57 Azem Kožar1 RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Abstract Purpose: Archival materials are central to the work of archives and registries (creators and owners of registry materials), with their roles and responsibilities governed by a range of archival and other regulations at different levels of gov- ernment. The relationship between archives and registries varies by country, shaped by historical and political factors. Methods: This paper examines the relationship between archives and registries in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country with a unique administrative model. It analyzes the impact of the country’s political and administrative organization on archival practices, focusing on aspects such as financing, management, legisla- tion, staffing, program orientation, and penal policies. Results: Findings show that Bosnia and Herzegovina‘s complex and asymmetri- cally organized administrative structure, shaped by political affiliations, affects the functioning of archival services. This, in turn, influences the dynamics of development, professional practices, and the scientific scope of archival activity at various administrative levels. Discussion: The study highlights how political affiliation acts as a determining factor in all aspects of archival practice in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This situa- tion creates challenges for uniform archival development and professional-scien- tific progress across different regions within the country. Key words: archives, registries, archival activities, Bosnia and Herzegovina, archival regulations, archival associations, political influences. 1 Prof. ddr. sc. Azem Kožar, emeritus, Evropski univerzitet Brčko distrikt Bosne i Hercegovine, E-mail: kozar. azem@bih.net.ba. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 58 RELAZIONI TRA ARCHIVI E REGISTRI NELLE TEORIE E PRATICHE DEGLI ARCHIVI DELLA BOSNIA-ERZEGOVINA Abstract Scopo: I materiali d’archivio sono centrali per il lavoro degli archivi e dei regi- stri (creatori e proprietari dei materiali dei registri), con i loro ruoli e responsa- bilità disciplinati da una serie di normative archivistiche e di altro tipo a diversi livelli di governo. La relazione tra archivi e registri varia a seconda del paese, modellata da fattori storici e politici. Metodi: Questo documento esamina la relazione tra archivi e registri in Bo- snia-Erzegovina, un paese con un modello amministrativo unico. Analizza l’im- patto dell’organizzazione politica e amministrativa del paese sulle pratiche ar- chivistiche, concentrandosi su aspetti quali finanziamento, gestione, legislazione, personale, orientamento del programma e politiche penali. Risultati: I risultati mostrano che la struttura amministrativa complessa e orga- nizzata in modo asimmetrico della Bosnia-Erzegovina, modellata da affiliazioni politiche, influenza il funzionamento dei servizi archivistici. Ciò, a sua volta, influenza le dinamiche di sviluppo, le pratiche professionali e l’ambito scientifico dell’attività archivistica a vari livelli amministrativi. Discussione: Lo studio evidenzia come l’affiliazione politica agisca come fattore determinante in tutti gli aspetti della pratica archivistica in Bosnia ed Erzego- vina. Questa situazione crea sfide per uno sviluppo archivistico uniforme e un progresso scientifico-professionale in diverse regioni del Paese. Parole chiave: archivi, registri, attività archivistiche, Bosnia ed Erzegovina, re- golamenti archivistici, associazioni archivistiche, influenze politiche. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 59 ODNOSI MED ARHIVI IN REGISTRATURAMI V ARHIVSKI TEORIJI IN PRAKSI BOSNE IN HERCEGOVINE Izvleček Namen: Arhivsko gradivo je osrednjega pomena za delo arhivov in registrov (ustvarjalcev in lastnikov registraturnega gradiva), njihove vloge in pristojnosti pa ureja vrsta arhivskih in drugih predpisov na različnih ravneh oblasti. Razmer- je med arhivi in registri se razlikuje glede na državo, oblikujejo pa ga predvsem zgodovinski in politični dejavniki. Metode: Prispevek preučuje odnos med arhivi in registri v Bosni in Hercegovini, državi z edinstvenim upravnim modelom. Analizira vpliv politične in upravne organizacije države na arhivsko prakso, pri čemer se osredotoča na vidike, kot so financiranje, upravljanje, zakonodaja, zaposlovanje, programska usmeritev in kazenska politika. Rezultati: Ugotovitve kažejo, da zapletena in asimetrično organizirana upravna struktura Bosne in Hercegovine, ki jo oblikujejo politične strukture in usmeri- tve, vpliva na delovanje arhivskih služb. To pa posledično vpliva na dinamiko razvoja, strokovne prakse in znanstveni obseg arhivske dejavnosti na različnih upravnih ravneh. Razprava: Študija izpostavlja, kako politična pripadnost deluje kot odločilni de- javnik v vseh vidikih arhivske prakse v Bosni in Hercegovini. To stanje ustvarja izzive za enoten arhivski razvoj in strokovno-znanstveni napredek po različnih regijah v državi. Ključne besede: arhivi, registraturno gradivo, register, arhivska dejavnost, Bo- sna in Hercegovina, arhivski predpisi, arhivska društva, politični vplivi. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 60 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS For an adequate understanding of the current (achieved) state of relations between archives and registries, it is necessary, at least roughly, to indicate the evolutionary course of those relations, the systemic perception of the place, role and importance of archival activities, which inevitably reflected on the dynamics and level of its devel- opment, and thus also the segment of the relationship between archives and registries as one of the most important issues for understanding and evaluating the achieved level of development of archival activity. All these complex problems were reflected in the legal regulation of relations (theoretical level) regarding their rights (jurisdic- tion) and obligations, on the one hand, and on the possibilities of their application in work (pragmatic level). Those relations changed theoretically and pragmatically, but they were always insufficient, i.e. in the gap/disproportion between the regulations and their application, i.e. of what was desired (vision) and what was achieved (mis- sion), in such a way that practice did not fully follow theory/legislation. The state-administrative organization of the SFR Yugoslavia, from its creation until its dissolution (1945–1991), was consistently followed by the administrative organi- zation of archival activities at the state level and in federal units (uniform regulations, the main cohesive and harmonizing function of the state archive, a unique profes- sional archival association, etc.). However, during and after its dissolution, there were significant changes, which resulted in the independence of some federal units into independent and autonomous states, among which Bosnia and Herzegovina is also included. Sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina has become a complex state (state, en- tities, cantons, Brčko District of BiH), which has complicated the possibilities of ade- quate synchronization and harmonization of archival regulations and their consistent application throughout the state. Instead of one archival law and several by-laws that were valid throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were imple- mented by one state and eight regional archives,2 after the dissolution, which took 2 Since the establishment of the State Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1947, and gradually eight regional ar- chives (in Sarajevo in 1948, in Banja Luka in 1953, in Tuzla, Doboj, Mostar and Travnik in 1954, in Bihać in 1982 and Foča in 1983), several archival regulations (laws and by-laws) at the state level. The last time this was done was in 1987, when the Law on Archival Activities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Official Gazette of SRBiH”, No. 21/87) was adopted, and in 1988, when the most important by-laws were adopted (regulations and instructions as implementing archival regulations - “Official Gazette of SR BiH”, No. 41/88). See more: Šehović & Čekić, 2007; Kožar, 2010. Since 1954, the Association of Archive Workers of BiH has been operating as a professional archivist association, which changed its name several times during its existence, but always functioned within the framework of the Asso- ciation of Archival Societies of Yugoslavia (SADRJ), which also operated under different names during its existence. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 61 place during the four-year dramatic war events (1992-1995), in the territory of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina there are 14 public archives, separate archival institutions, with the possibility of the existence of as many (that is, more or less) professional archival associations,3 closed within the framework of their admin- istrative units. Some level of institutional (the parent function of the Archives of BiH) and professional (through the Union of Archival Societies of BiH) coordi- nation and correlation of work is provided for by archival regulations at the state level, as well as at lower levels4, but their application is insufficient. ARCHIVE LEGISLATION The events of the war had an impact on the way, forms and contents of the func- tioning of the archival activities of BiH. Among other things, in the areas under the control of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH), archival activity was carried out according to pre-war archival regulations, and in the area under the control of the Croatian Defense Council (HVO) the Archive of Herceg Bosna was formed - relying on the institutions of the Republic of Croatia, while in the area under some organizational changes implemented under the control of the Army of the Serbian Republic of BiH (VSRBiH). The Washington Agreement of March 1994 led to the formation of the Federation of BiH (areas under the control of the ARBiH and HVO) with an administrative territorial structure of ten cantons/ counties. Then the decision was made to establish the Archives of the Federation of BiH, with headquarters in Sarajevo. At the same time, the Archive of Bosnia and Herzegovina also operated as a state archive, but with significantly reduced profes- sional and other capacities. Pre-war regional archives (Sarajevo, Mostar, Travnik, Bihać and Tuzla) operated in the territory of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzego- vina, in accordance with the existing archival regulations, while in the area under 3 So far, 12 archives have been established on the basis of 12 archival laws, while two cantonal/county archives (in the Posavina and Livno cantons) have not yet been established. Five archival associations were also formed. 4 Law on Archives and Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Zakon o arhivskoj građi i Arhivu Bosne i Hercegovine. (2001)). The main function of the Archives has been significantly reduced and is contained in Article 35 of the Law. The question of the existence of a professional archival association at the state level is regulated by Articles 43 and 44 of the Law. The professional public does not know to what extent the main function of the Archives is carried out, because there is no information about it on the electronic addresses of the Archives or in the archival periodicals. However, it is known that the Association of Associations of Archive Workers of BiH was not formed in accordance with the Law, but the Archivist Association of BiH was formed (2004), which according to the Law cannot be the legal successor of the pre-war, wartime and post-war Association of Archive Workers of BiH. A more detailed explanation of all this would require much more space, in short: it is a politically and interest-moti- vated obstruction, which goes beyond the scope of this contribution. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 62 the control of the VSRBiH, already in 1992, from the Archives of Bosnian Krajina Banja Luka, the Regional Archives Doboj and the Historical Archives in Foča, the Archives of the Republic of Srpska were formed as a “republican administrative organization within the Ministry of Education and Culture”, which relied on the archive service of Serbia in its work. Analogous to the administrative changes in the administrative structure of Bos- nia and Herzegovina, determined by the Framework Agreement for Peace in 1995 - better known as the “Dayton Agreement” (Dejtonski sporazum. s.d.), there were also changes in archival activity, both in terms of organizational structure, as well as in terms of the territorial and substantive competences of the archive. These changes, as a rule, should have started with changes in the archival legis- lation, i.e. by adopting new archival laws for each administrative unit/level sep- arately. In the RS, these activities were continued with the adoption of the Law on Archival Activities (Zakon o arhivskoj delatnosti, 2009), in such a way that the activities were centralized by the Archive of the RS becoming the only archival institution in the territory of the entity of the RS, while the archives in Doboj and Foča became its archival departments. Later, departments were formed in Zvornik, Trebinje and Pale, but the archive service, like the entire government in the RS, remained absolutely centralized. Significantly different was the course of changes in the adoption of new archival laws, establishment of new and management of existing archives, at the level of the state, entity of the Federation of BiH, ten cantons and Brčko District of BiH. The most confusion was caused by the decision of the founder of the Archives of the Federation of BiH (Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) to start its work in 1997 in the premises of the Archives of BiH. All archival and library funds, space, equipment and technology, as well as the employees of the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, “belonged” to the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina were reduced to one office, with an acting director and a technical secretary. For a definitive transfor- mation, according to the ruling structures, it was necessary to make that situation official by passing the Law on Archival Material and Archives of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the legal successor of the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was supposed to disappear. This was intensively worked on RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 63 in the Archives of FBiH and the professional service of the Parliamentary Assem- bly of FBiH. The proposal of the Law was agreed and sent to the parliamentary procedure. However, such a transformation was met with resistance in the Presi- dency of the Association of Archive Workers of BiH, and an acting director and a number of employees of the Archive.5 This activity resulted in the reversal of the adoption of the law at the level of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Law on Archival Materials and the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was adopted in 2001 (Zakon o arhivskoj građi i Arhivu Bosne i Hercegov- ine, 2001), was agreed and referred to the parliamentary procedure, which meant the survival of the Archives as a state institution,6 and had an impact on further archival legislation, especially on that of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegov- ina.7 The Law on Archives and Archives of the Federation of Bosnia and Herze- govina was adopted in 2002 (Zakon o arhivskoj građi i Arhivu F BiH, 2002), but with a significantly different significance and jurisdiction compared to the earlier proposal, focused on the registry and documentary materials of the bodies of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (legislative, judicial and executive power). Archive laws in cantonal archives (in eight out of ten cantons) were adopted in the period from 1999 to 2006, and for the Brčko District of BiH in 2004. (Šehović & Čekić, 2007, 337–636, 707–718.) 5 There were more initiatives for the survival of pre-war institutions of science, culture and art at the state level. They came from officials of the international community, but also from representatives of institutions and the public of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Among them is the so-called The White Book “Institutions and organizations of BiH necessary for the functioning of joint bodies of BiH and its international representation” from 1998, in which the Archive of BiH was included among the 24 state institutions. Significant support for the survival of the Archives of BiH also came from the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH (Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine, 2007, 84–87). 6 The Archive of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only pre-war republican institution that continued (renewed) its work in that status after the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The National Museum, the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and others have not been able to do this either, which have not yet resolved their status position. We point out these facts for the sake of truth, because they are important for the continuation of the activity, devoid of obstacles of an administrative-status nature. However, it is also a fact that all this is not optimized in the direction of improving this activity, although many effects are very evident and measurable. 7 The Presidency of the DAR BiH animated the opposition representatives in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to prevent the closure of the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in such a way that it is transformed into the Archives of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This could be achieved by preventing the adoption of the Law on Archival Material and Archives of FBiH, which was in the parliamentary pro- cedure. The President of DAR BiH was invited to the Assembly to provide an expert explanation of the harmfulness of the planned transformation. Other activities were also undertaken, including the holding of a seminar in London on the renewal of the archive service of BiH in May 1999, organized by the International Archives Council (MAV) and the Public Record Office (hosted by the Bosnian Institute from London), at which an agreement was reached on the survival of the Archives of BiH, which, in cooperation with the DAR BiH, undertook to work on the restoration of the BiH archival service. Since then, the direction of searching for solutions to survive and function of the Archive of BiH has been turned, in which the participants of the Seminar contributed (in addition to BiH archivists and the director of the Archives of Croatia, and several representatives of the non-governmental sector), but also some pro-Bosnian personnel in leading positions in the executive power of BiH (Kovačević, 2000, 183–186). RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 64 From the aspect of jurisdiction, all archival laws establish an archival network consisting of public, special and private archives, except for the FBiH Law, which was established only for the public archival material of the bodies of the FBiH, and does not have any parent function over the cantonal archives. The only ex- ception is the Amendments to the Law on Archival Activity of the TK (Izmjene i dopune Zakona o arhivskoj djelatnosti TK, 2021), which deleted (in Article 36) the provisions on the possibility of private archives, which is nonsense in the ar- chival activity of BiH and surrounding countries and beyond.8 All archival laws predominantly deal with issues of public archival materials, which is understandable from the aspect of importance, needs and archival tra- dition. The provisions on special archives are of a more principled nature, while the provisions on private archival material and private archives are significantly improved compared to the socialist legislation, which is the need of the new so- cio-economic system of plural democracy. There are no private archives in the sense of archival regulations, but many jobs of this type are performed by some foreign and domestic legal entities, which is still not recognized as anachronistic in archival activity and society as a whole.9 One of the peculiarities of archival regulations is a certain conservatism, which is reflected in their existence for a long period of time (in most archives) without certain adjustments (amendments) in accordance with social and technological changes. This is how outdated archival terminology survived, without the possibility of being suc- cessively changed. The most obvious example of this is the state archives law, which has not been changed since its adoption in 2001. Its adoption was a major contribution 8 The deletion of private archives from the archival network of the Tuzla Canton was initiated by the management of the TK Archives, at a time when the competent Ministry in the Government of the TK, since 2016, had a request from the duly registered Private Institution “Archive for Registry, Archival and Documentary Materials in Private Ownership”, and for permission to start work, through registration in the Archive Register, which did not even exist and in which the TK Archive was not registered either. By erasing private archives from the Act, a classic po- litical showdown was carried out with the founder of the private archive, the author of this contribution, a political dissident, all to the detriment of the interests of archival activity and at the expense of personal benefit. This was a kind of attack on the professional and ethical code of conduct of archivists, on which, for the sake of remark, the very management of the Archive has been exalted for years. It is to be hoped that this example will not be followed by truly knowledgeable and professional archivists. 9 According to the personal knowledge of the author of this contribution, these are legal entities that deal with the digitization of archival materials, the procurement of archival equipment, the placement and handling of registry materials in private ownership. They also create Lists of categories of registry materials, select archival materials and extract worthless registry materials and destroy them, etc. and certain consents and solutions are obtained from competent public archives. In essence, they do almost everything that private archives are supposed to do ac- cording to the regulations. However, for some, certainly not professional, reasons, questions of legality, regularity and lawfulness of such practices are not raised within the archival activity. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 65 to the archival activity of BiH, but the dynamics of overall changes made some of its provisions anachronistic and brought the need to incorporate some new content. However, no archival initiatives are known about it. The situation is similar with the law of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but this has no significant impact on other archival regulations, given the nature of the matter it regulates. However, in the territory of the RS and some cantons, there were occasionally certain adjustments, mainly in the better positioning of the archival activity. The exception is, of course, the amendments to the Act on archival activities of the TK (Izmjene i dopune Zakona o arhivskoj djelatnosti TK, 2021) regarding the deletion of private archives from the archival network in this area. However, some positive changes regarding the con- ditions for the selection of directors and professional archival staff were also incor- porated in those amendments, because the earlier provisions were too personalized, contrary to the provisions of the Labor Law and other general regulations in this area. All archival laws determine the main function of the archives to which they refer. For the decentralized archival activity of BiH, the competences of the Archives of BiH in the sphere of core archival activities, indicated in the Law on Archives and Archives of BiH (Article 35), are important, although they are not defined as such. The Archive has retained some responsibilities within the archival activity, as well as in terms of representation and representation of the archival activity abroad. In Art. 35 of the Law clearly states: - keeps records of archival materials in foreign archives that are important for Bosnia and Herzegovina; - gives an opinion to the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina on issues of the archival service in BiH; - represents the interests of the archival service of Bosnia and Herzegovina in international professional associations and international relations; - cooperates in all professional affairs with entity, cantonal/county and other ar- chives, especially on the plan of education and modernization of the archival service of Bosnia and Herzegovina; - manages jointly established projects and, together with entity, cantonal/county archives, implements works on the restoration and modernization of the archi- val service of Bosnia and Herzegovina; - performs other professional tasks established by law”. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 66 In comparison with the main responsibilities of the Archives of BiH from the Law on Archival Activity (1987), Article 39 and others, the responsibilities over the ar- chives have been significantly reduced, including: supervision of the work of the archives, keeping records on the archives, preparation of methodical instructions and norms for the professional affairs of the archive, microfilming of archival ma- terial of importance for BiH for its protection in case of war or immediate threat of war, protection of films and film material, etc. However, the Archives of BiH received significant new responsibilities for the implementation of the Agreement on the succession of archival materials of the former SFRY on the external level, and on the internal level through engagement in the Archives Council of BiH, as an advisory body for the affairs of the archival activities of BiH.10 All entity and cantonal archival laws contain provisions that refer to the archival com- petences for the area of their activity, but they are specifically indicated only in the archival law of the RS and Sarajevo Canton. In Article 40 of the Law on Archival Activities of the RS, the pre-war provisions on the main activities of the Archives of BiH were consistently adopted and applied to the territory of the RS. This Law is in disagreement with the state law in at least two areas: that it takes over the protection and care of films that were previously under the jurisdiction of the Cinematheque of BiH, and that it takes over the responsibilities in terms of international (as interstate) cooperation. Similar provisions on international cooperation are contained in the Law on Archives and Archives of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Article 32), and the Law on Archives Activities of Canton Sarajevo (Zakon o arhivskoj djelatnosti Kantona Sarajevo, 2000), which is the only cantonal law in Article 36 that implicitly lists the main responsibilities of this cantonal archive. It seems that the issue here is a different understanding of the term “international cooperation”. It seems that in the case of the Archives of the RS, this term includes interstate cooperation, while other laws, judging by the context, are about international archival cooperation at the same 10 The composition and powers of the Archives Council of BiH are given in the special fifth chapter of the Law on Archives and Archives of BiH (Zakon o arhivskoj građi i Arhivu Bosne i Hercegovine, 2001), in articles 40-42. The council has nine members, six of whom come from archival activities (director and deputy directors of the Archives of BiH, directors of entity archives and president of the Association of Archival Societies of BiH), and three members from the Council of Ministers of BiH and relevant entity ministries. The President of the Council is the director of the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since the Association of Archival Societies of BiH was not formed in accordance with the Law (Articles 43 and 44), the president of the Archival Association of BiH was ‘installed’ as a member of the Council, falsely presenting himself as a legal representative of archival activities in accordance with the Law. This is another not only legally unfounded behavior, but also a kind of negation of the basic principles of archival ethics. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 67 or similar levels, which, if applied consistently, does not mean taking over someone else’s authority on the contrary. It should be added here that cooperation in the ar- chival profession and science (inter-archival, international and interstate) is not only necessary but also necessary, but the competences of archival institutions of all levels must be synchronized and legally harmonized. Obligations of registries (creators and owners) in dealing with registry materials in archival regulations of all levels are fairly uniform, although archival terminol- ogy differs somewhat. In all archival laws, the obligation to take over materials older than 30 years (20 years before the war) into the archives was determined, the duties of registries in dealing with their own materials (space, equipment, personnel) were tightened, the procedures for taking over materials into the ar- chives were standardized, introduced the obligation to take a professional archi- val exam for archivists and the obligation to educate them in the organization of each archive, etc. However, there are numerous differences in the obligations of archives and registries, such as in dealing with electronic records, on digitization issues, etc. which mainly reflects the state of the legal regulations on this, that is, the knowledge of the archives themselves and their founders at the time of the adoption of archival laws and by-laws. Some issues concerning the transforma- tion of registries (privatization, bankruptcy, liquidation, cessation of work/shut- down, deadlines and conditions for handing over materials to the legal successor, founder or competent archive, etc.) are also recognized differently and resolved differently. The issues of protection of registry materials in wartime and other extraordinary circumstances are generally insufficiently regulated, in some laws they are only mentioned, as before the war, in others some basic obligations of ar- chives and registries are noted, but at no level the acts in the form of concrete and binding norms of behavior have had the appropriate by-laws (executive) adopted. It is obvious that neither the archival service nor society as a whole have learned the lessons from the war sufferings of archival material, that is, from the suffer- ings in fires and floods that constantly occur periodically.11 11 The intention here is not to elaborate all the peculiarities of archival regulations, but only to point out the level of continuity with pre-war regulations, and some similarities and differences in the current asymmetrically or- ganized archival legislation. When it comes to archival material for which special protection is provided, there are similarities and differences: the similarity is that in all laws the material under special protection was created before May 15, 1945, while the wartime production of archival material was created after 1992 until 1995, it was given special importance only in four archival laws (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Tuzla and Una-Sana cantons). See more: Kožar, 2008. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 68 As for the material that enjoyed special protection before (the material created be- fore May 15, 1945 and the material of the internal affairs authorities), nothing has changed. Important differences exist in the approach to the special protection of archival material created during the war (1992–1995), which is specially protected in some laws and not even mentioned as such in others. (Kožar, 2014, 157–168). Nominally, the attitude towards the material of special archives and the possibili- ties of their existence has not changed in the regulations. Significantly, nominally, the attitude towards private archival material has been improved, in terms of the obligations of owners and creators, which is almost equal in importance to public archival material, and the possibility of establishing private archives except in the indicated example of the Amendments to the Law on Archival Activities of the Tuzla Canton (Izmjene i dopune Zakona o arhivskoj djelatnosti TK, 2021). ARCHIVES AND REGISTRIES IN ARCHIVAL PRACTICE Pre-war archives, even in wartime circumstances, continued their activities, ap- propriate to the possibilities of action, all depending on the intensity of war events in their area. Slightly more favorable war conditions prevailed in Banja Luka, Tuzla and Travnik, and much more complicated in Bihać, Sarajevo and Mostar. Nevertheless, destructions of a different nature affected the archival activity of BiH, both archives and registries. (Kožar,1999, 287–292). This issue is not the subject of this contribution, we mention it only in the context of a better under- standing of all the difficulties that arose, and some are still current, in the post- war process of its reconstruction, recovery and development.12 The establishment of a new archival network included the restoration of the work of the pre-war archives: the BiH Archive and several regional archives. The pre- war Archive of the Bosnian Krajina in Banja Luka was renamed the Archive of the RS with departments in Doboj and Foča, which before the war were regional archives, and then new archive departments were successively formed in Zvornik, Foča, Trebinje, Pale. With the new regulations, it became a centralized archival institution with the status of an administrative organization, and with the newly 12 Several articles have been published about the work of archives in wartime conditions, the loss of archives and archival material in archival facilities and registries. The largest number of them were published in the wartime issues of The Gazette of Archives and the Association of Archive Workers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, No. 32, 33 and 34, Sarajevo, 1993, 1995 and 1997. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 69 formed Association of Archive Workers of the RS with responsibilities for the education of archivists in registries. According to archival regulations, it has been shaped into a single archival entity throughout the RS, without any indication of vertical connection to the archival activity of BiH. Therefore, archival activity is centralized as well as all other areas in the territory of the RS entity. In the territory of the second entity - the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, archival activity is decentralized. The efforts of the founders of the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the decisions of 1994 and then in 1997, to make it work by taking over the responsibilities of the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegov- ina in the territory of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were prevented by the activities of the DAR Bosnia and Herzegovina and with the political sup- port of officials of the international community and individuals from the top of the state government. The Archive of Bosnia and Herzegovina has survived as a state archive, established by the law of 2001, while the Archive of the Federa- tion of Bosnia and Herzegovina was formed in accordance with the law of 2002, with powers for archival materials of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is how the political conflicts on this important issue were resolved. Since the archival activity in the Federation of BiH was given to the jurisdiction of the cantons, the formation of cantonal archives was started. In five cantons, canton- al archives were formed from former regional ones (Sarajevo, Mostar, Travnik, Tuzla and Bihać), in three cantons cantonal archives were established (Goražde, Široki Brijeg and Zenica), and in two cantons (Orašje and Livno) the archives are still not formed. Each cantonal archive performs the registry function in its area of activity. For the area of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an Ar- chive was formed as part of the administrative body. Some special archives were created within the legal entities in which they operate (armed forces, religious communities, RTV archives, etc.), and private archives were not formed, except for the indicated attempt in Tuzla, so that public archives, at least nominally, also take care of private archival material. Aggregate and analytical data on the current state of archives and registries in archival activity do not exist. From time to time, some archivists dealt with in- dividual segments and scopes of archival activity in BiH, published in archival periodicals, studies, monographic publications or on web portals, which is good, RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 70 but not enough for a comprehensive objective analysis of the situation and rela- tions. This is not a systematic activity of archivists, such archival projects, etc., are not adequately designed on the basis of which projections of the long-term de- velopment of archival activities would be made. It is no longer done in isolation, each for himself, there is no synergy even on the most important issues of the profession. The reasons for this are not only of an archival nature, but dominantly political, and many archive managements use them for the purpose of their own positioning in the political party that provided them with that position. Under- standably, there is no room here for the illusion of absolute autonomy of archives from political power centers, but the problem is that politicians do not respect professional postulates, which political poltroons greatly contribute to. The most responsible positions are occupied by individuals suitable for politics, who do not meet the criteria of current laws and normative acts, or provisions contrary to general regulations on human rights, etc., are incorporated into laws and by-laws, due to the will of politics.13 In short, it can be safely asserted that no new person became the director of the archive without being in accordance with the ruling policy, and the same, unfortunately, applies to newly employed archivists. Where there is a political change in government, the director as the governing body and the Board of Directors as the governing body also change. Even more disastrous is the fact that it is a daily practice in all segments of life, it is a system of party management - partocracy. This way of staffing creates political poltroons from managers and docile services from archive collectives, i.e. clerks from archivists, all of which leads to retrograde processes in the profession and society in general. The archival activity of Bosnia and Herzegovina continuously dealt with the obli- gations of archives and registries in carrying out a unique archival process (from the spectrum of issues concerning archival material in the making - to the acqui- sition, protection, arrangement, processing and use in the archive). Some of these issues arose as a consequence, some had to be solved in the context of current events, while a smaller number of those were to meet the coming problems im- posed by technological, IT and other changes. 13 There are more examples, and these two are illustrative: a person who has not worked at all in archival and related activities is appointed as the director of the archive, although the law says the opposite, i.e. for the admission of an archivist, it is required that he/she has passed the internship exam in the archive in which he/she is to be employed . So, two extremes, both a reflection of the supremacy of politics over profession. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 71 The legislative framework of the relationship between archives and registries was consistently insufficient, restrictive and conservative. Archives have never had a decisive influence on the dynamics of passing and the structure of the content of archival regulations, especially archival laws, although there are time peri- ods and environments in which this was at least partially successful. Due to the abundance of legal, personnel, material and other weaknesses, the archives have never had a decisive impact on the registry business.14 This led to numerous con- sequences, which slowed down the development of activities in accordance with social needs. Among other things, the archives were forced to save the registry materials by taking over unsorted and incomplete, often unrecorded, funds, on which the archivists then spent valuable time doing the tasks of the registry. By the end of the socialist stage of development, about 58% of archival funds and collections in BiH archives were unorganized, and over 90% of funds were in- complete (Jerić & Hadžagić, 1991). Although there is no synthetic research on the current state of the archival fund, which has recently been significantly increased by taking over pre-war funds created more than 30 years ago, and for other rea- sons caused by transitional changes, it can be assumed that the situation is not significantly different. For a long time to come, archives will deal more with consequences than with constructive solutions and challenges. Among them is the issue of digitization of archival and registry materials and their download in digital form. Because archival regulations are insufficient, archival knowledge is deficient, IT and other equipment is insufficient.15 One of the forms of education of archivists in registries, which has been ap- plied for a long time, are archival consultations: of local, regional, national and international rank and importance. Worthy of special attention are the annual 14 Archives’ supervision of registry operations (advisory or inspection) has consistently been and remains the most important form of cooperation. However, the practice of archives is different. Most often, one or two archivists are assigned to these jobs, which is an annual balance of about 300 to 500 regular and instructive inspections, aimed mainly at government bodies as first-category registries. Even during the transition, when for various reasons there was an increase in the volume of these jobs (intensified need to take over mature archival material, enor- mously increased number of registries, etc.), there was no change in the attitude towards the registries. It is a fact that electronic communication reduces the need for archivists to stay in registries, but it is undeniable that a huge number of new registries had to be introduced into the surveillance system through direct contacts. At one time, this issue was the most important issue in the joint bodies of the DAR BiH and the Archives of BiH, however, in recent times it is selective and often confined to areas under the control of more developed archives. 15 Issues of digitization of archival and registry materials are an important general social and professional archival issue. Neither society nor the profession in Bosnia and Herzegovina have recognized it to the extent that they can regulate it adequately - from the adoption of appropriate regulations to the implementation of effective profession- al solutions. In the neighboring Republic of Croatia, among others, intensive work has been done on this for a long time. See more: Brunec & Dmitrius, 2019/2020, 24–33. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 72 archival consultations of archivists and archivists during the socialist stage of de- velopment (1954–1991), the works from which were published in The Gazette of Ar- chives and DAR BiH (issues 1-31). Even in the conditions of war, consultations were held with registries by some archives, aimed at the protection of registry materials in wartime conditions.16 During the war, DAR BiH also operated in Sarajevo, and after the war, it intensified its activities throughout the territory of BiH. Four BiH archival consultations were held, where significant attention was paid to the educa- tion of archivists in registries. From the fifth post-war BiH archival consultation in Vogošća in 2003, the organization of the consultation was taken over by the Archi- vist Association of BiH.17 Annual archival consultations were held mostly (Pelić, 2022, 59–75)18 and the works published from them in The Gazette of the Archives and Archival Association, No. 37/38 to 49/50 (Zulić, 2022, 76–95).19 The Association of Archive Workers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which changed its name several times, and the archive magazine The Gazette, which was also published under different names, undoubtedly made a significant contribution to 16 One such consultation entitled “Consultation on the Importance and Protection of Archival Materials in the Pos- session of Owners in Wartime Circumstances” was held in Tuzla on December 20, 1994, where participants were given “Instructions on the Protection of Archival Materials” along with other materials (announcements, regula- tions) and registry material in wartime circumstances” and “Order of the President of the Tuzla Municipal assem- bly on the protection of archival material and registry material”. In addition, the Tuzla Archive was a co-organizer of the Round Table “War and Culture” in Tuzla in 1994, which is important for all cultural activities in wartime conditions. Materials from both of these gatherings are in the Archives of Tuzla Canton. 17 At the DAR BiH Assembly, an attempt was made to transform it into the Association of Archival Societies of BiH in accordance with the Law on Archival Materials and Archives of BiH (Articles 43 and 44). However, entity archival associations (F BiH and RS) did not accept this, but formed the Archival Association of BiH, denying this right to other associations. Most of the members of the Association of Archival Employees of TK then left the Assembly. However, that illegally formed association could not be registered as a legal successor of DAR BiH, and therefore, in 2004, a new Founding Assembly of AU BiH was held in Vlašić, which was registered in 2005. The text of that decision and the text of the Statute as a founding act are not known to the archival public, they are hidden, so it cannot be judged whether the decisions of the Law have been complied with. Judging by the provisions of the refined text of the AU BiH Statute, adopted in 2009 (which was published on the website of the AU BiH), this Society is not the legal successor of the DAR BiH, although it is represented as such by some of its officials, and its president is a member of the Archives Council of BiH, in front of the archives services – which is nonsense of its own kind. Politics is directly involved here, the political parties of those who violated the Law are in ruling positions in the entities and in the state. This is clear evidence that any discussion about the autonomy and professionalism of the archive and archive service is completely unnecessary. 18 From this attachment, it is evident that the BiH archival consultations organized by the AU of BiH are mainly in- tended for the education of archivists in archives, and significantly less for archivists in registries. However, what is significant about these consultations is the fact that archivists from the ex-Yugoslav republics also participated in them, who occasionally opened up some topics untouched by BiH archival science. However, as far as is evident from further archival flows, those questions were more according to the system “accepted for knowledge” than they served as an initiator of the improvement of activities. 19 In the paper, the author states the importance and cites the results published in 50 issues of The Gazette. There are a total of 514 works, of which the predominant works are those of archivists from BiH (448), 27 from Croatia, 31 from Serbia, 18 from Slovenia, 4 from Montenegro, and one each from Hungary and the USA. According to areas/ topics, 37 papers were published on archival legislation, 41 on the protection of archival materials in the making, 15 on information systems in archives, 11 on retrieval of archival materials, 9 on international legal acts and stand- ards, 5 on religious communities, etc. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 73 the improvement of the archival activity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including in terms of improving cooperation between archives and registries. Both authors, about the Society and about The Gazette, in their contributions, gave too much importance to the issues on which they or their mentors made a modest contribu- tion, and marginalized those thematic areas and authors that have a significantly greater importance in the development of the activity, in such a way that they either kept them silent or otherwise marginalized. Marginal indications are given about the issues concerning the work of archives and associations during the war and immediately during the restoration of the archival service. The significance of the restoration of the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an issue that is important for every segment of archival activity, is hardly discussed. There is no indication of any other projects, such as the “Archival Practice” project (Kožar, A. (2014), 175-184) which was the most significant project ever launched at the level of archival activity in BiH for the education of archivists (Šabotić, I. Zulić, O. (2017),20 nor anything about the seminars on office business organized by the Archives of the RS,21 nor about consultations with registries in other cantonal archives. Obviously, personal vanity is above all professional standards, so the views of political dissenters are ignored and those of others are favored. In this way, we will be in a position to have party (partocratic) archival observations, as, unfortunately, we still have in BiH historiography. The professional and scientific archivist public must vigorously oppose such aspiration. As for the current issues that archives and registries should deal with, it is indic- ative of a kind of inertness, or impotence, for archivists to apply the practices of more developed archival environments, primarily from Croatia and Slovenia. We will mention only two such questions here. First, the Croatian archivist Vlatka Lemić published a paper on University Archives (Lemić, 2019/2020, 7–23), stat- ing the practice and recommendation that University Archives act as a special 20 Authors on p. 6 of this publication states that during 20 years of publication (21 issues), 658 professional articles, 122 reviews and 117 reports on a total of 8,767 pages of text were published in the Journal, that in addition to ar- chivists from Bosnia and Herzegovina, around 400 archivists from 17 countries of the world, and that he “made a significant contribution to the exchange of knowledge, and to the education and professional training of archival staff in registries and archives”, etc. However, instead of this project continuing with its implementation, because over 200 archivists from registries were educated on it annually, it was shut down ‘thanks’ to the author of this publication and the manager of the TK Archives. 21 So far, the Archive of the RS has held 19 seminars on office and archival operations for registry workers, and the archivists of this archive have published several publications about it. Worthy of attention are the works published in 15 issues of the magazine The Gazette of the Archive Association of the Republic of Srpska published by the archival association of the same name. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 74 institution within the University. It is a practice that is not new and unknown, but for BiH archivists, at least some, it is unacceptable. This is confirmed by the procedure of the TK Archives, which recently took over the archive material of the University of Tuzla, so that it placed it in an inappropriate location out of con- ditional accommodation. It is obvious that this is not rational and archivally justi- fied behavior, but personal, unprofessional, reasons prevailed in this case (Kožar, 2021, 201–330). Another example relates to issues of digitization of both archival and registry materials. About this, archivists from outside BiH, including Maja Brunec and Željka Dmitrius (Brunec & Dmitrius, 2019/2020, 34–45) conveyed their experiences and views to the archivists of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a contribution that was published a few years ago. The paper pointed out the im- portance of digitization, digital business, downloading and placement in a digital depot in the archive. The experience and dilemmas of Croatian archivists are sub- limated in this work. However, the reaction of BiH archivists and the reflection on the situation in the registries is not known. This issue is not unknown to BiH archivists either, some archives deal with the digitization of archival material, but there is no necessary legislation and no appropriate practice in most archives and especially registries. Obviously, here the fear of changes is stronger than the desire for changes that lead to the improvement of archival activities - especially the relationship between archives and registries. And some other issues specific to BiH did not attract the necessary attention of the archive service. One of them is the archivist’s position on the archival materials of the International Criminal Court for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia with its headquarters in The Hague.22 Since that court ceases to operate in its regular status, and the work of the Residual Mechanism with its seat in Sarajevo continues, the question of its archival materials arose. Understandably, the founder of the Court, as the owner of the fund, which is the United Nations, will decide on this, but considering the importance of that material, it is important that the Archive Service of BiH has its own opinion on it, since most of the material relates to BiH. Instead of a unified position, some individual and op- posing positions were expressed in public: to settle in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the 22 This court was formed by UN Security Council Resolution no. 827 of May 25, 1993, UN Security Council Reso- lutions on Bosnia and Herzegovina, (1995), Sarajevo, 8-10. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 75 opposite, outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc.23 In this case too, the archivists just followed the views of their political mentors, without proper professional and scientif- ic discussion. The essence of such a relationship is the fear of resenting certain (own) policies if professional arguments point to different points of view, which is without a doubt the open dominance of politics(s) over the profession. In archival discussions, the issue of implementing Annex “D” of the Agreement on Succession ex-Yugoslavia (area of archives) is insufficiently present. Basic information about this was published in the first wartime issue of the Gazette of the Archives and DAR BiH in 1993 (Kovačević, 1993, 35–43). That process took place by order of the Council of Ministers of BiH in the implementation of the Archives of BiH. Lists of claims for archival materials of the joint bodies of the ex-Yugoslavia, which were mainly located in the Archives of Yugoslavia, as well as in the Institute of Military History and the Yugoslav Cinematheque, were drawn up. Other successor countries - former federal units of ex-Yugoslavia - also expressed their claims. The archive service of Bosnia and Herzegovina was informed about the course and dynamics of those works for the first time only in 2012 at the Conference in Bihać, through information submitted by the man- agement of the Archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Zahirović & Vržina, 2012, 13–21).24 Even though the Information highlighted a lot of problems, challenges, methods of implementation, some results, etc. and on the basis of those findings and experiences presented by archivists from Croatia, Slovenia and Montenegro, concrete conclusions were made for further work, that’s all - at least judging by what was published. Bosnia and Herzegovina archivists did not deal with this issue at conferences, congresses or other gatherings, it became a kind of taboo topic. Although the research and downloading of that material is very important for scientific and cultural research, not only for archival research, it is not dis- cussed. Why this is so, the answer is certainly in the open demonstration of the dominance of politics (a) over the profession, science and culture. There are also numerous other contents from the cooperation of archives and reg- istries, especially on issues of public registry materials. However, significantly less 23 See Kožar, 201, 83–98, expressed his own expert opinion on this. 24 At that time, archivists from Slovenia, Croatia and Montenegro also shared their experiences, which obtained numerous positive results, but also opened up numerous dilemmas, which left the impression of their much more intensive and effective work on these tasks than that in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See more: Matić, 2012. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 76 attention is paid to special archives, and especially to private archival materials, because resistance to the formation of private archives is evident, without such po- sitions being accompanied by more intensive dealing with privately owned regis- try materials. On this issue, there is an evident discrepancy between the principles proclaimed in archival and other regulations and their concrete realization. CONCLUSION Archives and registries are two basic levers of archival activity in every country. Each of them has its own obligations established in the regulations, which are causally interwoven with each other. Any inadequacy in that unique job leads to disturbances of a different kind. There are numerous anomalies in archival theory and practice, and they cannot be fully predicted and prevented. They can, however, be reduced if there is an adequate perception of the importance and role of archival activity in the legal and social system of the country. There are no ide- al systems in this regard, but different perceptions are evident, significantly more deficient in the underdeveloped than in the developed part of the world. The archival activity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a country in transition that survived a four-year war cataclysm, is accompanied by numerous difficulties. He solves some of them with more and others with less success. In the asym- metrically organized and decentralized archival service, precisely thanks to the enthusiasm of archivists, the most significant instruments were established (necessary legislation, a network of public archives, archival associations, ar- chival consultations of all levels, archival journals, etc.), but from the aspect of quality and improvement of all these and numerous other contents, it is neces- sary to make significant improvements, although the situation differs in certain archival areas. Legislation is, for the most part, conservative and insufficient, it is not improved at some levels, and for more than two decades, archival regu- lations have not been harmonized. Adequate importance is not attached to reg- istry operations of registries (including education of archivists), digitalization, etc., especially those from the domain of special archives and private archives. In this, theory and practice are in a significant gap. There is a lack of syner- gistic action even on issues that have been determined as a priority within the activity. The new scopes offered by foreign archivists are slowly incorporated, RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 77 there is no knowledge that generates their own solutions in accordance with the archival practice of the developed world. It is obvious that such a state of archival activity, which is broken through the relationship between archives and registries, is a consequence of overall rela- tionships in the state and society, in the system in general. Numerous social and systemic anomalies are very much reflected in archival activity. Among them, we single out the dominance of politics over the profession. Politics has crept into every pore of this activity: it appoints directors, archivists, even couriers and hy- gienists. Deletes regularly registered private archive institutions. Such “appoin- tees” are not motivated to change the situation, to improve activities in legislation and practice, they mostly become obedient officials and the archives serve the ruling structures. However, it is encouraging that there is still a critical number of enthusiasts in this industry who are making efforts to preserve the dignity of archivists, archives and the archival industry as a whole - especially in some ar- chives. Numerous archival activities and efforts confirm this unequivocally. REFERENCES Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine (Sarajevo). (2007). 60 godina Arhiva Bosne i Herce- govine: (1947-2007. Sarajevo: Arhiv Bosne I Hercegovine. Brunec, M. and Dmitrius Ž. (2019/2020). Preuzimanje gradiva u digitalnom obli- ku i proces edukacije djelatnika u arhivima i pismohranama, Glasnik arhiva i AU BiH, broj 49/50, Sarajevo, 24-33. Dejtonski sporazum (1995). (s. d.). brošura. Kovačević. M. (1993). Sukcesija eks Jugoslavije u oblasti državnih arhiva. Glasnik arhiva i DAR BiH, XXXII, 35–43. Kovačević, M. (2000). Obnova arhivske službe Bosne i Hercegovine. Glasnik arhiva i DAR BiH, XXXV, 183–186. Kožar, A. (1999). Ratno stradanje arhivske građe Bosne i Hercegovine. Sodobni arhivi, 21, 287–292. Kožar, A. (2008). Vrednovanje arhivske građe o ratnim zbivanjima u zemljama u tranziciji. Atlanti, 18, 317–325. RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 78 Kožar, A. (2010). Arhivska legislativa u Bosni i Hercegovini. Atlanti, 20, 171–185. Kožar, A. (2011). Arhivistika u teoriji i praksi, Knjiga treća. Tuzla: Društvo ar- hivskih zaposlenika Tuzlanskog kantona, Arhiv Tuzlanskog kantona, Društ- vo historičara. Kožar, A. (2014). Problematika zaštite i preuzmanja arhivske građe o ratnim zbivanjima u zemljama eks Jugoslavije, s posebnim osvrtom na Bosnu i Her- cegovinu. Arhivski zapisi, 2, 157–168. Kožar, A. (2014a). Doprinos projekta „Arhivska praksa“ edukaciji arhivista u Bosni i Hercegovini i okruženju. Atlanti, 24(2), 175–184. Kožar, A. (2021). Arhivistika u teoriji i praksi, Knjiga peta. Tuzla: Društvo historičara, Akademija društveno-humanističkih nauka, Arhiv Tuzlanskog kantona. Law on Archival Activity. (1987). Official Gazette of the SR BiH, (21/87). Lemić, V. (2019/2020). Sveučilišni arhivi. Globalno iskustvo i perspektive u Hr- vatskoj. Glasnik arhiva i AU BiH, XLIX/L, 7–23. Matić, D. (2012). Osvrt na provođenje Sporazuma o pitanjima nasljedstva neka- dašnje SFRJ, prilog „D“. Glasnik arhiva i AU BiH, XLII, 22–43. Pelić. S. (2022). Značaj Arhivističkog udruženja Bosne i Hercegovine za edukac- iju arhivskog kadra kroz projekat „Savjetovanja“. Arhivski pogledi, 3, 59–75. United Nation Security Council. (1995). Rezolucije Vijeća sigurnosti UN-a o Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Uprava za politička pitanja ARBiH. Jerić, V. and Hadžagić, E. (1991). Standardi i normativi za arhivsku djelatnost Bosne i Hercegovine (1991), Sveska II. Sarajevo: Zavod za kulturu Bosne i Hercegovine. Šehović, A. and Čekić, Dž. (2007). Zbirka arhivskih propisa Bosne i Hercegovine 1947-2007. Sarajevo: Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine. Zahirović, Š. and Vržina, D. (2012). Informacija o sukcesiji arhiva, Aneks „D“ o sukcesiji ex Jugoslavije. Glasnik arhiva i AU BiH, XLII, 13–21. Zakon o arhivskoj delatnosti. (2009). Sl. glasnik RS, (15/09). Zakon o arhivskoj djelatnosti Kantona Sarajevo. (2000). Sl. novine KS, (2/00). Zakon o arhivskoj građi i Arhivu Bosne i Hercegovine. (2001). Službeni glasnik BiH, (16/2001). Zakon o arhivskoj građi i Arhivu F BiH. (2002). Sl. novine F BiH, (45/02). RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR 79RELATIONS BETWEEN ARCHIVES AND REGISTRATIONS IN ARCHIVES THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AZEM KOŽAR Izmjene i dopune Zakona o arhivskoj djelatnosti TK. (2021). Sl. novine TK, (11/21). Zulić, O. (2022). Doprinos Glasnika arhiva i Arhivističkog udruženja Bosne i Hercegovine unapređenju arhivske službe Bosne i Hercegovine. Arhivski po- gledi, 3, 76–95. Summary This paper investigates the relationship between archives and registries in Bosnia and Herzegovina, focusing on how the country’s unique political and adminis- trative model impacts archival practices. It examines various factors, including financing, management, legislation, staffing, and penal policies. The findings reveal that the complex and asymmetrical administrative structure, influenced by political affiliations, significantly affects the functioning of archival services. This situation poses challenges for the uniform development of archival practices and professional-scientific progress across different regions of the country, with political affiliation being a crucial determinant in all aspects of archival activity. Typology: 1.04 Professional Article