form of her permanent territorial division along the borders drawn in blood by oil cartels. Of course, there would be nothing permanent about that, as was the case the last time - when Hitler's occupation and country's division turned out temporary-only as well.
- National flag of the Kingdom, is a horizontal tricolor - in the best tradition of most European monarchies. Due to the Kingdom's neutrality, the flag respects also the achievements of the French Revolution (namely the republican flag, traditionally a vertical tricolor which was a sign of protest against monarchism). Therefore, the flag has no monarchical markings of any kind. Going from top to bottom, the three rectangular fields of same size, which span the frame of 3:5 ratio, are: blue, red and green. They symbolize Bosnia's tragic history as due to her central place in geopolitics. Blue marks clear skies while symbolizing the wish for freedom in peace and prosperity. Red represents the blood that Bosnian people spilled through centuries of its eventful history while symbolizing always defensive wars i.e. internal confrontations for foreign interests. Green paints a land covered with natural resources while telling that our future is in the land and in ourselves. Thus the flag, with its overall symbolism, represents a "land soaked with the blood of its people, all that more resolved to search for their opportunity within own potential, for freedom in peace and prosperity.". The tone is dark, as a permanent warning that dark colonial times are never far enough behind us, and that they are even closer ahead of us unless we avoid them. Monarch's personal flag, is a combination of national flag and Kingdom's Coat of Arms. A law defines the use of the Monarch's flag, and its purpose is both ceremonial and complementary to exercising of sovereign's constitutional powers.
|Flag of Kingdom of Bosnia||Monarchical flag|
|small size||small size|
|Stylized royalist flag, static||Stylized royalist flag|
Coat of Arms
- National Coat of Arms of the Kingdom, which at the same time is the Monarch's Coat of Arms, is a multi-meaning symbol of complex historical conditions in which Bosnia was born, grew, fell and stood up. The design is in warm tones, on a fabric texture, with usual heraldic elements such as shields with war equipment as well as globe and crest of the city of Brod as one of Bosnia's first capitals. The Coat of Arms symbolizes the harmony of human warmth that persistently flows for centuries from most different influences that often brought misery and suffering due to the centrally positioned land. The motto of Coat of Arms is a modified Latin sentence: "Illyria ruat caelum" or "Ilyria above all". Main goals of the Coat of Arms are strengthening of self-confidence i.e. belief in own strength, as well as developing and increasing awareness of the need for preserving tradition. The crown is of the same fabric texture as the rest of the Coat of Arms, so that together with other motifs the crown creates a unique composition, thus symbolizing the unity of Crown and the people.
|Coat of Arms of Kingdom of Bosnia|
- Royal anthem, is a symbol of common sovereignty of King of Bosnia over all territories and interests of Illyria proper (Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro). Respecting the (geo)political relations, Royal anthem is a compromise (for example, anthem of Italy, written in 1847 and adopted as a temporary solution in 1946, and has the same status today) written for the Bosnian Royal Family, and based on a fundamental determination of man to defend his own, where "own" is based not on any newer but civilizational roots of a common geographic region instead, so that the anthem does not mention the country's name explicitly (for example, anthem of Sweden, written in 1844, and inspired by local tradition, celebrates the Nordic region while making no reference to Sweden). Royal anthem describes the departure of locals to 3rd Illyrian War 6-9 A.D., which in its entirety took place in present-day Bosnia. The anthem depicts the misfortune of the country's geopolitical position that brings her troubles even today. Choosing the Illyrians (original political inhabitants of Bosnia) as anthem's central motive is suitable since the word Illyrian itself became banned during another occupation, by Austria, full 19 centuries after the fall of Illyria. Therefore, the first known and one of the last occupations (symbolically then: all occupations) are being looked in the face. (Motives of foreign occupation and/or tyrannies exist in national anthems of other countries as well; e.g., anthems of China, France, etc.) Then, suitably selected within the Illyrian settings was the departure of precisely the Brčko Regiment towards Adriatic Sea, since Brčko, temporarily a district, is defined as "belonging to no one and at the same time to everyone". Anthem's title In medio virtus (Latin: "Strength comes from moderation") reflects the spirit of the anthem in the context of Bosnia's central geopolitical position that is shaping the country's destiny, with lyrics in the spirit of the melody. Thus besides being syllable-wise symmetrical, the Anthem is fit for multi-voice as well as mixed-sexes performances. Stylistically and contextually, the Anthem follows a change in intensity i.e. tonality of music. So for instance, the 1st and 3rd verse warn of approaching evil, while symbolizing support for the defenders, so that those verses can be performed by female voices alone (daughters; mothers). The 2nd and 4th verse on the other hand, deliver a thunder of determination to defend own, so that those verses can be performed by male voices alone (fathers; sons). The 5th verse symbolizes culmination which can then be performed by mixed chorus and in multi-voice. Anthem's music is called Intermezzo, and was composed by Dušan Šestić. Royal Anthem's lyrics:
In medio virtus
Kad dušmanin krene
Nadvija se usud nebom
To stiže nas kletva
A munja ognjena,
K'o jedan ustaj'mo svi
U stroj borbeni...
Savom plove, nebom jedre
Plavetnilom, nad oblakom
Nikog se ne boj'mo
Naša zemlja nebu mila
Bukte, plamte, srca poje:
- Science: Mensur Omerbashich.
- Ova stranica na bosanskom/srpskom
- Old Bosnian Civilization - Bosnian stećci
- Bosnian Royal Family
- Diplomatic protest to the UN
- List of Bosnian knights
- Royal Bosnian Institute for Resources & Ecology
- Kako do normalne Bosne? (On to normal Bosnia - in Bosnian)
- Pinson, Mark  (1996). The Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Historic Development from Middle Ages to the Dissolution of Yugoslavia, Second, United States of America: President and Fellows of Harvard College ISBN 0-932885-12-8. Pristupljeno URLu 2014-08-01. “The Ottomans conquered Bosnia in 1463; ... though last fortress in Herzegovina was to fall in 1481, and in Bosnia Jajce under Hungarian garrison actually held until 1527”
- Bálint Hóman (1938) Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters I, Berlin, p. 391. "In 1158, Duke Ladislaus came to Bysanz, in whose Bosnian duchy Geza had already appointed Banus Boris as a regent some years ago." His Regency was on behalf of Duke of Bosnia prince Ladislaus who was a minor when, in 1137, he got Bosnia at age 6.
- Nada Klaić (1994) Srednjovjekovna Bosna: Politički položaj bosanskih vladara do Tvrtkove krunidbe (1377 g), Grafički Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb, p.48-49. ISBN 9536112051, 9789536112050. PDF Klaić quotes Hóman as saying Banus Boris got Bosnia from Géza II to rule as Regent, and then identifies Ban Boris as prince Boris Kalamanos. Regency was precisely on behalf of then-minor prince Ladislaus, the Duke of Bosnia, but who after coming of age in 1149 never took the possession of the province, so Bosnia became Boris's permanently.
- Bosnia Election Results Certified by West Despite Fraud Charges, Mike O'Connor, New York Times 30.9.1996.
- Drino, Dž. (2010) "Tešanjska povijesna razmeđa - susret srednjovjekovnih kultura Ugarske i Bosne (Ogled o uplivu ugarskog prava u pravo srednjovjekovne Bosne)" English: On impact of the Hungarian Law on the Law of Medieval Bosnia.. Anali Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici 5:119-127
- Bosma at the Forebears Database of World Surnames.
- Wilkes, John. The Illyrians, Oxford Press, 1996; 2000.
- Smith, William (1848). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology: Entry on Nicephorus. London, p.1178.
- Tibor Živković (2012) De Conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source. Istorijski institut Beograd, Posebna izdanja, Book 62. ISBN 9788677430962, 255 pp.
- Anthon, Charles (1862) A new classical dictionary of Greek and Roman biography, mythology and geography, partly based upon the Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology by William Smith, LL.D., Ed. of the Dictionaries of Greek and Roman antiquities, and of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. Harper & Brothers, New York. "The Pannonians (Pannonii)... were probably of Illyrian origin" (p.600).
- Chandler, David (1999) The Bosnian Protectorate and the Implications for Kosovo. New Left Review I/235, May-June.
- Bender, Kristof and Knaus, Gerald (2007) The Worst in Class: How the International Protectorate Hurts the European Future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Intervention and State Building – Volume 1, Special Supplement 1, December.
- Li, Darryl (2018) From Exception to Empire. (In: Ethnographies of US Empire), p.456-475
- Kuljiš, Denis (2015) "Rusi dolaze", a research journalistic analysis, 3.8.2015. News portal www.zurnalisti.com
- A Failure in the Making: Human Rights & the Dayton Agreement, Human Rights Watch & UNHCR. Document D8081, June 1996
- Poštanski brojevi BiH. Poštanski brojevi Online portal.
- Bosnia-Herzegovina, CIA's World Factbook.
- Chossudovsky, Michel (1996) Economic War Crimes: Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina. Global Research, July 15, 2017 (Global Research, 19 February 2002), first published in: Covert Action Quarterly 56, Spring 1996. (bos. Ekonomski ratni zločini: Demontaža Jugoslavije i rekolonizacija Bosne-Hercegovine)
- Ukraine or the Ukraine: Why do some country names have 'the'?, BBC News Online, 7.6.2012.
- Translation of Hungarian "Hercegség" to English, Google Translator Online.
- Translation of Hungarian "Bosznia Királyság" to English, Google Translator Online.
- Translation of Hungarian word "Herceg" to English, Google Translator Online.
- Translation of Hungarian word "Herczeg" to English, Google Translator Online.
- Pine, L.G. (1992). Titles: How the King became His Majesty, New York: Barnes & Noble ISBN 978-1-56619-085-5.
- MARC Code List for Countries, Library of Congress. United States Congress. Washington, D.C.
- The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Ed.15, Part 3, Vol.17, 1981, p. 312.
- List of Ottoman conquests, sieges and landings, Wikipedia.
- Province of Bosnia in the Ottoman Empire, Wikipedia.
- Lovrenović, Dubravko. “Crni bosanski kralj u historiografiji i narodnoj predaji”. International scientific conference “Stjepan Tomašević (1461-1463) - fall of medieval Bosnian Kingdom”, Jajce 12-13.11.2011. (Note: after delaying it for a few years, Zagreb Jesuits censored this paper from the conference proceedings Zbornik radova as though never presented.)
- Bojanovski, Ivo. Razdoblje rimske uprave u Visokom i okolini kroz historiju (Prvi dio: predhistorija, antika i srednji vijek). Visoko, 1984.
- Bury, John Bagnell. History of the Later Roman Empire, Macmillan & Co., 1923.
- Bury, John Bagnell (1906) The Treatise De administrando imperio. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 15(2):517–577.
- Bury, John Bagnell (1907) The Ceremonial Book of Constantine Porphyrogennetos. English Historical Review 22:209–227.
- Latin rendering of the word "servi", latin-dictionary.net
- Latin rendering (corrupt form) of the word "croatini" from "cretini", Google Translator Online
- Latin rendering of the core "nae", latin-dictionary.net
- Latin rendering of the core "bos", Google Translator Online
- Turkish rendering of word boşuna, Google Translator Online
- Yee, Sienho. The New Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. European Journal of International Law 7:2, 1996.
- Kajan, Ibrahim. Katarina kraljica bosanska. Bosanska riječ, Tuzla, 2004.
- Intelligence Report: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Confidential Report No.10, February. Historical Section of Foreign Office UK, 1919.
- O‘Donoghue, J, Goulding, L., Allen, G. (2004) Consumer Price Inflation since 1750. Economic Trends 604:38-46.
- Brendan Simms (2020) Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia, Penguin, 496 pp. ISBN 0140289836