Abstract This article examines the contested appointment of Christian Schmidt as High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and evaluates the legal claim – advanced most vocally by the Russian Federation – that the post is vacant due to procedural irregularities. Through a systematic examination of state and institutional practice from 1995 to 2021, the article traces the evolving but consistent procedure by which previous High Representatives were designated by the Peace Implementation Council and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. It argues that this established practice was disrupted in Schmidt’s case, undermining the legal validity of his appointment and casting doubt on the legitimacy of his subsequent actions. By engaging doctrinal questions of authorization, subsequent institutional practice, the formation of procedural customary norms and fiduciary authority, the article contributes to broader debates about the legal frameworks underpinning international interventions and co-governance of territory. With it, it supplies a micro-history of international institutionalism within the niche of state building in the aftermath of conflict. It concludes that the absence of a Council endorsement may leave the Office of the High Representative exposed to legal challenge and further weaken Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional stability amid renewed internal and geopolitical contestation. The crisis, which led Schmidt to announce his resignation in May 2026, represents not merely a procedural dispute but also a deeper reckoning with the limits of international co-administration after 30 years of incomplete state building.
Knoll-Tudor et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: