Bosnia and Herzegovina's total population grew at quite a steady rate from the early nineteenth century until the mid-1900s, increasing from 852,000 people in 1818 to 2.7 million in 1950. Following the Second World War, the population grew at an even faster rate, reaching 4.5 million people by the end of the 1980s. Throughout this period, Bosnia and Herzegovina was never an independent country, as it belonged to the Ottoman Empire until 1875, before it was then annexed by Austria-Hungary until the First World War, after which it became a part of Yugoslavia. During this time, ethnic Bosnians (the majority of which were Muslim) often faced oppression and persecution, and even mass genocide during the Second World War (when it was briefly annexed by Croatia, which was a puppet state of Nazi Germany). The Bosnian War From 1989 onwards, Bosnia's population decreased drastically, by approximately 750,000 people by the end of the century. This sudden change coincides with the dissolution of Yugoslavia, where the country experienced economic instability in the 1980s and then the independence of its internal states in the early 90s; Bosnia and Herzegovina itself became independent in 1992. The formation of an independent state lead to civil unrest among the different ethnic groups within Bosnia and Herzegovina, resulting in the Bosnian War that caused the deaths of approximately 100 thousand people, as well as the displacement of over 2.2 million. Modern Bosnia and Herzegovina Since this period in Bosnia and Herzegovina's history the population has never recovered, and a further decline in the past decade has seen the population fall below 3.3 million people in 2020; which is a decrease of more than one million people since the war. As the country seemingly comes to terms with its difficult past, and deals with high unemployment and ethnic tensions; there are some indicators for a brighter outlook for Bosnia and Herzegovina's future. Today, Bosnia and Herzegovina is seen as a developing country and economy, it is an applicant for both EU and NATO membership, and an emerging tourism sector may provide much-needed employment across the country.

A total of 41 participants took part in six focus groups on Facebook. Five of these were held in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a further control group was held in Croatia. 30 women took part and 11 men, aged 18 to 36 (mean age of 24.5). The topic was dating across ethnic lines.

Although billions of pounds internationally have been invested in post-conflict reconciliation projects, primarily involving aspects of justice and the creative arts, there has been no study of this phenomenon as such. To date, only isolated studies of particular places and projects have been undertaken - a lack noted by UNDP (Western Balkans), one of the largest funders of such work, which seeks a 'codified body of knowledge pertaining to reconciliation.' This interdisciplinary project will therefore innovatively investigate post-conflict reconciliation to produce the first overarching study to address this major (practitioner and academic) gap. It will do so by combining history, conflict resolution methodologies, art and creative practice, and both qualitative and quantitative social sciences in three strands: 1. The first historical investigation of the idea and practice of reconciliation through time, involving examples, such as the English Civil War or post-1945 Europe, and also an integrated study of thought (including religious and philosophical) and practice on reconciliation. 2. Interrogation of both the past use of art and related media in reconciliation initiatives and the potential of artistic practices and artefacts to play a role in inter-communal conflict resolution, remembrance, forgetting and forgiving. This will include critical evaluation of data generated by a series of initiatives using visual media to stimulate inter-ethnic dialogue and reconciliation, particularly with youth groups, run by the Post Conflict Research Centre (PCRC) in Bosnia and Hercegovina. 3. Comparative empirical research between institutional domains, across countries and over time of debates on reconciliation, applying innovative computer-assisted quantitative and qualitative analysis to multi-language large text data from the Balkans. This will include a dedicated analysis of RECOM, a unique, locally-driven NGO initiative for reconciliation involving 5,000 civil society members from all countries and ethnic groups in the region, generating large data in various languages that remains both to be analysed and also its potential to inform understanding of reconciliation developed. The three strands will be integrated by: project workshops; a co-authored synthetic book integrating the research and offering an overarching framework of understanding reconciliation; and a common and comprehensive thread, drawing on the particular experience and past research of the applicants. The integrated research will provide a critical body of knowledge pertaining to reconciliation and a framework document for critical evaluation of reconciliation activity co-produced with the FCO. This novel and pioneering research builds on findings from previous funded research projects: ESRC- and AHRC-funded projects on visual material, conflict and war crimes (Gow; Gow and Kerr); USIP- and Leverhulme-funded projects on transitional justice (Kerr; Gow); and Leverhulme-funded research on the RECOM initiative (Kostovicova). The research has been developed and discussed with practitioners, including UNDP (Western Balkans) where the absence of an overarching framework for understanding reconciliation was identified and who have been involved in designing the project, the Humanitarian Law Center, Belgrade and the Humanitarian Law Center (Pristina), the PCRC (Sarajevo), and the FCO (the Policy Unit, Research Analysts and the UK UN Mission), all of whom are committed to the project in terms of design, facilitation and evaluation. The project is also supported by the EU DG-Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations, who would benefit by benefit by being better able to assess EU-funded projects and by the Deputy Assistant Secretary General, NATO who would support and facilitate the research and provide channels for possible impact. The research should also be of benefit to post-conflict communities subject to, or involved in, reconciliation processes.

In the search for democratic solutions to global conflicts over the last two decades, one model of post-conflict governance has prevailed. power-sharing. Consociational power-sharing entails the representation and participation of major societal groups in the process of governing. Governmance based on consociational principles has facilitated war-to-peace transition in some of the world's most deeply divided places, from Burundi to Lebanon, Kosovo, Macedonia, Northern ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Iraq. Yet, while consociational power-sharing has been heralded as a democratic and inclusive approach to managing ethnic difference, it faces a significant trade-off. For the system to stabilise and pacify divided societies, it must marginalise those actors who were not directly involved in the conflict. By making inclusion of the dominant groups in society central to democratic governance, power-sharing excludes other groups who align with alternative identities.

Our project addressed this inherent dilemma in power-sharing of exclusion amid inclusion (EAI Dilemma). We have investigated the institutional bias in power-sharing systems in favour of large groups over “non-dominant minorities” who are not explicitly included in the settlement, such as non-ethnic collectives, women and migrant communities. This project sought solutions to this democratic deficit in post-conflict societies. from over 100 interviews with primarily, political elites and members of civil society across Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern Ireland, Lebanon and North Macedonia we identifed how power-sharing arrangements can be designed, refined and improved in ways that address the EAI problem.

In 2009 the European Court of Human Rights ruled 14-3 that Bosnia-Herzegovina's election rules for its tripartite presidency, which allow only Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Serbs to stand for election, were discriminatory against other minority groups, namely the Roma and Jewish communities. This is because Bosnia's constitutional framework, alongside the presidential arrangement, is designed to accommodate and include the three constituent peoples but not members who prefer not to identify in terms of three ethnic groups. While this was thought necessary to end the 1992-5 war (Weller and Wolff 2005), it has forestalled the consolidation of democracy and has marginalised individuals and groups who do not identify with the three dominant communities. As Jakob Finci, the leader of Bosnia's Jewish community who took the case to the ECHR, noted in response to the ruling, Bosnia's institutional rules are "a problem of injustice that divides Bosnian people into first and second class citizens" (Balkanist 2015). Power-sharing, which entails the representation and participation of major societal (ethnic) actors in the process of governing, has been adopted in places as diverse as Burundi, Lebanon, Kosovo, Macedonia, Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Iraq and has facilitated a war-to-peace transition in some of the world's most deeply divided places. However, while power-sharing is often heralded as a democratic and inclusive approach to managing ethnic difference, it faces a significant trade-off. For power-sharing to create stability and pacify the divided groups, it must marginalise those actors who were not directly involved in conflict, who we refer to as non-dominant groups. As part of this project, we identify three kinds of non-dominant groups who were neglected in the original design of power-sharing institutions and remain on the sidelines of postconflict politics: non-ethnic minorities, re-aligned minorities, and micro-minorities. We refer to this institutional bias in favour of large groups as the "exclusion amid inclusion" (EAI) dilemma. We seek to answer the following research question: How can power-sharing arrangements best be implemented to account for the EAI problem? This research project is designed to confront the EAI dilemma and offer feasible and viable recommendations for its resolution. We seek to answer the following research question: How can power-sharing arrangements best be implemented to account for the EAI problem? We answer this question through a threefold methodological approach. We shall conduct 1) a macro-political analysis of power-sharing institutions to assess their ability to redress the EAI dilemma, 2) four comparative case studies (Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lebanon and Macedonia) investigating the relationship between the inclusion of dominant groups and the exclusion of non-dominant groups, employing a "structured, focused" method of comparison (George and Bennett 2005), and 3) semi-structured interviews with politicians from parties that participate in power-sharing and from parties that struggle for legislative representation, community activists from the three kinds of non-dominant groups identified, and representatives of international organisations...