Talk:Brčko District

message: According to the Dayton Agreements, Annex 10 Establishing the OHR...
Article V: Final Authority to Interpret
The High Representative is the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of this Agreement on the civilian implementation of the peace settlement.
http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=366
Therefore, saying that the OHR Arbitration only had authority under the Dayton Agreements to alter the IEBL is wrong, since the OHR defined its own authority under the mandate to arbitrate Brcko.  Therefore, I am removing the statement of de jure illegality.
-AD, Ottawa, Feb 11 2007
: I agree that it wasn't illegal, I don't know who wrote that there; but it was a violation of Dayton and I'll return that. Nikola 11:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is illegal because High Representative has no right to change the text of the Dayton Agreement. Article 5 makes it clear: there is border between the entities through the Brcko District, and the fact that the border must be verified by the court. Respectively, this point of agreement is not executed, because the court did not specify border between Republic of Srpska and Federation in the district.  --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegality?

message: According to the OHR: 
"Upon the establishment of the new District, the entire territory, within its boundaries (i.e., the pre-war Brcko Opstina) will thereafter be held in "condominium" by both entities simultaneously: The territory of the RS will encompass the entire Opstina, and so also will the territory of the Federation." (The 11th point)
--estavisti 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of both entities 

message: I am a citizen of Brčko, I was born there and lived there until the war started. After the war I returned to register and place my papers in order. I was furious to see that on my papers they left a blank space for my nationality and my religion. Somebody doesn’t want Muslims to be counted properly. I consulted with friends and family about their papers, and they had the same problem. Now, when I see that the percentage of Serbs increased in our city and for clear reasons the percentage of Muslims decreased I wonder how they can get away with this. My best guess is that they are laying a foundation for the upcoming election to whom the city will belong, to Bosnia or to Serbia. And to be honest according to THEIR numbers they will push for the Serbia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALBINAredzepagic (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Count 

message: I am a citizen of Brčko, I was born there and lived there until the war started. After the war I returned to register and place my papers in order. I was furious to see that on my papers they left a blank space for my nationality and my religion. Somebody doesn’t want Muslims to be counted properly. I consulted with friends and family about their papers, and they had the same problem. Now, when I see that the percentage of Serbs increased in our city and for clear reasons the percentage of Muslims decreased I wonder how they can get away with this. My best guess is that they are laying a foundation for the upcoming election to whom the city will belong, to Bosnia or to Serbia. And to be honest according to THEIR numbers they will push for the Serbia.ALBINAredzepagic 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Count 

message: The map needs a scalebar. --Gerrit CUTEDH 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing scale 

message: What is the difference between "Entity Laws in the District" and "Laws of the District"?  Jeff in CA (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Entity Laws in" vs. "Laws of" the District? 

message: The claim that the Brcko district is formally a part (linked as condominium) of both entities is currently fundamentally unsupported by the article body and its citations. Rather, it is said that entity legislation does not apply to the district which is today on equal par with the entities and not subordinated these in any way. A legislative paragraph somewhere would be required for it to be "formally" considered a part of both entities. At most, it is informally considered a part of both entities, not least due to Serb nationalists who refuse to realize the fact that the territorial continuity of the RS is fully disrupted both territorially and legislatively by the Brcko district since 1999-2006. So in summary, I'm removing a claim which currently lacks any support whatsoever and is actually contradicted by the article content itself. 46.239.102.226 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Condominium" claims 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brčko District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415180415/http://www.ohr.int:80/dpa/default.asp?content_id=370 to http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=370
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813135952/http://www.ohr.int:80/ohr-dept/presso/pressr/default.asp?content_id=37760 to http://www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/pressr/default.asp?content_id=37760
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified