MEMORY, SPACE & LAW MEMORY SITES OF THE 1992-1995 WAR IN PRESENT DAY BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA AND THE INTEGRATION OF THE ICTY LEGACY.

Scientific article Word count: 9.485

Aurore Vanliefde

Student number: 01708804

Promotor: Dr. David Mwambari

Master’s thesis presented for obtaining the degree of Master in Conflict and Development

Academic year: 2018-2019

MEMORY, SPACE & LAW. MEMORY SITES OF THE 1992-1995 WAR IN BOSNIA

AND HERZEGOVINA AND THE INTEGRATION OF THE ICTY LEGACY.

Abstract

This article revolves around memorialisation of the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Theoretical insights from literature are combined with empirical data from 29 memory sites in BiH, two expert interviews, and additional information from informal conversations with guides and participation in guided tours. The aim of this study is to understand the use of memory sites of the 1992-1995 war in BiH, and research the extent to which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)’s legacy has been integrated into these memory sites. The findings show that memorialisation is on-going through the creation, conservation, accentuation and destruction of memory sites. Memorials are generally exclusively meant for one ethno-national group, and are often the product of local and/or private initiatives. These sites of memory are lieux de mémoire, as described by Pierre Nora, where a community’s collective memory is both materialised and generated. Personal testimonies are extensively used in museums and archival material from the ICTY is included in some memory sites. The ICTY’s legacy constitutes a unique kind of memory, a lieu de mémoire sui generis. In line with previous literature, the tribunal’s archives are a source of memory situated in an abstract legal realm where public memory can draw from. This article proposes to add a spatial dimension to this process, as the ICTY’s archival material is easing its way into physical memory sites.

Key words: lieux de mémoire, collective memory, memory sites, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, ICTY

Introduction You can’t throw a stone in Sarajevo without dropping it on a site of memory, on a place where something happened.1

Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosna i Hercegovina, BiH) is home to countless places that testify of its rich history: Ottoman mosques, the assassination site of Franz Ferdinand, Yugoslav era statues of Tito, graffiti-covered historic bobsleigh tracks from Sarajevo’s ’84 Winter Olympics, and bullet-scarred buildings from the nineties’ war that profoundly shaped the country. This recent chapter of BiH’s history is the focal point of this article. During the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, BiH was the scene of violent warfare from 1992 to 1995. Silent reminders of the country’s past are still very present in its landscape, or ‘memoryscape’. Especially in Sarajevo, its capital city, memory of ‘the war’ is visible in red resin-filled holes caused by shells in the streets filled with red resin (the so-called Sarajevo Roses), commemoratives plaques, statues, and museums. More than 25 years after the conflict’s onset, the process of memorialisation is still on-going: new museums have been inaugurated in recent years and memory sites are an intrinsic part of touristic tours. In a country where interpretations of the conflict are highly contested by different groups and entities (Bosniaks and the Federation of BiH, Bosnian Serbs and Republika Srpska, and Bosnian Croats), memory is a sensitive topic. Like in many other settings that have lived through massive human rights violations (such as Rwanda, Cambodia, etc.), memory of BiH’s conflict is constantly (re)created, transformed and sometimes erased.

In this light, an important actor of the creation and preservation of memory has been the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Its mandate of prosecuting war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia has contributed to documenting the conflict, and thus creating memory. The cessation of the ICTY’s activities in late 2017 generates the question of how its legacy will be used, and in what manner these legal memories will be translated into spatial memory.

This article revolves around two central themes: physical sites of memory in post-conflict BiH and the integration of the ICTY’s legacy in those memory sites. Through a combination of literature and empirical data from visits of memory sites in Sarajevo, Potočari-Srebrenica and Mostar, the aim of this study is to get a better understanding of sites of memory in BiH and how the exceptional nature of the ICTY’s archives is used in these physical memory sites.

1 Free retranscription of a quote by Lamija Grebo (Sarajevo, 12.09.2018)

1

Theoretical framework

The theoretical part of this article starts by introducing the theoretical notions of Pierre Nora’s lieux de mémoire, Halbwachs’ collective memory, the politics of memory, and the specific context of post-war BiH. These will serve as prelude and theoretical basis for the empirical data, which will be addressed later in this article.

Building blocks: Lieux de Mémoire & Collective Memory

As formulated by Nora (1996, xvii), a lieu de mémoire refers to “any significant entity, whether material or non-material in nature, which by dint of human will or the work of time has become a symbolic element of the memorial heritage of any community.” The concept was born out of Nora’s observation that French society was losing sense of its collective memory and that institutions were set up with the aim of conserving it (Allier Monteño, 2008; Ogino, 2015). These institutions (memorials, museums, archives, libraries, commemorations, anniversaries, events, newspapers, films, paintings, sculptures, writings, etc.) are all characterised by the intention to remember (Allier Montaño, 2008; Bottici, 2010; Ogino, 2015; Violi, 2017). In the field of memory studies, the concept of lieux de mémoire is now used beyond Nora’s (1996) original scope on the French society (Allier Montaño, 2008; Ho Tai, 2001; Rothberg, 2010; Winter, 2009). While the spatial dimension of memory had already been explored by Halbwachs (1925), Nora’s work particularly focused on specific spaces and institutions where a group’s collective memory crystallises and generates itself (Allier Montaño, 2008; Ogino, 2015).

Halbwachs’ influential concept of collective memory (or public memory) refers to the collection of memories shared by members of a given group or community (Assmann, 2010; Houdek & Phillips, 2017; Ogino, 2015; Rothberg, 2010). Halbwachs (1925) articulated the idea that memory (typically formulated in individualistic terms earlier) and social frameworks mutually construct each other (Rothberg, 2010; Sorabji, 2006; Verovšek, 2016). Following his reasoning, individual memory (recollections of personal experiences) is also socially constructed, and can in turn become part of collective memory (Halbwachs, 1925; Houdek & Phillips, 2017). Very much like Durkheim’s (1893) conscience collective, collective memory shapes social order (Bottici, 2010; Musi, 2016; Ogino, 2015; Verovšek, 2016). Drawing on this, authors like Anderson (1983), Nora (1996) and Renan (1882) have argued that collective memory is a constitutive element of a nation-state and its identity (Allier Montaño, 2008; Brice, 2010; Houdek & Phillips, 2017; Ogino, 2015; Verovšek, 2016).

2

These two well-established concepts in the field of memory studies have been thoroughly discussed and criticised. The very existence of a collective memory has been questioned by scholars including Koselleck (2004), Rothberg (2010), and Sontag (2003). Collective memory is not a fixed objective recount of history: it is a collection of shared (subjective) interpretations of the past and is subject to change (Havel, 2005; Houdek & Phillips, 2017). Despite the fact that both Nora (1996) and Halbwachs (1925) had alluded to the heterogeneous nature of memories and individual experiences, their work reifies the idea of a homogenous nation-state (Ho Tai, 2001; Rothberg, 2010). Another main point of criticism is Halbwachs’ and Nora’s binary opposition of history and memory (Allier Montaño, 2008; Lorenz, 2010; Ogino, 2015; Rothberg, 2010). However, Halbwachs acknowledged the influence of history in the creation of collective memory and Nora (1996) subsequently viewed the French national history as a historicised type of memory2 (Allier Montaño, 2008).

Nevertheless, the relevance of both concepts and their interaction is undeniable. Indeed, lieux de mémoire shape the collective memory and vice versa (Houdek & Phillips, 2017). The (spatial) memorialisation of particular events entails the re-enforcement of a certain common memory (or narrative) that becomes the dominant one in a group and strengthens its collective identity (Connerton, 2008; Eastmond & Mannergren Selimovic, 2012). This also implies that memories outside of this common narrative are (forcibly) forgotten. As Allier Montaño (2008, p. 23) states; “It is not only memory that crystallizes in these places, so does forgetfulness: to the places of memory we should add the places of amnesia”. But how do sites of memory become sites of forgetting? And what exactly is forgotten then?

Remembering & forgetting: the politics of memory

Remembrance and forgetfulness are two sides of the same coin that is the politics of memory. As will become clear, this is especially true in contexts with contested narratives and memories related to particular identities like post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina (Eastmond & Mannergren Selimovic, 2012). Lieux de mémoire aren’t just products of consensual interpretations of past events, but can also testify of difficulties with dealing with a traumatic past (Allier Montaño, 2008). Far from all lieux de mémoire bear witness to positive events, especially in post-conflict contexts. Many sites deal with negative aspects of a traumatic past, and have been referred to as ‘negative heritage’ (Ogino, 2015) or ‘traumatic heritage’ (Violi, 2017). Notwithstanding the intuitive urge of wanting to forget traumatic events, negative past experiences inspire the same will to record and remember as positive ones (Ogino, 2015).

2 A thorough description of the interaction between memory and history is beyond the scope of this paper. See also Boëtsch (2010), Hartog (2005), Lorenz (2010), Rothberg (2010), and Winter (2010).

3

However, no recording of past events is impartial and remembering the past also means reconstructing it (He, 2007; Palmberger, 2006; Violi, 2017). Memories are inevitably shaped by the interests of the ones who narrate it and the ones who consume it (Palmberger, 2006; Verovšek, 2016; Violi, 2017). Personal memories are unique subjective experiences specific to each individual, and not all recollections of the past are given the same weight in the construction of public memory. Some individual stories can become ‘icons’ of a narrative (Jessee, 2017; Palmberger, 2006). Indeed, certain interpretations of the past are often strategically used to legitimise political actions, and so narratives of the past are manipulated and imposed by the political elite (He, 2007; Matonytė & Vidūnaitė, 2016; Verovšek, 2016). These dynamics are referred to as politics of memory. Narratives of past events are powerful political instruments and inevitably entail highlighting certain interpretations while forgetting others (Connerton, 2008; David, 2015; Matonytė & Vidūnaitė, 2016; Verovšek, 2016). Silencing3 strategies, where the political space is closed off to other interpretations of the past than the ruling one, are just as powerful in the struggle for hegemony over the memory arena (Connerton, 2008; David, 2015; Igreja, 2008; Palmberger, 2006). The example of Višegrad (located in Republika Srpska), where Serb authorities obstruct commemorations of the war crimes against Bosniaks, is one of many illustrations of these dynamics (Björkdahl & Mannergren Selimovic, 2016). The term ‘genocide’ was even erased from Višegrad’s memorial of the 1992 mass killings of over 1600 Bosniaks (Borger, 2014). In Prijedor (also in Bosnian Serb territory), no monuments have been erected for the over 500 Bosniak victims massacred at Omarska camp; war memorials are exclusively commemorating Serbs in this city (Moll, 2015). However, silence can also be a deliberate protection strategy chosen by minority groups, like in the small town of Foča (Eastwood & Mannergren Selimovic, 2012).

The academic interest in politics of memory is closely related to the memory (and heritage) boom since the 1980s (Blight, 2009; Hartog, 2005; Lorenz, 2010; Verovšek, 2016). Nora (1983) argued that the preoccupation (one could say obsession) with memory and the rise in lieux de mémoire stems from a concern that a society’s authentic memory (which he calls milieux de mémoire) is disappearing (Allier Monteño, 2008; Violi, 2017; Winter, 2009). This memory boom is characterised by a proliferation in numbers of sites of memory and the emergence of a new field of research: memory studies (Blight, 2009; Hartog, 2005; Violi, 2017). But through politics of silencing and forgetting, the memory boom also entails a boom in forgetting certain narratives in contexts where interpretation of the past in contested. Allier Monteño (2008)

3 ‘Silencing’ in the sense of Connerton’s (2008) ‘repressive forgetting’. See his work for conceptual distinctions in ‘forgetting’.

4

refers to places of amnesia (places where this forgetfulness materialises) as important addition to Nora’s framework of places of memory. This is especially the case in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina, where memorialisation is intertwined with (re)constructing the past and defining (Bosniak, Croat and Serb) collective identities (Musi, 2016).

Dealing with the past in BiH

Since the early days of its independence from the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia in 1992, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) was at the heart of the extreme violence until 1995. The ethno- nationalist discourse that sparked Yugoslavia’s collapse caused intense turmoil in BiH, where three ethno-national groups4 (Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs) had relatively peacefully coexisted in the past (Dyker & Vejdova, 1996; Musi, 2016; Supple, 2005). The war between Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks lasted almost 4 years and caused over 2.000.000 displaced people and about 100.000 deaths (Nettelfield, 2010). These figures have been the object of controversy: early estimates by Bosnian authorities were as high as 200.000 deaths (Nettelfield, 2010; Sito- Sucic & Robinson, 2013). The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)’s Demographic Unit estimated the number of deaths at 104.732, while the Sarajevo- based Research and Documentation Center published accounts of 95.940 individually documented deaths in their ‘Bosnian Book of the Dead’ (Kostić, 2012; Nettelfield, 2010; ICTY, 2011; Sito-Sucic & Robinson, 2013). The ICTY convicted war crimes such as rape, deportation, torture, camp detention, and ethnic cleansing (Musi, 2016). These rulings of the ICTY are contested as well, pointing at what Biserko and Bećirević (2009) call a ‘culture of denial’ in Serbia (and Republika Srpska). Most notably, the Srebrenica genocide of Bosniaks has been openly denied by the former Serbian president Tomislav Nikolić, and by the current Bosnian Serb member of BiH’s three-headed presidency, Milorad Dodik (AFP, 2010; B92, 2012; Gadzo, 2018; Touquet & Vermeersch, 2015).

If interpretations of the war are complex and ambivalent, so are the memories related to the conflict. During the 1992-1995 war, the manipulation of memory was an essential component of the Bosnian Serb (and to some extent Bosnian Croat) nationalist strategies: references to antagonising interpretations of history fuelled hostility between groups (Dyker & Vejdova, 1996; Mannergren Selimovic, 2015; Musi, 2016). As with ethnic cleansing through genocide, the ideological intent was to decimate other ethno-national groups. Destroying non-Serb (or non- Croat) ethnic groups’ cultural archives and heritage resulted in the partial eradication of their

4 ‘Bosnian’ refers to inhabitants of BiH. ‘Bosniak’, ‘Croat’ and ‘Serb’ refer to ethno-national identities within the country of BiH. The latter are mainly, but not exclusively, linked to religious affiliation: Muslim (Bosniak), Catholic (Croat) and Orthodox (Serb).

5

cultural, collective and individual memory (Jimerson, 2003; Supple, 2005). Attempts to reconstruct collective memory and a sense of identity in post-conflict BiH have included the preservation of the country’s multicultural history through restoration of historical heritage sites, archives, and documents (Naef & Ploner, 2016; Supple, 2005). In this process, new lieux de mémoire are created that capture and preserve the memory of more recent traumatic events (Moll, 2015; Violi, 2017). This has manifested itself in countless physical memory sites, interpretations of the conflict in history manuals, choosing national holidays, and ceremonies, like the yearly burials of newly identified genocide victims in Srebrenica (Moll, 2015).

Post-war heritage & dark tourism in BiH

The preoccupation with lieux de mémoire and physical memory sites is not unique to BiH. Extensive research already exists on sites of memory in other post-conflict settings5. Memory sites of the past are widespread in BiH, and especially in its capital city of Sarajevo (Kappler, 2017). These include Roman settlements, Ottoman structures, the assassination site of Franz Ferdinand, remnants of the Second World War, and monuments commemorating victims of the 1992-1995 conflict. After the war, considerable importance has been attributed to this rich cultural heritage in efforts related to recovery and peace (Musi, 2014). Some of these sites, especially related to the 1992-1995 war, are still objects of controversy (Kappler, 2017; Sorabji, 2006). The sheer amount of memory sites, their politicised nature and the complex structure of BiH’s institutional system since the Dayton Peace Agreement complicate the management of heritage sites. Cultural heritage policy6 within BiH is complex and highly fragmented between state actors at different levels (Center for Nonviolent Action [CNA], 2016; Musi, 2014, 2016). Apart from local and national level actors within BiH’s state apparatus, a multitude of other (inter)national and local actors are involved in the management (initiative, funding and maintenance) of memory sites, including civil society (CNA, 2016; Moll, 2015). ‘Civil society’ is to be understood in the broad sense in this context: (inter)national NGOs, victims’ and veterans’ association, religious and community organisations (CNA, 2016).

The interest in memory in BiH has also resulted in a proliferation of memory sites in the country. This interest is also translated in a rising amount of “dark tourism” activities related heritage of its violent past. Dark tourism7, a term invented and popularised by Foley and Lennon (1996, 2000), refers to “the act of travel to sites of death, disaster or the seemingly

5 For Rwanda alone, see Ibreck, (2010 & 2012), Jessee (2013), Jessee & Smith (2004), Mannergren Selimovic (2013), Meierhenrich, (2009). 6 For a thorough review of cultural heritage policy in BiH, see Musi (2016), particularly chapter 4. 7 For a detailed assessment of the term, typologies and applications, see Sharpley (2009), Stone (2006); Stone & Sharpley (2008), and Strange & Kempa (2003), inter alia.

6

macabre” (Stone, 2006, p. 2). Causevic (2008) has coined the term phoenix tourism to describe the revival of tourism in post-conflict BiH revival including the legacy of the recent war. Present day tourism in BiH is, in many ways, not comparable to pre-war visits to the country; the 1992-1995 war has become an intrinsic part of the tourist experience (Naef, 2012). Specific sites such as the Mostar Bridge (destroyed in 1993, rebuilt in 2004 and a symbol of the country’s reconstruction) and the Tunnel of Hope (700m tunnel that was the only gateway to Sarajevo during it’s siege for food, ammunition, etc.) are prime examples of tourism ‘rising from the ashes’ (Causevic, 2008; Causevic & Lynch, 2011; Eastwood & Mannergren Selimovic, 2012). Some cities have become icons of the conflict: Sarajevo retains many traces of its siege and the name Srebrenica has become a synonym for genocide. Naef (2016) has used the term “martyred cities” to describe similar places. Research on these sites of memory has revolved around the question whether they benefit certain narratives, and whether they benefit the process of reconciliation. Memory sites can complicate this reconciliation as they contribute to forgetting certain narratives, but also by constantly re-emphasising this traumatic past (Eastmond & Mannergren Selimovic, 2012). From her fieldwork in Vukovar, Clark (2013) has argued that the abundance of war memorials creates too much (selective) memory: they re- iterate ethnic divisions and deny Serb victimhood, obstructing reconciliation.

Memory and transitional justice in post-conflict BiH

Despite being deeply intertwined with questions of reconciliation, memory is not considered as a constitutional element of transitional justice (Dulitzky, 2014). Indeed, transitional justice strategies are typically designed to contribute to (one or any combination of) the following goals: recovering the truth, ensuring offender’s accountability, promoting reconciliation, and victim’s reparations (Eastmond & Mannergren Selimovic, 2012; Parmentier & Weitekamp, 2007). RECOM8, an official and intergovernmental consortium of over 1800 NGOs working towards the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the former Yugoslavia, is a prime example of the on-going concern with transitional justice in the Balkans (Kostić, 2012; Moll, 2015; Subotić, 2016; Touquet & Vermeersch, 2015). However, the propositions and recommendations of RECOM have not been realised, due to a multitude of institutional and political setbacks (Moll, 2015; Subotić, 2016).

8 RECOM as an acronym stands for the Regional Commission Tasked with Establishing the Facts about All Victims of War Crimes and Other Serious Human Rights Violations Committed on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia in the period from 1991-2001.

7

The prime institution involved in transitional justice in BiH was the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This ad-hoc tribunal established in The Hague in 1993 was charged with prosecuting war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed since 1991 on the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia’s territory (ICTY, 2003). After the tribunal ceased its activities in late 2017, the prosecution and trial of lower-ranked individuals has been transferred to domestic courts in BiH (ICTY, 2018). The ICTY’s appeals, retrials, sentence enforcements, archive management and assistance to domestic courts is now part of the United Nations Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals’ mandate (ICTY, 2018; International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals [IRMCT], 2018b). Through its mandate, the ICTY was mainly concerned with accountability and truth, indirectly contributing to reconciliation as well (Kostić, 2012; Touquet & Vermeersch, 2015; Valiñas, Parmentier & Weitekamp, 2009). However, critics have questioned the ICTY’s role in reconciliation and argue that it re-iterated victim-perpetrator divisions in ethno-national lines (Mannergren Selimovic, 2015). Local support for the ICTY was mitigated with significant differences between ethno-national groups: Bosniaks show the most trust in the tribunal, Bosnian Serbs the least (Kostić, 2012; Mannergren Selimovic, 2010). Rather than reconciliation being a goal in itself, the ICTY’s prosecution of war crime offenders should be regarded as a condition to make the process of reconciliation possible (Touquet & Vermeersch, 2015).

By the nature of its activities, the ICTY has actively contributed to the production and preservation of memory of the 1992-1995 war through forensic evidence and oral testimonies from witnesses, victims and suspects (Campbell, 2012; IRMCT, 2018a; Perrin, 2015; Supple, 2005). But the same dynamics of remembering and forgetting for other lieux de mémoire are applicable to the ICTY archives (Campbell, 2012; Perrin, 2016; Simić, 2014). The tribunal had to destroy several pieces of evidence, and the institutional narratives of the ICTY are contested locally as they confirm certain victimhood claims, but deny others (Mannergren Selimovic, 2010, 2015; Simić, 2014). However, the ICTY’s contribution to memory has been crucial: it shaped interpretations of the past by reconstructing collective memory through its investigations, recording of testimonies and verdicts that establish a particular kind of legal memory (Campbell, 2012; Perrin, 2016). Campbell (2012) suggested the term ‘memorial law’ to describe this metaphysical legal sphere where collective memory can draw from to construct itself. But what is the spatial component of this legal realm? How does one gain access to it? And to what extent is the ICTY’s extensive data integrated in existing physical memory sites? This research paper aims to understand the spatial aspect of the ICTY as a particular lieu de mémoire.

8

Problem definition: Memory, space and the ICTY legacy

The focus of this study is two-fold. First, this paper describes the use of physical lieux de mémoire in memorialisation processes in Sarajevo anno 2018 and the role of different actors (foreign, government, NGOs and survivors) in memorialisation processes in space. As will become clear, the process of memorialisation of the 1992-1995 war in BiH is a continuous one. Therefore, it is important to add new memory-related initiatives and dynamics to the existing body of knowledge in memory studies. Concerning transitional justice, Clark (2013) has previously underlined the importance of memorials in reconciliation and the fact that this topic is fairly under-researched in the field of transitional justice. For the purpose of this research paper, the scope of lieux de mémoire is limited to physical ones: memorials, museums, cemeteries and exhibitions. To make the conceptual distinction, the term ‘memory sites’ will be used from now on to refer to physical sites of memory.

This article’s second aim is to research if and how the data produced by the ICTY is integrated in memorialisation processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, the potential of the ICTY and its legacy in preserving facts and contributing to memory has already been recognised in the past (Campbell, 2012; Perrin, 2016). Linking back to Nora, the ICTY archive has become a lieu de mémoire sui generis, a special kind of institutional memory site where memory is situated in the legal domain (Campbell, 2012; Mannergren Selimovic, 2015). However, the spatial component of this unique archival memory has not been researched yet. To fill this gap of knowledge, special attention was given to references to the ICTY in visited memory sites. Hence, the research questions of this study are the following:

1) How can we understand the use of memory sites of the 1992-1995 war in present day Bosnia and Herzegovina?

2) To what extent has the legacy of the ICTY been incorporated into memory sites?

The following section describes the methodological approach to collecting empirical evidence for this study. Afterwards, the empirical findings will be discussed and linked back to the existing literature before concluding with a comprehensive answer to the aforementioned research questions.

9

Methods

Prior to the empirical study, literature on a variety of relevant topics (BiH’s history with a focus on the 1992-1995 war, transitional justice, memorialisation, lieux de mémoire, collective memory, memory politics, dark tourism, cultural heritage management in BiH) was assessed in order to construct a “theoretical scaffold” (Layder, 1998). This body of knowledge served as a guide to focus the study and to make sense of the empirical findings. In what follows, this study’s empirical sample and its selection are explained, followed by the process of collecting and analysing data, and the methodological limitations.

Empirical sample

The empirical part of this research is based on data gathered on a study trip to Bosnia and Herzegovina in September 2018. The focus of the fieldwork was in Sarajevo, but two additional locations were visited to retrieve data: Potočari (Srebrenica) and Mostar. Visits to 29 memory sites form the primary source of empirical data for this article. The visits were supplemented with two expert interviews with members of NGOs involved in memory, peacebuilding and reporting on the ICTY. Additional data was gathered from participatory observation in four guided tours and informal discussions with tour guides (from the Insider and Info Bosnia agencies). The tours included a general 2-hour tour of Sarajevo, the 4-hour war-themed ‘Times of Misfortune Tour’ in the Sarajevo area (Sniper Alley, Tunnel of Hope, Trebević, Kovači), a full day trip to Srebenica and Potočari, and Mostar as part of a day tour to the Herzegovina region.

A total of 29 memory sites were visited and constitute the research units for this study. These sites were mostly selected through purposive sampling (Silverman, 2013). They had to be specifically related to the 1992-1995 war, while leaving enough variation in their characteristics (type of memory site, public or private initiative, location). These sites were identified through a combination of data from existing scientific and journalistic articles on memorials and visiting information on BiH. Some sites were added to the sample and were selected through snowball sampling (touring agencies were consulted on memorials of the 1992-1995 war) and a few sites were discovered by sheer luck when walking through residential parts of Sarajevo. The vast majority of the memory sites (23) are located in Sarajevo, complemented by sites in Potočari-Srebrenica (3) and Mostar (3). The full list of visited sites is included in Appendix 1. The sites include the following: museums, exhibitions (partially or fully) dedicated to the 1992- 1995 War, name plaques on trauma sites, memorials, and war cemeteries.

10

A total of 7 NGOs9 were selected through purposive sampling based on relevant publications on memorialisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Due to a variety of fall-out reasons10, only two expert interviews were taken with active members of two NGOs. The two respondents11 were Velma Šarić from the Post-Conflict Research Center (PCRC) (Founder & President/Editor in Chief/Bosnia Project Manager/AHDA Fellow) and Lamija Grebo (investigative reporter at Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) Bosnia and Herzegovina). In addition to these two formal expert interviews, additional data was also retrieved from informal conversations with four guides before and during the tours.

Data collection & analysis

Key information (official name, location, description, additional information, and photographs) on the 29 memory sites was collected for the data set. Where possible, this information was triangulated with other data sources12. The data retrieved from tour guides is the result of participatory observation in four tours and informal discussions with the guides. It was recorded in the form of field notes and supplemented with tour info, tickets, folders, and photographs. All photographs included in this article are mine and were made during my visit to BiH. They are used to illustrate and document the finding’s discussion.

The two formal interviews were conducted in the form of semi-structured interviews. A guide (or topic list) was set up prior to the interviews. This served as a guide with the main subjects to address throughout the conversation, while leaving enough room for spontaneous input from the interviewees (Silverman, 2013). The data was recorded through notes during and after the interviews, as the noise level in the interview venues did not allow for audio recordings.

Methodological assessment and positionality

There are a few limitations concerning the data gathered from my stay in BiH. This is mainly due to the short amount of time spent on site (12 intensive days), financial limitations and high fall-out rate for the interview respondents. While the expert interviews were valuable sources of data, they should be regarded as complementary to the literature and the findings from

9 Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo; Transitional Justice, Accountability and Remembrance in BiH in Sarajevo; Centre for Democracy and Transitional Justice (CDTJ) in Banja Luka; Association Transitional Justice, Accountability and Remembrance in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo; Post-Conflict Research Center (PCRC) in Sarajevo; the Centre for Nonviolent Action (CNA) in Sarajevo and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo. 10 Non-response from the NGO, NGO ceased its activities (e.g. Research Documentation Centre Sarajevo), no contact information, transportation issues for Banja Luka, and lack of time for an interview from the NGO (e.g. CNA). 11 Both respondents gave their informed consent about being mentioned by name in this report. 12 Including the ‘kultura sjećanja’ dataset form the Centre of Nonviolent Action – available at http://kulturasjecanja.org/en/

11

memory sites visits. Indeed, the sample is in no way representative, but the specific expertise of both respondents allowed for a more thorough and critical analysis.

The empirical sample of memory sites does in no way represent the entirety of physical memorials for BiH as the visits were limited to three cities (Sarajevo, Potočari-Srebrenica and Mostar). However, visits of these three ‘case’-cities were thorough and the final sample consists of 29 sites. Due to the relatively limited transportation infrastructure outside of Sarajevo, I had to rely on tour agencies to gain access to certain sites (Potočari-Srebrenica and Mostar). The tour agencies I worked with are small and highly flexible. Prior to the tours, I informed my guides of my research topic and received additional information from them (on memory sites, memorialisation politics, but also their personal opinions).

Before presenting the findings, I would like to make a brief note on positionality during my stay in BiH. To some extent, I was contributing to the dark tourism industry by visiting trauma and memory sites. Arguably, researching this topic implied active participation in dark tourism activities (e.g. the organised tour to Srebrenica for organisational and logistical reasons). Given the common pejorative connotation of ‘dark tourism’, I would like to specify that my visits were motivated out of educational and academic interest in the sense of Causevic’s (2008, p. 315) “edutourism” or “genuine phoenix tourism”. Especially on commemoration and trauma sites, I tried to be as discreet and respectful as possible. Key measures I took included introducing myself and research subject when appropriate, explicitly asking for permission to take photographs if necessary, and taking notes after the visit in a more appropriate spot.

12

Results

Memorialisation of the 1992-1995 conflict in BiH is very present through private and public initiatives. Just over 20 years after the end of the war, memorials, cemeteries, museums, and exhibitions stand as physical reminders of the armed conflict. In what follows, the main findings from the visited sites in BiH are presented, conceptually divided in five main characteristics: the inclusive or exclusive nature of memory sites, the on-going nature of memorialisation, the generally local and private character of memorialisation initiatives, the personification of war experiences, and the integration of the ICTY legacy in memory sites.

Inclusive and exclusive memory sites

The vast majority of memory sites included in this study are located in Sarajevo. Both Sarajevo and Mostar are situated in the Federation of BiH. And while Srebrenica lies in Republika Srpska, Bosnian Serb territory, the memory sites in Potočari are dedicated to Bosniak victims of the genocide of July 1995. As a result, the vast majority of memory sites included in this sample have been erected in honour of Bosniak victims of the 1992-1995 war. However, not all monuments have been designed exclusively for one population group. These dynamics of inclusion and exclusion are a first key element in understanding memorialisation in BiH.

The term exclusive memory site refers to physical sites of memory dedicated to only one population group. Examples include the Srebrenica Memorial Complex and Genocide Museum in Potočari (Bosniak victims of the genocide), the House of the Liberators Museum (dedicated to the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) and their battle over Žuč Hill in the liberation of Sarajevo), and many monuments honouring shahids (Muslim martyrs) and fallen fighters all over Bosnia (examples included in Sarajevo’s Koševo and Dolac Malta). Some of these memory sites have been heavily criticised and are the object of controversy. Activities at the Srebrenica Memorial Complex and Genocide Museum in Potočari are still the object of hostilities from groups of (Bosnian) Serbs denying the genocide, especially during the yearly commemorations each July 13 . However, no visual signs of adversity or vandalism were documented on any of the visited sites. Arguably, the House of the Liberators Museum was the most explicit example of this exclusion dynamic: it is the only museum that provided information and objects’ legends only in Bosnian. There weren’t any notes in English (suggesting it was not aimed at foreign tourists), nor in Cyrillic (the designated alphabet for Serbian, implying the museum is not meant for ethnic Serbs either). By their nature, memorial cemeteries are also exclusively dedicated to one specific religious group. As opposed to the

13 Fieldnotes from the Srebrenica tour (15.09.2018).

13

Srebrenica Memorial Cemetery, burial places in Sarajevo seem to be less subjected to tensions. Koševo in Sarajevo is a particularly relevant example, as this neighbourhood is home to the Muslim Shahid cemetery, the Catholic Lav cemetery and the Orthodox St. Mark’s cemetery. The burial grounds for the three religious communities lie side by side in this area.

As opposed to exclusive ones, BiH is also home to inclusive memory sites. Perhaps the most iconic example of one such site of memory is Mostar’s Old Bridge (Stari Most). After its destruction by Croat armed forces in 1993, today the (rebuilt) historic bridge stands as a symbol of unity and reconciliation between communities, in a city that is still very divided. Inclusion is also explicitly intended in two of Sarajevo’s childhood-related memory sites. First, the War Childhood Museum is the physical form of Jasminko Halilović’s eponymous book that collected short testimonies of children’s lives under siege in Sarajevo, regardless of ethno- national background. The Museum’s next exhibition will even include testimonies from other war-affected areas. Second, the Memorial for Children killed during the Sarajevo Siege (see Figure 1) was initially only meant for Bosniak child victims. However, it is now dedicated to all children who died during the siege of Sarajevo, regardless of ethno-national identity14.

Figure 1. Memorial for Children killed during the Figure 2. Sarajevo Rose Sarajevo Siege 1992-1995, Sarajevo

Some memory sites, like Sarajevo Roses (see Figure 2), are more difficult to conceptualise. These mortar scars in streets filled with red resin commemorate the deceased victims of a specific shell impact during the siege, instead of a certain ethno-national group in general. However, victims of these shell attacks in Sarajevo were mainly Bosniaks. Of course, a few memorials stand aside from these theoretical distinctions and do thus not include nor exclude certain population groups. The ICAR Canned Beef Monument, for example, is exactly that: a meter-high steel cylinder representing the notoriously bad canned beef distributed as humanitarian aid during the war, ironically “thanking the international community”.

14 But excluding children who died in the Serb controlled outskirts of the city according to CNA (2016).

14

Continuous memorialisation

A second important characteristic of memory sites in BiH related to the 1992-1995 conflict is that they have been built since 1995 and new sites of memory continue to spawn up to this day15. This is especially true for the museums and exhibitions, as many opened after 2012, 20 years after the onset of the conflict (see Table 1). Some of them are a consolidation of already existing memory-related initiatives, like the new exhibition “Srebrenica Genocide – The Failure of the International Community” in the former DUTCHBAT16 headquarters complement the Memorial Room was inaugurated in 2007. Tarik Samarah’s photographs on the aftermath of the Srebrenica genocide were first exhibited the Memorial Room in Potočari, then displayed in the Gallery 11/07/1995 in Sarajevo in 2012 (now a permanent photo gallery / museum). Other museums like the War Childhood Museum, the Museum of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide 1992-1995 and the House of the Liberators Museum are entirely new initiatives.

Table 1. Museums on the 1992-1995 war inaugurated in or after 2012

Name and location Inauguration date

Gallery 11/07/1995, Sarajevo 2012/2014

Museum of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide 1992-1995, Sarajevo July 2016

War Childhood Museum, Sarajevo January 2017

Srebrenica Genocide – The Failure of the International Community, Potočari February 2017

House of the Liberators Museum, Žuč Hill, Sarajevo June 2018

It was more difficult to collect accurate data on the construction and inauguration of memorials other than museums. But the additional data from the Centre for Nonviolent Action’s kultura sjećanja dataset 17 confirmed that memory sites have been constructed consistently over the past 20 years. Urban change may result in the loss of certain memory sites (like Sarajevo Roses disappear with road renovation), but new ones are also born from initiatives coming from victims’ or veterans’ associations, and cultural heritage institutions like the Sarajevo Canton Fund for the reconstruction and maintenance of cemeteries of shahids and fallen fighters, memorial centres and memorials to victims of genocide.

15 After more than a week of visiting memory sites in Sarajevo, I discovered a little 4D-cinema under construction on my departure day, located in the historical heart of the city (Baščaršija square). The staff has told me it will open in the near future and its aim will be to provide a 4D experience of living under siege in Sarajevo. 16 United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)’s Dutch battalion sent to Srebrenica with the aim to protect the UN Safe Zone for Muslims 17 Available at https://kulturasjecanja.org/en/

15

Actors involved in space and memorialisation

Indeed, memory sites are like a crossroads where a multitude of actors are involved on different levels. These actors may be foreign, national or local bodies; governmental or private in nature. As stated above, many memory sites have been initiated by, funded by and/or managed by private actors and/or civil society (victims’ and veterans’ associations, (inter)national NGOs, religious and community organisations)18. This is especially the case for the War Childhood Museum (private initiative of Jasminko Halilović), the Museum for Crimes against Humanity and Genocide (funded and run by a victims’ association), and the Gallery 11/07/1995 (private initiative of photographer Tarik Samarah). Lamija Grebo 19 mentioned several cases of victim’s organisations being involved in small-scale memory-related projects, but that they often lack the authorisation and/or funding to pursue them.

While international NGOs are sometimes involved in memory-related projects, the international community has largely been absent in memorialisation in BiH20. That being said, there is one major exception to this trend: the UN was involved in financing the Srebrenica Memorial Complex in Potočari, and the Dutch government has been vocal about contributing to the Srebrenica Genocide Museum. Guides21 noted that these contributions of the UN and the Netherlands are commonly considered as guilt-driven by the international community’s powerlessness in Srebrenica.

Local authorities are the main intermediary governmental actors visibly involved with memorialisation. In this context, is worth mentioning the Sarajevo Canton Fund for the reconstruction and maintenance of cemeteries of shahids and fallen fighters, memorial centres and memorials to victims of genocide. They are in charge of the numerous memorial plaques with victim’s names in scattered around Sarajevo. The Fund also manages Sarajevo’s Tunnel of Hope and its restoration. The tunnel and its museum were historically the Kolar family’s business, whose house in Ilidža is the gateway to the tunnel, but the Canton of Sarajevo owns the entire tunnel complex since 201222. Municipalities are involved in memory too (e.g. the Municipality of Novi Grad Sarajevo’s support of the House of the Liberators is very visible).

18 Interviews with Velma Šarić (Sarajevo, 11.09.2018) and Lamija Grebo (Sarajevo, 12.09.2018). 19 Interview with Lamija Grebo (Sarajevo, 12.09.2018). 20 Fieldnotes from tours to Srebrenica (15.09.2018) and Sarajevo (17.09.2018). 21 Fieldnotes from tours to Srebrenica (15.09.2018) and Sarajevo (17.09.2018). 22 Fieldnotes from Sarajevo tour (17.09.2018). Additional data retrieved from Musi (2016).

16

All interviewees and guides23 were unaware of national policies on memorialisation for BiH. Some thought that there were none at all. Guides stated that heritage is a sensitive topic, because it connects with the recognition of certain interpretations of the war. Research of museums confirmed that the vast majority of museums related the 1992-1995 war receive no national government funding and fully rely on local funding, private initiatives, and civil society. An interesting exception is the National History Museum of Bosnia & Herzegovina with the ‘Sarajevo under Siege 1992-1995’ exhibition. This museum functions on a combination of public and private resources. While funded by the government, it only receives little budget to maintain its activities. The exhibition relies almost entirely on donations and contains a large collection of objects used and created during the siege of Sarajevo: war lamps, stoves made of cans, clothing, posters, photographs, newspaper clippings, and official documents.

Personification and use of victims’ life histories

This use of personal items is a fourth main recurring characteristic in memory sites in BiH. The War Childhood Museum’s collection pieces are all donations from victims. Objects (clothes, toys, food, a guitar, canned food, a blackboard with a shrapnel impact, children’s books, etc.) are soberly presented and accompanied by a short testimony from their owner (see Figure 3). The same presentation technique is used in the Srebrenica Memorial Room, where about 20 objects of identified genocide victims are displayed with the biography of the person they belonged to. The Museum of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide in Sarajevo houses a rather eclectic collection of 1992-1995 conflict-related items. While it displays a few military memorabilia (torture devices, a missile and weapons), most items are victim-orientated: clothes, jewellery, personal documents and photographs accompanied with a testimony or life history, and newspaper clippings. The aim is to experience the conflict through the eyes of people who lived it themselves. Instead of using facts and figures, this technique focuses on narrative and personifies the 1992-1995 war to the experience of a single individual.

This personification of the war’s history is closely related to use of a few ‘iconic’ stories from the conflict that revolve around personal histories. A first example is the story of Suada Dilberović and Olga Sučić, the first victims of the siege of Sarajevo. The bridge on which they were shot is named after them and a commemorative plaque stands there as well (see Figure 4). It is on that same bridge that Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić, a Bosniak – Bosnian Serb couple, were shot by snipers in 1993. The lovers were nicknamed the ‘Romeo and Juliet of Sarajevo’ and photos of their deaths were world news.

23 Interviews with Velma Šarić (Sarajevo, 11.09.2018) and Lamija Grebo (Sarajevo, 12.09.2018); Fieldnotes from tours to Mostar (13.09.2018), Srebrenica (15.09.2018), and Sarajevo (17.09.2018).

17

It is important to acknowledge the considerable amount of photographic documentation, film footage, and media available of the war. Because it is so recent, the conflict was well documented by photographs and video footage. The result is that these media have been used to tell individual stories too, putting a ‘human face’ on the war. This was true for news reports during the war itself, but also in contemporary sites of memory. Several museums display video testimonies or documentaries (Gallery 11/07/1995, War Childhood Museum, Museum of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide, and Srebrenica Genocide Museum) and photo exhibits (Jim Marshall’s “15 Years” in the History Museum of BiH, Samarah’s powerful greyscale photographs in Gallery 11/07/1995, Ron Haviv’s “Shadow of Memory” in the Srebrenica Memorial Room).

Figure 3. War Childhood Museum, Sarajevo Figure 4. Suada & Olga’s bridge, Sarajevo

The 1992-1995 war has thus been well documented and the individual stories of victims and witnesses play an important part in present day memory sites in BiH. However, the use of these data and testimonies has not been limited to acts of remembrance. Indeed, the ICTY has played an important role both in collecting testimonies and documenting events of the war with the aim of prosecuting perpetrators of serious war crimes. And some of the ICTY’s accomplishments and archival data found its way to memory sites.

Integration of the ICTY legacy in memory sites

Both interviewees24 emphasised the importance of the ICTY’s archives in documenting war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 1992-1995 war. Šarić25 advocated for the exploitation of this data to contribute to a well-researched and nuanced representation of the conflict. This has successfully been achieved in the Srebrenica Memorial Complex and

24 Interviews with Velma Šarić (Sarajevo, 11.09.2018) and Lamija Grebo (Sarajevo, 12.09.2018). 25 Interview with Velma Šarić (Sarajevo, 11.09.2018).

18

Genocide Museum in Potočari26. She regretted that many memory sites and museums make no use of these resources and sometimes display incomplete or incorrect information. An example of this is the Museum of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide in Sarajevo, filled with anecdotal reports and descriptions of incidents, often without source. While its strongly relies on personal histories, it also displays a wall-sized information plate with the activities of the ICTY and the convictions of four war criminals.

The most ‘exportable’ source of data from the ICTY to memory sites would be the verdicts of main war criminals. These displays take the form of A4-sized plates hanged on a wall with name, picture, accusations and sentence of the main war criminals that have been convicted by the ICTY. The most recurring ones are the convictions of Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, and Ratko Mladić. Such conviction displays are shown at the Srebrenica Memorial Room and the Srebrenica Genocide Museum in Potočari, the Museum of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide in Sarajevo, and the ICTY Documentation Centre Sarajevo.

A part of the actual video and text archives from the ICTY can be consulted at the Srebrenica Genocide Museum and at the ICTY Documentation Centre Sarajevo, located in the former Town Hall Vijećnica. This building also houses a reconstruction of the ICTY Court room to a smaller scale (“ICTY Court Room No. 2”) with information on its mandate and activities (see Figure 5).

Archival material from the ICTY is thus increasingly integrated in certain memory sites in BiH, especially war-related museums. This raises new questions on how the ICTY’s legacy relates to other physical memory sites and to what extent it also functions as a lieu de mémoire. The next section works towards a tentative answer to these issues, after describing memorialisation dynamics for other memory sites in BiH.

26 Interview with Velma Šarić (Sarajevo, 11.09.2018).

19

Discussion

In what follows, the data’s significance is brought forward in light of previous theoretical work. The analysis starts with four memorialisation strategies that can be distinguished for memory sites in BiH. Then, the findings’ implications for the previously discussed notions of dark tourism and Nora’s lieux de mémoire are addressed. The analysis ends with outlining the role of ICTY’s archives in shaping collective memory and this process’ spatial dimension.

Memorialisation strategies

Based on the findings and literature previously on memorialisation, four strategies in dealing with sites of memory can be identified: creation, accentuation, conservation (intentional or temporary), and destruction (as a goal in se or due to other factors). It is worth mentioning that many sites are the result of a combination of these strategies.

First, a large number of memorials result from the creation of new memory sites. These memory sites are not erected on actual trauma sites and thus have no intrinsic historical value. This is the case for most museums and some memorials like the Memorial for Children Killed during the Sarajevo Siege. As an analytical rule of thumb, these created sites could be relocated without losing their importance. Interestingly, some of these ‘created’ memory sites reproduce other memory sites: a life-sized cell in the Museum of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide, a living room representing living conditions under siege in the History of BiH Museum, and a smaller version the ICTY courtroom in Sarajevo’s former town hall Vijećnica (see Figure 5). This reproduction of space is a form of performing the past, attributing spectacle-like characteristics to some memory sites (Violi, 2017).

Figure 5. ICTY Courtroom No. 2, Sarajevo Figure 6. Srebrenica-Potočari Cemetery & Memorial

Second, there’s the accentuation of memory sites on actual trauma site. In these sites, their intrinsic historical or traumatic value is emphasised by their memorialisation or musealisation

20

(Violi, 2017). As opposed to created sites, accentuated sites would lose (part of) their significance if they were to be relocated. This is the case for the Sarajevo Roses, name plaques on shell impact sites to commemorate its victims, Suada and Olga’s bridge, the museum at Sarajevo’s Tunnel of Hope, etc. The entire Srebrenica Memorial and Cemetery Complex has the site’s traumatic value enshrined in it, which augments the authenticity and power of the visitors’ experience (see Figure 6).

Figure 7. Tunnel of Hope, Figure 8. Srebrenica Memorial Room: Ron Haviv’s “Shadow of Sarajevo Memory” displayed in the old battery factory, Potočari

A third way of dealing with memory sites is conservation. Unlike accentuation, conservation entails no or very little physical transformation of the place: some bullet impacts in buildings are intentionally left bare, Sarajevo’s Tunnel of Hope is restored in its original state for visiting purposes (see Figure 7), Markale is a marketplace once again. However, intentionally conserving places of memory or displaying items in museums transforms them, as their inherent function changes (Violi, 2017). Indeed, these objects or places receive a new significance: a victim’s watch displayed in a museum is no longer used to indicate time, but to augment authenticity of the victim’s testimony, and humanise the experience of war. The disaffected battery factory in Potočari turned into the DUTCHBAT headquarters, was a temporary refuge for Bosniak refugees in July 1995 and now houses the Srebrenica Memorial Room (in the bare hangar still carrying bullet-scars) and Genocide Museum (see Figure 8). Some spaces, like Markale marketplace, have been restored to their original function. But not all conservation is intentional and definitive. Indeed, many buildings’ future is unclear; they remain and await demolition or rehabilitation (e.g. Sniper Tower in Mostar, and the carcass of the nursery clinic on Sniper Alley in Sarajevo that was bombed in the early days of the siege).

21

Finally, destruction is indeed the fate of many memory sites. Multiple reminders of the war have been destroyed during in favour of the city’s reconstruction. This process goes on today, as Sarajevo roses disappear with road works, and buildings bearing scars of the war are replaced by new ones. However, these buildings’ memorial value is not necessarily lost: James (2013) correctly points out that many lieux de mémoire are now part of digital archives, shared on social network sites, and traveller’s blogs. In this way, memory sites that are not physically present anymore remain alive in the digital realm.

Memorialisation in BiH and dark tourism

Through the continuous creation of new memory sites, the 1992-1995 war has contributed to the production of cultural heritage in BiH (Naef & Ploner, 2016). Interest in these war-related sites of memory is closely related to the phenomenon of dark tourism as originally described by Foley and Lennon (1996, 2000). Following authors like Causevic (2008) and Naef (2012), my visit to BiH confirmed the war has been embraced by the tourist industry: almost all tourist organisations offer tours related to the war (such as ‘Times of Misfortune’ tours and excursions to Srebrenica) and the 1990s conflict is explicitly mentioned on several occasions in introductory tours in Sarajevo27. War-themed souvenirs are found in abundance, even in the historical Ottoman Baščaršija district. The very same shops that sell Bosnian traditional copper coffee sets, offer a wide range of souvenirs made from assault rifle bullets from the nineties’ war: key chains, sculpted airplanes, ball pens made of sculpted bullet casings.

On the one hand, dark tourism contributes to memorialisation, knowledge production on traumatic events and sensitisation of different publics to this traumatic past. In this sense, war- related tourism in BiH is also part of the process of dealing with the past with the aim of steadily returning to normality in this post-conflict context (Causevic, 2008; Causevic & Lynch, 2011; Naef & Ploner, 2016). On the other hand, the attention to sites of traumatic memory can be seen as the (financial) exploitation of this violent past, causing certain narratives to be sensationalised, politicised and/or exaggerated (Naef & Ploner, 2016). Indeed, the data and stories presented at war tourism sites are not always fact-checked28 and personal testimonies play an important role in narration of the conflict. Apart from exhibited testimonies (with objects of video), tour guides also play an important role in personifying history through telling anecdotes or their own experiences during the war. Causevic and Lynch (2011) have referred to this more empathic and personal approach of recounting history as ‘catharsis’ (Naef

27 Fieldnotes from Sarajevo (11.09.2018; 17.09.2018). Mostar (13.09.2018) and Srebrenica (15.09.2018) tours. 28 Interview with Velma Šarić (Sarajevo, 11.09.2018).

22

& Ploner, 2016). This allows transcending factual dominant interpretations of the conflict, and is often loaded with a message of peace (Causevic & Lynch, 2011; Naef & Ploner, 2016).

BiH’s memory sites as Nora’s lieux de mémoire

The extensive use of personal histories and the sheer amount of war-related testimonies are indicate a strong will to remember, characteristic of Nora’s (1996) lieux de mémoire (Allier Montaño, 2008; Ogino, 2015). In this sense, sites of memory in BiH both embody and generate individual (e.g. victim testimonies, names on memorial plaques) and collective memory (Allier Montaño, 2008; Naef & Ploner, 2016). Memory shapes space as memory sites are continuously created, and existing trauma sites are conserved, emphasised or destroyed. This process has been on-going since the end of the war in 1995.

The memory arena in BiH is a highly divided and politicised one (CNA, 2016; Kostić, 2012; Moll, 2015; Palmberger, 2006). Where memory is both enshrined and generated in lieux de mémoire, (intentional) forgetting is as well (Allier Montaño, 2008). Some events will only be remembered if they fit into the dominant group narratives, turning many places of memory into places of amnesia as well (Allier Montaño, 2008; Palmberger, 2006). Many memorials in BiH have an exclusive nature: they only honour one group’s victims. By only including one’s own memory, these memory sites fail to acknowledge one’s own group responsibility and the other group’s suffering (CNA, 2016; Clark, 2013). The focus on victimhood is visible in the extensive use of individual and personal experiences of the war: through video testimonies, the display of objects with biographies, or victim stories so well known they have become icons29 of the war. Palmberger (2006) referred to this use of individual memory in public space as the impersonalisation of social memory. By doing so, individual memories also crystallise in these memory sites, and in turn become part of collective memory (Houdek & Phillips, 2017). Tensions between communities are expressed through the refusal of authorities to erect certain memorials (usually memorials for a minority group) and the debate on polarising terminology like ‘criminals’, ‘genocide’ on memory sites (CNA, 2016; Palmberger, 2006). As described by Björkdahl and Mannergren Selimovic (2016), these memory sites become places of political action and agency. Similarly to the process that Ibreck (2010) described on genocide victims’ participation in memorialisation in Rwanda, many memory sites in BiH are the result of private initiatives. Apart from victims and survivors, a multitude of (both governmental and non-governmental) actors is involved in memorialisation and decision-making regarding cultural heritage in BiH (CNA, 2016; Moll, 2015; Musi, 2014, 2016).

29 Similarly to BiH, Jessee (2017) has described ‘iconic’ stories of the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and warns for the utilisation of these stories to support a certain interpretation of the past.

23

That being said, it is of great importance to recognise the variations in interpretations and narratives of the conflict within one and the same ethno-national group (Moll, 2015). Additionally, a number of initiatives could be considered as countering these tendencies of forceful amnesia: independent investigative reporting (such as BIRN), the RECOM initiative aimed at setting up a cross-border Truth Commission, the use of ICTY archival material in memory sites30 (Moll, 2015; Subotić, 2016; Touquet & Vermeersch, 2015).

The ICTY’s legacy in BiH’s memory sites

Rather than being a passive actor that merely records testimonies for prosecution purposes, the ICTY has actively been generating of (legal) memory through its specific mandate (Campbell, 2012; Perrin, 2015; Supple, 2005). The ICTY’s archives are thus a particular lieu de mémoire situated in the legal domain. As other lieux de mémoire, it interacts with the collective memory and is subjected to the same dynamics of remembrance and forgetfulness (Campbell, 2012; Mannergren Selimovic, 2010, 2015; Perrin, 2015). Figure 9 illustrates these interactions with double arrows. My proposal is to add a spatial dimension to this equation (see Figure 9, bold arrow). The ICTY, then, is not just a special legal source of memory; it also shapes physical lieux de mémoire (or memory sites).

ICTY LEGACY MEMORY

MEMORY SITES

Figure 9. The ICTY’s legacy in relation to memory sites and memory

Of course, the ICTY is not the only lieu de mémoire that interacts with physical memory sites. For example, the yearly July commemorations of the Srebrenica Genocide have shaped the design of the Cemetery to accommodate these events. Instead, this study argues that the ICTY’s legacy is not merely situated in the legal realm, but is also actively shaping spatial memorialisation processes. As this study’s findings have demonstrated, the ICTY’s legacy is easing its way into some memory sites (mainly museums) through the presence of verdict displays, victim testimonies, footage of proceedings, and documentation on the tribunal’s

30 Interviews with Velma Šarić (Sarajevo, 11.09.2018) and Lamija Grebo (Sarajevo, 12.09.2018).

24

mandate. Given the contested nature of interpretations of the war, the interviewed experts31 stressed the need for information displayed at memory sites to be grounded in evidence. The memory produced by the ICTY results from investigations and strict rules of functioning and can contribute to the factual documentation of memory sites.

The ICTY has also shaped certain sites of memory in a subtler manner. Through its proceedings and investigations, the tribunal established facts regarding war crimes, and most notably ruled the mass killings of Bosniaks in Srebrenica as genocide. This becomes visible in the Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery complex, and the Srebrenica Genocide Museum through its very existence and the use of the term ‘genocide’. In this sense, the memory sites co-shaped by the ICTY reiterate and strengthen the memory created by the tribunal in the first place.

Conclusion

This article links theoretical insights form previous literature on lieux de mémoire with empirical data from 29 memory sites in BiH (Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Potočari-Srebrenica and Mostar), two expert interviews, and data from participation in four guided tours. The aim of this study is two-fold: understanding the use of memory sites related to the 1992-1995 war in BiH, and the extent to which the ICTY’s legacy has been integrated into physical memory sites.

Memory sites from the 1992-1995 war are highly politicised in BiH. Some memory sites (like most museums) are created from scratch, while others (like place-specific memorials and cemeteries) involve the conservation or accentuation of sites with traumatic value. Destruction of memory sites is also prevalent, both intentional (denying the construction of certain memorials, erasing terms like ‘genocide’) or as a consequence of urban change. Anno 2018, the construction and transformation of memory sites is still on-going. Management of this war heritage is characterised by the involvement of a multitude of actors and private initiatives. Like other lieux de mémoire, physical memory sites intensely interact with the collective memory of the group(s) they are made for. Many memory sites in BiH are exclusive in that they’re only dedicated to one specific ethno-national group, both crystallising and generating their collective memory. Personal testimonies are an important resource of memory used in museums through testimonies. In this sense, individual memory is preserved in these sites as well. Increasingly, the ICTY’s legacy is integrated in museums by displaying proceedings footage, verdicts and information on its mandate.

31 Interviews with Velma Šarić (Sarajevo, 11.09.2018) and Lamija Grebo (Sarajevo, 12.09.2018).

25

The ICTY’s archives are to be understood as a lieu de mémoire sui generis, a unique source of memory. The tribunal’s legacy constitutes an abstract legal lieu de mémoire where collective memory can draw from and has partially been preserved. This study adds a spatial dimension to this abstract legal memory. As the inclusion of ICTY archival material in several memory sites demonstrates, the ICTY’s archives also actively shape physical sites of memory, in turn shaping public memory as well.

The results of this study suggest further exploitation of the ICTY archive for documentation purposes in memory sites. However, the same dynamics of politicisation and forgetting apply to the ICTY’s archives and should be carefully considered. Given the continuous nature of war memorialisation in BiH, these processes should continue to be researched and integrated into the body of knowledge on lieux de mémoire in post-conflict settings. Future research should also specifically focus on the unique nature of the ICTY’s legal memory and the ways in which the tribunal’s archives are integrated in memory sites. Equal attention should be given to other post-conflict contexts and the integration of their legal archival material (e.g. Cambodia’s Extraordinary Chambers, Rwanda’s gacaca and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, etc.) into physical memory sites.

Acknowledgements

I wholeheartedly would like to thank dr. David Mwambari for his enthusiasm, valuable suggestions and academic guidance throughout the process of researching and writing this article. I consider myself very fortunate to have been able to choose and work out this topic so freely, while always being able to rely on his valuable experience and suggestions. Special thanks to Sam and Suzannah for their editorial notes as well.

26

Bibliography

AFP. (27.04.2010). Srebrenica was not genocide: Bosnian Serb leader. France 24. Available at http://web.archive.org/web/20100717064036/http://www.france24.com/en/20100427- srebrenica-was-not-genocide-bosnian-serb-leader

Allier, Montaño, E. (2008). Places of memory. Is the concept applicable to the analysis of memorial struggles? The case of Uruguay and its recent past. Cuadernos del CLAEH 4 (Selected edition), 87-109.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Assmann, A. (2010). Re-framing memory. Between individual and collective forms of constructing the past. In K. Tilmans, F. Van Vree & J. Winter (Eds.), Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in modern Europe (pp. 35-50). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

B92. (01.06.2012). Izetbegović: Nikolić vređa Bošnjake. Available at http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2012&mm=06&dd=01&nav_category=11& nav_id=614859

Biserko, S., & Bećirević, E. (23.10.2009). Denial of genocide - on the possibility of normalising relations in the region. Bosnia Report. Available at http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2638

Björkdahl, A., & Mannergren Selimovic, J. (2016). A tale of three bridges: agency and antagonism in peace building. Third World Quarterly 17(2), 321-335.

Blight, D. (2009). The Memory Boom: Why and Why Now? In P. Boyer and J. V. Wertsch (Eds.) Memory in Mind and Culture (pp. 238–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boëtsch, G. (2010). L’université et la recherché face aux enjeux de mémoire: le temps des mutations. In P. Blanchard & I. Veyrat-Masson (Eds.) Les guerres de mémoires: la France et son histoire. Enjeux politiques, controverses historiques, stratégies médiatiques (pp. 187- 198). Paris: Editions La Découverte.

Borger, J. (23.03.2014). War is over – now Serbs and Bosniaks fight to win control of a brutal history. The Guardian. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/23/war-serbs-bosniaks-history-visegrad

27

Bottici, C. (2010). European identity and the politics of rememberance. In K. Tilmans, F. Van Vree & J. Winter (Eds.), Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in modern Europe (pp. 335-355). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Brice, C. (2010). Monuments: pacificateurs ou agitateurs de mémoire. In P. Blanchard & I. Veyrat-Masson. Les guerres de mémoires: la France et son histoire. Enjeux politiques, controverses historiques, stratégies médiatiques (pp. 199-208). Paris: Editions La Découverte.

Campbell, K. (2012). The Laws of Memory: The ICTY, the Archive, and Transitional Justice. Social & Legal Studies 22(2), 247-269.

Causevic, S. (2008). Post-Conflict Tourism Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina: the Concept of Phoenix Tourism practice [Doctoral thesis]. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Causevic, S., & Lynch, P.A. (2011). Phoenix Tourism: Post-Conflict Tourism Role. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 780-800.

Centre for Nonviolent Action [CNA]. (2016). War of Memories. Places of suffering and remembrance of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Available at https://nenasilje.org/publikovano/

Clark, J.N. (2013). Reconciliation through Remembrance? War Memorials and the Victims of Vukovar. The International Journal of Transitional Justice 7(2), 116-135.

David, L. (2015). Between Human Rights and Nationalism: Silencing as a Mechanism of memory in the Post-Yugoslav Wars’ Serbia. Journal of Regional Security 10(1), 37-52.

Dulitzky, A. (2014). Memory, an essential element of transitional justice. Peace in Progress 20. Available at http://www.icip-perlapau.cat/numero20/

Durkheim, E. (1893). De la Division du Travail Social. Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France.

Dyker, D.A., & Vejdova, I. (1996). Yugoslavia and After. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Publishing.

Eastmond, M., & Mannergren Selimovic, J. (2012). Silence as Possibility in Postwar Everyday Life. The International Journal of Transitional Justice 6, 502-524.

Foley, M., & Lennon J. (2000). Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster. UK: Continuum.

28

Gadzo, M. (12.07.2018). 11 Lessons about Srebrenica genocide 'unwelcome' in Brussels. Al Jazeera. Available at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2018/07/11-lessons-srebrenica- genocide-unwelcome-brussels-180711151335396.html

Halbwachs, M. (1925). Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Halilović, J. (2018) War Childhood. Sarajevo : War Childhood Museum.

Hartog, F. (1995). Temps et histoire. Comment écrire l’histoire de France? Annales-Histoire Sciences sociales 6, 1219-1236.

Hartog, F. (2005). Time and Heritage. Museum International 57(3), 7-18.

Havel, B.F. (2005). In Search of a Theory of Public Memory: The State, the Individual, and Marcel Proust. Indiana Law Journal 80(3), 605-726.

He, Y. (2007). Remembering and Forgetting the War: Elite Mythmaking, Mass Reaction, and Sino-Japanese Relations, 1950-2006. History and Memory 19(2), 43-74.

Ho Tai, H.-T. (2001). Remembered Realms: Pierre Nora and French National Memory. The American Historical Review 106(3), 906-922.

Houdek, M., & Phillips, K.R. (2017). Public Memory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ibreck, R. (2010). The Politics of Mourning: Survivor Contributions to Memorials in Post- Genocide Rwanda. Memory Studies, 3(4), 330-343.

Ibreck, R. (2012). The Time of Mourning: The Politics of Commemorating the Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda. In P. Lee & P. Thomas (Eds.) Public Memory, Public Media, and the Politics of Justice (pp. 98-120). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Igreja, V. (2008). Memories as Weapons: The Politics of Peace and Silence in Post-Civil War Mozambique. Journal of Southern African Studies 34(3), 539-556.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. (2003). Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The Hague. Available at http://www.un.org/icty/basic/statut/stat11-2003.htm.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. (29.03.2011). New War Demographics Feature on the ICTY website [Press Release]. The Hague. Available at http://www.icty.org/en/press/new-war-demographics-feature-icty-website

29

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. (2018). Completion Strategy. Available at http://www.icty.org/en/about/tribunal/completion-strategy

International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals [IRMCT]. (2018a). The Prosecution’s Evidence Collection. Available at http://www.irmct.org/specials/prosecution-evidence- collection/en/

International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals [IRMCT]. (2018b). Functions of the Mechanism. Available at http://www.irmct.org/en/about/functions

James, D. (2013). Social Networking Sarajevo Roses: Digital Representations of Postconflict Civil Life in (the Former) Yugoslavia. Journal of Communication 63, 975-992.

Jessee, E. (2017). The danger of a single story: Iconic stories in the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Memory Studies, 10(2), 144-163.

Jessee, E., & Skinner, M. (2005). A typology of mass grave and mass grave-related sites. Forensic Science International, 152(1), 55-59.

Jimerson, R. C. (2003). Archives and memory. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives 19(3), 89-95.

Kappler, S. (2017). Sarajevo’s ambivalent memoryscape: Spatial stories of peace and conflict. Memory Studies 10(2), 130-143.

Koselleck, R. (2004). Gibt es ein kollektives Gedächtnis? Divinatio 19, 23-28.

Kostić, R. (2012). Transitional Justice and Reconciliation in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Whose Memories, whose Justice? Sociologija 4, 649-666.

Layder, D. (1998). Sociological Practice. London: Sage.

Lorenz, C. (2010). Unstuck in time. Or: the sudden presence of the past. In K. Tilmans, F. Van Vree & J. Winter (Eds.), Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in modern Europe (pp. 67-102). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Mannergren Selimovic, J. (2010). Perpetrators and victims: Local responses to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Focaal – Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 57, 60-61.

Mannergren Selimovic, J. (2013). Making peace, making memory: peacebuilding and politics of remembrance at memorials of mass atrocities. Peacebuilding 1(3), 334-348.

30

Mannergren Selimovic, J. (2015). Challenges of Postconflict Coexistence: Narrating Truth and Justice in a Bosnian Town. Political Psychology 36(2), 231-242.

Matonytė, I., & Vidūnaitė, M. (2016). The thematic triangle of the politics of memory in new post-Soviet democracies. Filosofija Sociologija 27(2), 116-124.

Meierhenrich, J. (2009). The transformation of lieux de mémoire: The Nyabarongo River in Rwanda, 1992–2009. Anthropology Today 25(5), 13-19.

Moll, N. (2015). Division and Denial and Nothing Else? Culture of History and Memory Politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cultures of History Forum. Retrieved from http://www.culture-of-history.uni-jena.de//debates/bosnia/division-and-denial-and- nothing-else-culture-of-history-and- memory-politics-in-bosnia-and-herzegovina/

Musi, M. (2014). The international heritage doctrine and the management of heritage in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: the case of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments. International Journal of Heritage Studies 20(1), 54-71.

Musi, M. (2016). (Re)constructions. Armed conflicts, cultural heritage, (inter)national policies and local practices of memorialization in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina [Doctoral thesis]. Ghent: Ghent University Press.

Naef, P. (2012). Travelling through a powder keg: War and Tourist Imaginary in Sarajevo. Via [Online] 1. Available at http://journals.openedition.org/viatourism/1262

Naef, P. (2013). "Souvenirs" from Vukovar: Tourism and Memory within the Post-Yugoslav Region. Via [Online] 3. Available at http://journals.openedition.org/viatourism/1019

Naef, P. (2016). Tourism and the ‘martyred city’: memorializing war in the former Yugoslavia. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 14(3), 222-239.

Naef, P., & Ploner, J. (2016). Tourism, conflict and contested heritage in former Yugoslavia. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 14(3), 181-188.

Nettelfield, L.J. (2010). Courting Democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nora, P. (1996). Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past. New York City: Columbia University Press.

Ogino, M. (2015). Sociology of Collective Memory. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 4 (pp. 199-208). United States: Elsevier.

31

Palmberger, M. (2006). Making and Breaking Boundaries: Memory Discourses and Memory Politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In M. Bufon, A. Gosar, S. Nurković & A.-L. Sanguin (Eds.), The Western Balkans – A European Challenge : On the Decennial of the Dayton Peace Agreement (pp. 525-536). Koper, Slovenia: Založba Annales.

Parmentier, S., & Weitekamp, E.G.M. (2007). Political Crimes and Serious Violations of Human Rights: Towards a Criminology of International Crimes. In S. Parmentier & E.G.M. Weitekamp (Eds.), Crime and Human Rights (pp. 109-144). United Kingdom: Emerald.

Perrin, K. (2015). Memory at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY): Discussion on Remembering and Forgetting within Victim Testimonies. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 30(2), 270-287.

Renan, E. (1882). Qu’est-ce qu’une nation? [C0nference at the Sorbonne, 11.03.1882]. Paris: Calmann Lévy.

Rothberg, M. (2010). Introduction: Between Memory and Memory: From Lieux de mémoire to Noeuds de mémoire. In Noeuds de mémoire: Multidirectional Memory in Postwar French and Francophone Culture (pp. 3-12). Yale: Yale University Press.

Sharpley, R., & Stone, P.R. (2009). The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research: a practical handbook. London: Sage.

Simić, O. (2014). Memorial Culture in the Former Yugoslavia: Mothers of Srebrenica and the Destruction of Artefacts by the ICTY. In P.D. Rush & O. Simić (Eds.), The Arts of Transitional Justice (pp. 155-172). New York: Springer.

Sito-Sucic, D., & Robinson, M. (15.02.2013). After years of toil, book names Bosnian war dead. Reuters. Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bosnia-dead/after-years-of-toil- book-names-bosnian-war-dead-idUSBRE91E0J220130215

Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Picador.

Sorabji, C. (2006). Managing memories in Post-War Sarajevo: Individuals, Bad Memories, and New Wars. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12(1), 1-18.

Stone, P.R. (2006). A dark tourism spectrum: Towards a typology of death and macabre related tourist sites, attractions and exhibitions. Tourism: An Interdisciplinary International Journal 54(2), 145–160.

32

Stone, P.R. (2011). Dark tourism: Towards a new post-disciplinary research agenda. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology 1(3/4), 318–332.

Stone, P.R., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Consuming dark tourism: A thanatological perspective. Annals of Tourism Research 35(2), 574–595.

Strange, C., & Kempa, M. (2003). Shades of dark tourism: Alcatraz and Robben Island. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2), 386-405.

Subotić, J. (2016). Political Memory as an Obstacle to Justice in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia- Herzegovina. In M. Fischer & O. Simić (Eds.) Transitional Justice and Reconciliation: Lessons from the Balkans (pp. 121-137). London: Routledge.

Supple, S. (2005). Memory Slain: Recovering Cultural Heritage in Post-war Bosnia. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies 1(2). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/28c783b6

Touquet, H., & Vermeersch, P. (2015). Changing Frames of Reconciliation: The Politics of Peace-Building in the former Yugoslavia. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 30(1), 55-73.

Valiñas, M., Parmentier, S., & Weitekamp, E. (2009). ‘Restoring Justice’ in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Report of a population-based survey. Working Paper No. 3. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies.

Verovšek, P.J. (2016). Collective memory, politics and the influence of the past: the politics of memory as a research paradigm. Politics, Groups, and Identities 4(3), 529-543.

Violi, P. (2017). Landscapes of Memory. Trauma, Space, History. Oxford: Peter Lang Ltd.

Winter, J. (2009). Historians and Sites of Memory. In P. Boyer & J.V. Wertsch (Eds.) Memory in Mind and Culture (pp. 252–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Winter, J. (2010). The performance of the past: memory, history, identity. In K. Tilmans, F. Van Vree & J. Winter (Eds.), Performing the Past: Memory, History, and Identity in modern Europe (pp. 11-34). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

33

APPENDIX 1. LIST OF VISITED SITES

Sarajevo32 Gallery 11/07/1995 Trg Fra Grge Martića 2, 71000 Sarajevo House of the Liberators Vladimira Preloga bb, Žuč, 71000 (Muzej Dom Oslobodilaca) Sarajevo ICAR Canned Beef Monument Zmaja od Bosne, 71000 Sarajevo ICTY Courtroom No.2 & ICTY Documentation Brodac 1, 71000 Sarajevo Centre Vijećnica Koševo Lav Cemetery Patriotske lige, 71000 Sarajevo Koševo Shahid Cemetery and memorial* Patriotske lige, 71000 Sarajevo Koševo St. Mark’s Cemetery Patriotske lige, 71000 Sarajevo Kovači Martyrs' Cemetery Širokac, 71000 Sarajevo Memorial plaque condemning the destruction of the Brodac 1, 71000 Sarajevo Vijećnica building* Memorial plaque to citizens of Sarajevo killed in the Mula Mustafe Bašeskije bb, 71000 massacre on 5 February 1994 at the Markale outdoor Sarajevo market* Memorial plaque to citizens of Sarajevo killed in the Ferhadija 12, 71000 Sarajevo massacre on 27 May 1992 Memorial plaques Konak Street 1, 71000 Sarajevo Memorial plaques Isevića Sokak Street 47, 71000 Sarajevo Memorial to Children Killed during the Siege of Veliki Park Marsala Tita, 71000 Sarajevo Sarajevo 1992–1995* Envera Šehovića Street, Dolac Malta, Monument to Shahids and fallen fighters* 7100 Sarajevo Saliha Hadzihuseinovica Muvekita 11, Museum of Crimes against Humanity and Genocide 71000 Sarajevo National History Museum of Bosnia & Herzegovina Ulica Zmaja od Bosne 3, 71000 Sarajevo (‘Sarajevo under Siege 1992-1995’ exhibition) Olympic Museum Zetra Hall, Alipašina bb, 71000 Sarajevo ‘Sarajevo 1914-2014’ exhibition Vijećnica Brodac 1, 71000 Sarajevo

32 Data for the sites marked with a * were complemented with information from the ‘kultura sjećanja’ dataset form the Centre of Nonviolent Action – available at https://kulturasjecanja.org/en/

34

Sarajevo Roses* Throughout the city Suada and Olga’s bridge (Most Suade i Olge) Vrbanja, 71000 Sarajevo Tunnel of Hope Museum Tuneli 1, 71210 Ilidža – Donji Kotorac War Childhood Museum Logavina 32, 71000 Sarajevo Mostar Mostar Bridge Stari Most, 88000 Mostar Sniper Tower Kneza Domagoja 12, 88000 Mostar Spanish Square Španski trg, 88000 Mostar Potočari - Srebrenica Genocide Museum (‘Srebrenica genocide – the Potočari bb, 75430 Srebrenica Failure of the international community’) Memorial Centre Srebrenica - Memorial and Potočari bb, 75430 Srebrenica cemetery for victims of the 1995 genocide Srebrenica Memorial Room (including Ron Haviv’s Potočari bb, 75430 Srebrenica ‘Shadow of Memory’ photo exhibition)

35