CEU eTD Collection TERRITORIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN CROATIA AND SLOVENIA IN THE BAY OF ANDSLOVENIA INTHEBAY CROATIA DISPUTEBETWEEN TERRITORIAL PIRAN: INTERPLAY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ANDINTERNATIONAL OFINTERNATIONAL PIRAN: INTERPLAY In partial fulfilment of the requirementsfor the degree of Master of Arts Department of International Relations and European Studies European and Relations International of Department Supervisor: Professor Boldizsar Nagy Central European University Central European Word Count: 14,845 Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Monika Suknaic RELATIONS Submitted to Submitted 2010 By CEU eTD Collection without some sort of political compromise. political of sort some without differentways by parties, which isopposing why of disputes be kindcannotthis resolved Although mightseem they clear, international the legal in provisions can beunderstood interdependent anditis impossible toresolveapplying adispute without both of them. mutually are relations lawandinternational international that case are on based this research used is Themethodology politics disputes. andresolving ininterstate lawinternational plays that a qualitative role and the Slovenia and between Croatia dispute isborder with the concerned This research research paradigm of document analysis. The main findings of the ABSTRACT i CEU eTD Collection my Budapest family who have been around for any kind of assistance, academic or personal. Theyor know who they academic are. assistance, of kind any for around been have who family Budapest my Harbord for his sometimesdaily complicated world followingof international law. Secondly, I wouldFirstly,like thankinmy get support would to the supervisor forall bottom tothe I tryingof to like to ofthank John my writing process. Finally, I am particularly thankful to ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY CONCLUSION CHAPTER 3- BILATERAL RELATIONS 3-BILATERAL CHAPTER CHAPTER 2- THE DISPUTE OVER MARITIMETHE BORDER CHAPTER 1- LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION CONTENTS OF TABLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.2 1.1 3.3.1 What does the Arbitration 43 Agreement ...... offer? 3.2.1 The Arbitration 39 Agreement...... 2.3.3 The Drnovšek-Ra 26 2.3.2 The Croatian ...... Arguments 2.3.1 The 21 Slovenian Arguments...... 2.1.1 What is the principle of uti 16 possidetis iuris?...... T S E T T T T M R LOVENIAN HE ARLY HE HE HE HE EVIEW OF THE ARTTI A A L C D EGAL ONTEXT NALYSIS NALYSIS ISSOLUTION OF ...... I D K EVELOPMENTS OSKENNIEMI ...... 45 ...... A V ...... 47 ...... 1 ...... RGUMENTS ETO AND THE ETO AND ...... 18 ...... 41 ...... 30 ...... T HEORIES ...... III Y ...... II ...... þ ’ UGOSLAVIA S an 28 Agreement...... 34 ...... 21 ...... T ...... 7 ...... HEORY ON HEORY M EDIATION BYTHE EDIATION TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TABLE ...... 14 ...... 6 ...... S ...... 34 ...... OVEREIGNTY E iii UROPEAN ...... 10 ...... C OMMISSION ...... 13 ...... 38 ...... CEU eTD Collection 2 br. 1-4 (145- 148), Zagreb,1995 available at: endangered.”, not are justice, and security, and peace international that amanner insuch means peaceful 1 conciliation, arbitration,judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements,mediation, or enquiry, negotiation, is which resolved, be can adispute in which ways several are there UNCharter, the Accordingapply it. to inresolving to they method are willing iswhich dispute whetherthe peacefully,but these not willresolve dispute the countries in UNCharter. the stated isclearly manner, which settle United two countriesthe the Nations, all in arebound to theira peaceful disputes acquiredsuccessor statesofformer Asmembersof also obligations. they some Yugoslavia, dissolution Yugoslaviaof and warsof the 1990s. the the to connected events unfortunate the all in consideration taking especially friendly, countries two considered been havealways in The causing the delay accession the process. negotiations, member, accession Croatian wasblocking Slovenia,Union asaEuropean consequences. political serious becaused should drawn border on question the where border. position state of the exact the regarding Slovenia between and Croatia a serious dispute havecaused ininterpretations incompatibilities should bedrawn. border These the incompatibilitieson ininterpretations where causes great at between all republics not republics. Themaritimethe now borders were which defined, clearly nogreat attention defined, while defining was paidtothe internal of of borders the the of Yugoslavia former (SFRY). Yugoslavia, In borders of only external were Federation the Degan,Vladimir- Charter of Unitedthe Nations Both countriesindependence the same theirproclaimed on day-25 asthe very relevant, become has and Slovenia Croatia between case The particular Federal Republic former of Socialist the states successor are the Croatia andSlovenia http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml Ĉ uro MaritimeFrontiers the of Republic ofCroatia, Article 2, paragraph 3: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by INTRODUCTION 1 2 However, what seemsbe to the essence of (last visited 29th May 2010) in: Comparativein: Maritime Law,vol.37, th June1991. 1 As CEU eTD Collection http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7788646.stm 5 Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia ofSlovenia, Republic ofthe Affairs Foreign of (Ministry Hrvaško border, independence. their yearsafter twenty almost unresolved remains countries has proved to them be of none day this successful,to but methods, several tried have Slovenia and Croatia case, whichparticular is why the exact position of the border between the two (last visited(last 3June 2010) 7 2010) http://www.jutarnji.hr/slovenija-presudila--blokada-pregovora-s-eu-u-11-poglavlja/280307/ 3 border. were prejudicing the that negotiation inprocess the giveready to uponits main Croatiademands, claiming that wasusing mapsdocuments and membership in European the Union with its territory. concessions to the Slovenians, constantly making statements that Croatia would not buy the its foreign policy. Nevertheless, mainit as goals interfering one of of the resolve possible,as was with quickly dispute as the Croatianthe spherepoliticians of politics. were Fromwith not European the Union. thatready moment to make on, itany became negotiations the Croatian accession blocked years, Slovenia territorialtwo after last inespecially the even more important media, andjurists for the deal by politicians, agreat the of attention received constantly Croatia to choice. means their own of peaceful other 4 at: available choice”. own oftheir means peaceful other or arrangements, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencieslikely or to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by of the mediating services involved the whichalso dispute international an become has 6 BBC News, Delo.si, Ministarstvo Republike Slovenije za zunanje zadeve, zunanje za Slovenije Republike Ministarstvo Jutarnji.hr, Charter of Unitedthe Nations , (Ljubljana: DELO- Tiskarna d.d., 2006) 4 Even though Croatia and Slovenia are also disputing several points on the mainland the question of the maritime border has proven to be the most controversial. It has Slovenija vztraja pri svojih pogojih Slovenija presudila: blokada pregovora s EU u 13 Slovenia blocks Croatian EU 5 Article 33, paragraph 1: “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is ofwhich continuance the dispute, any to parties “The 1: 33,paragraph Article That was the moment when this legal question was transferred in transferred was question legal this when moment the was That , Ljubljana:, DELO- Tiskarna d.d., 2006; English translation) (last visited 29 May 2010) talks, 17 December 2008, available at: available 2008, December 17 talks, , 10 December 2008, available at: available 2008, December 10 3 As will be shown in the presentation of this of presentation the in shown be Aswill Bela knjiga o meji med Republiko Slovenijo in Republiko 2 White Paper on the Border between the Republic of poglavlja, 17 December 2008, available at: available 2008, December 17 poglavlja, 6 On the other hand, Slovenia was not was Slovenia hand, other the On 7 That way, apurely bilateral issue http://www.delo.si/clanek/72598 (last visited 29 May CEU eTD Collection http://www.jutarnji.hr/pahor--nazvat-cu-sanadera--inicijativa-europske-komisije-je-dobra/284717/ um_-_podpisan_EN.pdf at: 8 factapproach. pure legal the and approach sovereignty, the approaches to are two particularly using Martti Koskenniemi’s theory on sovereignty. According to this theory, there theory, constructivist critical the with be explained best casecould particular disciplines, this two the between connection the about say a has thought of school each Although relations. years. This paper aimsdiscover to why that is the case. invokinginternational provisions of has law, thedispute unresolvedremained for twenty been have countries both though even that fact in the lies question the case, particular sovereignty, control to isbe it connected strictly as question, border cannot a legal certainly of interstate the over territory and, law. question of delimitation The function the without politics caninternational nor politics, as politicians without function cannot law International relations. likeinternational and law international to stress it, national pride. In this disputethe isyet tocome. However, Slovenia has ratified not theArbitration Agreementyet, sothelegal resolution of Tribunal. Arbitration an up setting by dispute the resolve to agreed they in which Agreement negotiations unblockingon the reachanagreement managed to countries ministers two the of The prime be resolved. to appears European Union, the European Union. http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_Arbitra%C5%BEni_sporaz Republic of Slovenia 10 visited 29May 2010) 9 on29 May 2010) the legalit. legal to the pre-exists the incontrol andapproach, sovereignty remains of order Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Company, 1989)196 11 Jutarnji.hr, Vlado Zagorac, Vlado Arbitration Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Government ofthe Koskenniemi, Martti, http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/kosor-pahor-dogovorili-deblokadu-pregovora-otisli-kavu-clanak-16909 Several authors wrote about the relation between international law and international and law international between relation the about wrote authors Several between interplay an of example is agood Slovenia and Croatia between The dispute Pahor: Nazvat Kosor i Pahor dogovorili deblokadu pregovora pa otišli na kavu 8 , Stockholm, 4 At present, At the political part of regardingthe dispute, negotiations the with (last visited on 29 From Apology to Utopia .The Structure ofInternational Legal Argument ü u Sanadera, inicijativa Europske komisije je th November 2009, available at: available 2009, November th May 2010) 3 dobra, 27January 2009, available at: 9 and signed andArbitration , 11 September2009, available 11 (last visited (Helsinki: According (last 10 CEU eTD Collection 12 conventions they are parties to. In Chapter 3, in the second part of the analysis, I will analyse legal theinternational to compareparties and them by two the presented arguments chapters. In Chapter 2, which material. given the of reading a person interpretation and subjective will context be the on depends everything the and be discovered to truth firstobjective no is there therefore, part of my analysis,not true, which can be seen well in this case. Every legal documentis subject of interpretation,actually is it forward, straight and objective I very is law will that seem might it Although analysis. study the legal have document usedtheparadigm qualitative Iof research Croatiabetween and Slovenia. of political willfor accepting the negotiating position of otherthe party. lack andthe of interpretations sameconventions the of different because unsettled, remained has and dispute law the conventions, institutes partiesboth use variousinternational do Piran Bay examplebe research anadequate the forcould aseven answering though question, of a law. Thiscase theinternational in use way politicians the what andviceversa, decisions thepolitical lawaffects international the what extent to question answerthe will this paper further elaborated in Chapter 1. be will politics, and law international of theories other the of description brief a with together theory, Koskenniemi’s reach anagreement. seem to parties cannot two why the explain totheoretically becomeit possible approach. Thatway factwill legal pure the and Slovenia the supporting Croatia with inquestion, case particular with the beconnected This theory will lawis andit be consideredto a withnormative fact law itself.which the mustaccommodate international to isexternal sovereignty approach, fact pure the to according hand, other the On Koskenniemi, 1989, 196- 199 After the literature review, the analytical part of the paper will be divided into two When methodology, itcomes to this paper isalegal border disputecase study of the countries, two the in events political and documents legal the of analysis the on Based 4 12 CEU eTD Collection cases of this kind, both for Croatia and other countries in the region. future theresolution of facilitate couldbe socomplicated grewto whythereasons dispute status of internationalthe law in internationalcontemporary Understandingrelations. the of the understanding abetter offer could question research the politics. Answering interstate in lawis used in way international what conclude and question answer research the to in order of unilateral havestatements issuedcourse allbedone This they dispute. the will through the and signed have parties the agreements different through going by developments, political 5 CEU eTD Collection 14 Journal of International Law, vol.87, No. 2(1993): 205 (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 69-70 cases could becases applied could this to very case. in heoffered other solutions whether the mightbecomeit clearer of paper this conclusion in the is presented, case the After theory. apply same the case to use adifferent to simply try it. Koskenniemiapproaches to apply also usedterritorial to disputes hisI will theory, so different use countries two the that seems it as sovereignty, on theory Koskenniemi’s particular case.Asmentioned in introduction,the Iwill by explain this case applying for willwhich asthe main this I will use be critical theory theory constructivism, elaborated last The andliberalism. institutionalism arethelegal law. These positivism, international to challenge realist to this response be a will theories other the All relations. international for be relevant to law international believe not does realism as space, much take not disciplines. other’s learn from each to islot a there that IR scholars ILand among appreciation growing is there Lambert, and Farrell Armstrong, to According divisions. theoretical common by are united they is very clear, often not disciplines two the between connection the Although there should be a significant connection between the two disciplines: that claims Marie Slaughter Anne relations. international law and international the between 13 Armstrong, David, Farrell, Theo and Lambert, Helen, Lambert, and Theo Farrell, David, Armstrong, Slaughter Burley, Anne- Marie, Anne- Burley, Slaughter The first theory to be presented in this chapter will be realism. The discussion it will it discussion The realism. be will chapter in this be presented to theory first The This chapter will offer an overview of the theories connected to the relationship study the laws of state behaviour seek to learn from one another.” one from learn to seek behaviour of state laws the study that disciplines two should too so of constitutions, substance and nature the into inquire 14 “Just as constitutional lawyers study political theory, and political theorists political and theory, political study lawyers constitutional as “Just CHAPTER 1- LITERATURE REVIEW International Law and International Relations: A Dual Agenda 6 International Law and International Relations 13 , American , , CEU eTD Collection Relevance of InternationalLaw 19 18 17 Press) 1959 16 15 as theylive automatic harmony states, in among of state anarchy.the is must own rely Hearguesthatthere devices. no outcomes, achieve favourable on their conflicts, whichjudging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own reason, which is why are sometimes each of is them states, law the is noamong system enforceable of claims,As Waltz there Waltz. Kenneth recently, more and leading Kennan George Carr, E.H. Morgenthau, Hans include to war, Wilsonianare bound ideas ofto worldhappen. government States, had failed. theTheories of 1.1 Review Mainin representativesorder to of the realist theory law, it is lackingmunicipal the to compared as law, called be even thecould law international possibility whether question of sanctions. guided by their interests. own The greatestcriticism coming from realistthe camp is the do not see a place for international law in world politics, as according to them, states are “realist challenge” this to response asa seen be can relations international and law in international scholarship the state, not the individuals. the not state, the against directed formally are these that difference the sanctions, with have of does power the sanctions establishes incase breach of itsinternational of Hebelieves provisions. that law law international whether question the to answer to trying by challenge realist the to responds main idea that evenmain thatcoercion,legal can idea making anddecision without be procedures rules used Kelsen, Hans, Kelsen, Slaughter Burley, 1993, 206 Malanczuk, Peter, Malanczuk, Waltz, Kenneth: Waltz, Slaughter Burley, 1993,206 The political realism gained its significance in the aftermath of WorldWar II, after the An overview of the legal theories cannot go without mentioning Hans Kelsen, who Kelsen, Hans mentioning without go cannot theories legal the of overview An One of realistthe One institutionalistthe responsesto the challenge of is agenda, with the The Essence of International Law Man, the State and War. A Theoretical Analysis Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law 18 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, 1968)85- 87 19 , ed.Deutsch, Karl W. and Hoffmann Stanley (ed.), 17 7 Slaughter claims thatmost of the theoretical (New York, London: Columbia University (London:Routhledge, 1997) 5 16 Therefore, the realists the Therefore, The 15 CEU eTD Collection 209 24 23 22 norms or alliances. or norms institutionalisedin an but capabilities, physical their on rely to have may states systems, international international system,depends on human institutions. constructed there are normscertain norms, rules and conventions and that the states’ ability to communicatethey and cooperate can rely analysis,is it and narrow too on, confining. such as diplomaticKeohane. Inhis healthough arguesthat work startingrealismfor doesoffer agood point 21 20 politics. international structure to disagreement, a third party might be required to intervene. mightbe to required athird party disagreement, in of a cases and sometimes, its development to contribute interest to common have some law beinternational customary to aresult interaction of an makers. haveof They decision to be controlling to decisionsbelievesprovisions of and McDougal that authorising. turn out makers those whose are anddecision making process policy of international bean apart McDougal and Lasswell, of asrepresentatives The NewHaven School. They believed lawto include theory legal liberal a of representatives Early attention. of centre inthe state both parties did stick tolegal norms anditdid not resolve the dispute. as case, particular this explaining of capable not is it politics, in international law international approach is a sociological approach to international law, which does not see not islaw, significance international does the which to approach approach asociological European the Union,involved which eventually got in dispute.However,McDougal’s the might be successful in explaining the case of Croatia and Slovenia, as it was the third party, Byers, Michael, Byers, Keohane, 1989, 9 Keohane, 1989, 1-2 Keohane, Robert O., Robert Keohane, Slaughter Burley,1993, 221 Although institutionalist agenda didmake a stepaway from it realism, has still the Custom, Power andthe Power ofRules 23 InternationalInstitutions and State Power Despite the fact that the institutionalist agenda does offer a place for the aplace offer does agenda institutionalist the fact that the Despite 20 One of the main representatives of this theory is Robert 21 He claims that much of the state behaviour reflects 8 22 ( He argues that in institutionalised non- Hearguesthat Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)207- , (Boulder, Colorado:, Westview Press,198)9 8 24 In this part, McDougal’s theory Inthis part, CEU eTD Collection 29 28 27 26 25 rules. legal of precondition for the establishment of successful institutions. for of successful establishment the precondition a is which cooperation, international enhance could which interests mutual be will dispute indispute a quick andefficientway. resolve their to been successful andyethavethey not states, liberal democratic considered slightly more complicated than that, as it is the case with Croatia and Slovenia, which are both isaliberal question state. states to subject the matter of the dispute to the court is also significantly greater if the state in of willingness the that out points also she However, likely. more sovereignty of violations it can make states, exchange which among liberal a make interrelationships could web of isvolume of ahigher becausethere here: for the case presented which isrelevant point etc. organizations nongovernmental framework which theoretical make and a will further includestep corporations, individuals, havea isto necessary it she believes agenda, institutionalistit to theory and comparing state conduct. lawalways starting are certainly however, the point; cannot explainanddetermine a good an international by providingsystem, conduct. rulesandexpectations for state running of ensuresmooth and stability law to is international mainof the purpose Therefore, of peace. lawworld achievement isthe international by value beachieved to important role. havelaw, they animportant do international Ibid., 236 Ibid., 233 Slaughter Burley,1993, 227 Armstrong, Farrell and Lambert, 2007, 89 Byers, 1999, 210 Slaughter can be seen as a follower of Falk’s theory. Writing in favour of liberal of in favour Writing theory. Falk’s of follower as a canbeseen Slaughter most the believed that Falk, who is Richard theory liberal representative Later 25 Although legal Although alone successful are in rules rarely thedisputes in resolving 29 Although Slaughter might Although Slaughter problembehave the could apoint, 27 Liberal theory has the tools to determine when there when determine to tools the has theory Liberal 9 28 She also makes an important an makes also She 26 Falk’s ideas CEU eTD Collection 30 political theory, becauseliberalism. it legal claims international He accepting avoid also cannot legality to points international about be debate in the engage apolitical out that liberalism and even doeshostileimportantly, not accept to politics. for itself the theHowever, ideastatus ofof as a thegrand rulefurther explain itin ofthe remaining part of this chapter.law, are all liberalexplanations of dispute border the discussed in whichisthis paper, itiswhy necessary to themes and anyone who wishes on Sovereignty Theory Koskenniemi’s 1.2 Martti to study. they on anything theirperspective is own asscholarsproject there knowledge, noobjective constructivist he although camp, be isconsidered to a“critical constructivist”, whobelieves actors. of formation the in crucial are norms legal that Martti premise the on based is law international Koskenniemi,importance of social prior structures givethat for incentives actions. Constructivism in whoseconstitute any to kindmeaningful of action. Therefore,constructivism highlights the theory I followwill norms, which include believes Actors about apply norms. what certain is rightfollowing into and wrong. socialised are actors Norms that believe operate in Constructivists a way inpolitics. thisworld in actions shape that ideas is it case,Therefore, in. live they world the about themselves does belongwhich1990s, according to is by worldthe constructed actors share very ideas the that among to the interests. These schoolstwo of were challengedthought bya new theory in beginningthe of distribution is the it liberalism, for power, of distribution the as understood be can rationality Armstrong,Farrell and Lambert,2007, 100- 101 30 Koskenniemi explains self-independence, that determination, consentand most Koskenniemi’s critical constructivist theory seems to offer one of the possible this realism, For politics. world of views rationalist offer liberalism and realism Both 10 CEU eTD Collection 33 32 31 materialinternational forlife. which unacceptable consequences creates way in a law in international argument normative controls liberalism out, points Koskenniemi 31 other. Therefore, it turns out that opposing positions are actually the same. each depend on the actually prioritizeterms as terms, the oneof to impossible isbecause it priority of one of opposingthe which terms, usually turns out tobe unsuccessful. Thisis by in try itsconstituted participants The establish conceptual discourse opposition. the theto is topic discursive Each meaningcompletely makes them,relational. which separate which differences formal the from but inside, the from determined not are expressions which certain to according oppositions, conceptual Hemadeuseof deep structure. of regressive analysis, according towhich he went backwards from explicit arguments to their constantly enterinto oppositions irresolvable. which He by seem that does method using the territory” being one of Accordingthem. the definition,is to sovereignty a“supremeauthority a within accommodate itself. According to this approach, being a state is which fact, itself. this beingastate According aquestion approach, to of accommodate must thelaw factwith which normative of form law,a a international to external the hand, other the On action. certain for legitimize its action by referring cannotto astate because legal approach, under significance its loses it, of sovereignty concept but it has to find a rule of law which determined within is lawthe and it therefore, alegally limitedgives Ina competence. way, very the it the right the to According not. or relationships particular isapproaches views onhowtoestablish astate two offer opposing insome whether free Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, available at: available of Philosophy, Encyclopaedia Stanford Ibid., 1989, XVII- XX Koskenniemi, 1989, XVII May 2010) In his book heIn his book makes attempt tounderstandan is whyit arguments that theory within Koskenniemi applied the theory to different international legal terms, sovereignty 33 . Koskenniemi believes there are two different approaches to sovereignty. These pure fact approach pure fact http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ 11 legal approach sees sovereignty something as sovereignty sees , sovereignty issomething sovereignty , 31 32 (last visited CEU eTD Collection 36 35 34 solved bylookingwhatrights areentailed at in sovereignty. be must jurisdictions between conflicts that and jurisdiction domestic of sphere has acertain a statebesimply viewisinbut controlled,present cannot This that recognized. an argument positions of disputingthe which states, becannot determined by availablearguments.the findalternatives.interpretations is Theonly adopt facts and asolution way to aboutthe the or external recognition. He claims that the solution of the dispute cannot prefer eitherquestion isof whetherthese sovereignty on a piece of territory is dependent on an effective possession disagreements of this kind, sovereignty is unable to cope with it. onthe legaldepends approach and approach fact pure the facts. Therefore, refer to to is crucial it rule, of that content the establish to see which facts are relevant, it is necessary to look for a legal rule. Furthermore, to Croatia and Slovenia, it is necessary to move it tothe case. is to necessary Slovenia, and Croatia Ibid, 262- 263 Ibid, 245- 246 Koskenniemi, 1989, 196- 200 Koskenniemi applied these approaches territorial in two on disputes, which the Coming back to the two approaches to sovereignty, Koskenniemi argues that insovereignty, order Koskenniemi that twoapproaches the back argues Comingto to In order understandIn order to how thiscan be theory border dispute applied tothe between 12 vice versa vice . This is why whenever it comes to itcomes whenever iswhy . This 34 36 35 CEU eTD Collection international law. international the basedon legal arguments the of analysis the to bededicated will thechapter of The end each that provision incan be understood a way iswhich convenientfor the inparty question. and is completely international explicit it law not will that case, be clear rather this particular in legal the of arguments consideration After Zone.careful Contiguous Seaandthe Territorial the on Convention 1958 the and Seas the of Law on Convention Law Nations United 1982 the provisions- legal international same the of interpretations different completely it will be shown, the main reason of the dispute is the fact that the two parties very often offer respective countries, whichin issued offerdocuments important themost the basis on based be will for arguments legal the The legalCroatian. positions of the the twothen governments.Slovenian, the first presented, be will Asparties two the of arguments legal that, After Yugoslaviaformer andreasons why between the countriesin dispute the two exists in place. first the borders maritime the with situation bay, disputed the of location context- case. the of merits the into introduction an as serve also will overview historical The titles. legal what and becameindependent twocountries under andwhen understandhow impossiblethe to intomain the facts connected dissolutionto the Otherwiseof Yugoslavia. itwould be itis beintroduced necessary understandto the legalarguments, to Inorder case in question. 37 Radan, Peter, CHAPTER 2-THE MARITIME DISPUTEOVER BORDER THE Before the presentation of the legal arguments, there will be a section explaining the beexplaining asection will there legal arguments, the of presentation the Before particular tothe connected arguments legal necessary the provide will This chapter Tito Broz Josip “I do not want in Yugoslavia borders that will be separate. As I have said 100 times, I The Break-up of Yugoslavia and International Law want borders to be those that will unite our peoples” 13 (New London:York, Routhledge, 2002) 152 37 CEU eTD Collection in it federalised.1974, becameincreasingly being one last the changes, constitutional frequent with but state, acentralised practically was policies, thenational inproblem Yugoslavia hadbeen Atresolved. the beginning, Yugoslavia Partisan to according since consequences, practical andhadlittle purely administrative 39 38 visited(last 1June 2010) kind, butby leadershipthe of Communistthe Party. War II. The borders between World of the in aftermath wascreated the Federation andOttoman The empires. Hungarian the federal statescorresponded significantly historicalwith boundaries the establishedin formerAustro- the were not determined autonomousthe regions Kosovo and of Vojvodina. Theboundaries republicsthe of by a resolution ofincluded also which Macedoniaand Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Herzegovina, and Bosnia any of Yugoslavia Dissolution 2.1 The http://www.icty.org/x/image/ABOUTimagery/Yugoslavia%20maps/3_%20yugoslavia_map_1991_sml_en.png Source: ICTY, available at: Map 1. Internal administrative borders of Yugoslavia borders administrative Internal 1. Map Radan, 2002, 152- 154 Radan, 2002, 149 Socialist Federal Republic of Socialist Republic Federal of Yugoslavia of consisted six federalrepublics: Slovenia, 39 14 38 Internal borders of the country were CEU eTD Collection 42 Mein: Peter Lang, 2005) 81- 83 led them to believe that Yugoslavia was in the process which functioning, longerno are federation the of organs essential the that stated ofCommission dissolution and that if the case that is not a treaty, so it does not have a binding legal force. bindingThese were opinions not any for parties,the of since by thedecision Commission the opinions, of is no. out 3 which mostforOpinion determination the the relevant borders. of ten Commission delivered TheArbitration differences. couldtheir authorities submit relevant where the becreated, should Commission, Badinter the called Commission, Arbitration madethat the The was decision for PeaceinYugoslavia. Conference International states ornot. Atthemeeting in Brussels theEuropean Commission conveneagreed to an formed newly recognise the whether to on wasadisagreement there Community European the In Croatia. and Slovenia enter to army federal the led which authorities, Yugoslav central inYugoslavia, April 1992. Republic of Federal anewcountry, established Montenegro, and republics, Serbia werefollowedindependence by Macedonia and andBosnia two The remaining Herzegovina. 25 date- June 1991,whichfinally was 8 October1991. confirmed on These proclamations of andboth states organized referenda.countries Both declared theirindependence on samethe become independent their expressed desireto Croatia republicshadfailed, Sloveniathe and 41 40 independence. demandsthe forfailing transformations the a confederation into or, of Yugoslavia that, a response toSerbian for centralism,with increased Croatia the calls Slovenia responded and Ibid., 82-84 Ghebrewebet, Helen: Ghebrewebet, Radan, 2002, 154 The ofindependence madeby proclamations and by Croatia were refused Slovenia The first opinion is worth mentioningThe first is opinion The tounderstandthe worth insituation better. order After the death of Tito, in the 1980s, there were several cases of overt nationalism. As nationalism. overt of cases several were there in 1980s, the of Tito, death After the 40 However, the Serbian authorities were against it. After negotiations among Identifying Units of Statehood and Determining International Boundaries 41 15 42 (Frankfurt am CEU eTD Collection Spanish boundaries administrative newas boundaries.their international The principle was South America in the 19 formulation of the principle is connected with the process of decolonization of Central and 47 46 45 44 2000) 151 law”. international public of rules and principles the on founded be must boundaries internal of status the of question the situation, changing occurs “whenever there is a change of territory in a state.” one state by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory…” which 43 2.1.1 What is the principle of the haveby force cannot anylegaleffect. boundaries or frontiers these of alteration finally, and law international by protected became adjacent states may notbe altered, except in case of an agreement. Thirdly, former boundaries other and possibly Serbia and Bosnia andSerbia, Croatia boundaries between Secondly, Charter. in UN the stated Principles the to according be respected must frontiers external thatall states itFirstly, mustberesolved. frontiers issue of which to the according principles law”. international basis of on the problems the settle should republics the arise, succession state issues of the noted that the Ibid. Ibid, 156 Ibid., 155 Ibid., 151 Terret, Steve: Terret, Burkina Faso/Mali Dispute The principle of fluidand “given Yugoslavia’s thatCommission 3 the stated Opinion No. In the The Dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Badinter Arbitration Commission uti possidetis 43 The Commission also defined state succession as the “replacement of th century, when the newly established states agreed formerto adopt states established newly whenthe century, uti possidetis principle was a general principle of international law international of principle ageneral was principle uti possidetis iuris resolved by the International Court of Justice, where itwas where of Justice, Court by theInternational resolved 46 The Badinter Commission in its third opinion cited opinion third its in Commission Badinter The was definedoriginally law. inRoman Modern 16 ? 45 The Commission established four The Commission established 44 (England: Ashgate, 47 . CEU eTD Collection territorial fragmentation. cause not in Yugoslavia former does situation the of internationalisation insurethe was that to law. by international became frontiers protected dissolution ofYugoslavia,former ininternal boundaries sense the that of Federation the of case in the again applied was principle the Commission, Badinter the of Opinions the from 52 http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_II publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means forthe determinationof rules of law; available at:d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualifiedc. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; b. international custom, as evidence ofa generalpractice accepted as law; contesting states; a. international conventions, whether generalor particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the it, shall apply: 1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to Article 38: of international law, general principles being one of them: 51 50 49 McGill- Queen's University Press, 2002) 3-4 48 law international of principle general be the to principle of the preservation War World II. the after African decolonisation in caseof applied the also guide the legal system. deduce hasa relevant to from rule byanalogy existing general already rules or that principles judge the and point certain a covering law no is there where in cases relevant are principles continued. independence in1991,and the accordingthat given to its shouldprinciple; jurisdiction be show that it had jurisdiction over the entire Piran Bay even before the proclamation of Shaw, M. N., According to the Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Terret,Justice, 2000, 157 there are four main sources Lalonde, 2002, 4 Suzane: Lalonde, As mentioned earlier, the Commission in its Opinion believes the believes Opinion its in Commission the earlier, mentioned As Slovenia uses the principle of International Law (6th edition Determining Boundaries in aConflicted World.The RoleofUti Possidetis status quo. 52 50 Therefore, the Badinter Commission is in favour of the uti possidetis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 98 17 49 The main guideline for the Commission the for guideline main The as ofitsin mainone arguments, order 51 . According to Shaw, general to . According (last visited 3 June 2010) 48 As it can beseen Asitcan (Montreal: uti possidets to CEU eTD Collection University Press,ISBN 81-314-2285-4.. Available at SSRN: 2007. Reprinted A.inSabitha (ed.), Marine Environment: Governance Concerns,2009, Amicus Books, Icfai Maritime Delimitation, 53 the land border between thewhich was left open wastwo the border in the Gulf of Trieste,countries as it was taken in consideration that had also intonot force in 1970. been fully resolved. between boundaries. Theagreement wassignedand Yugoslavia Italy in That1968 and itentered boundary Mediterranean. As Albania was a rigid communist state, it did not want to delimitits maritime whole in the but Adriatic, the on only not shelf, continental the on agreement an reach firstcountries Italytwo the to and were and Italy.Sea: Albania,Yugoslavia Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia. theformer town of Piran. On its north- west side, the Piran Bay is limited by the maritimeborder of Italy of andthe Peninsula the Savudrija Peninsula of betweenthe Bayislocated Trieste of the and is Bay a part Piran Bay. The Trieste the called andCroatia, Italy, Slovenia by threecountries- Context 2.2 The 54 Avbelj, Matej and Letnar Letnar and Matej Avbelj, Blake, G.H., Topalovi Before the collapse of Yugoslavia, there were only three riparian states in the Adriatic in the states riparian three only were there Yugoslavia, of collapse the Before visited(last 3June 2010) Source: Map 2. The location of the Piran Bay shared is which Sea, Adriatic the of part northern very in the located is Bay Piran The http://mapsof.net/croatia/static-maps/jpg/bay-of-piran-maritime-boundary-dispute 54 The University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law & Policy, Vol. 5, No. 2, The boundary was basically equal to the equidistant line. The only border only The line. equidistant the to equal basically was boundary The ü , D., ý erni The Maritime Boundaries of the Adriatic Sea 53 þ , Jernej, , The Conundrum of the Piran Bay: Slovenia v.Croatia - The Case of 18 http://ssrn.com/abstract=990183 (IBRU,Durham, 1996) 15 , 2 CEU eTD Collection river Mura. (according to the White Book of the Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Foreign of Ministry 61 Slovenian of the Book White the to (according Mura. river disputed areas involve very small pices of land, including the hill Snežnik, village Sekuli village Snežnik, the hill including land, of pices small very involve areas disputed 60 59 Republic of Yugoslavia until 2003 and Union of Serbia and Montenegro from 2003- 2006 2003- from Montenegro and 58 of Serbia Union and 2003 until Yugoslavia of Republic 57 Miroslav Krleža, 2009), 312- 314 needed tobedelimited states. by successor the of SFRY former As the waters territorial nonexistent. a result, virtually defined and were Herzegovina andMontenegro. and between Croatia,Bosnia divided Slovenia, coastline was doubled. Yugoslav states The Former number of Adriatic Sea,asthe coastal the alsoaffected mapand Europeanpolitical the of 1990s caused asignificantredrawing 56 55 points. between the Slovenia and Croatia are mostly not disputed, with the exception of several islands. of all andthe practically 85% of of costisbyfar takingCroatian the longest, coast ex- upabout Yugoslav part the Croatiaand andMontenegro none of partiesthe expressed any complaintclaiming revision. by hasbeen inherited Slovenia, borderline succession, Italian- former Yugoslav the state even after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and were completely unaffected by it. On the basis of in Treaty Osimo. the of 1975with was determined formed countries, based on the principle between newly the borders international became borders administrative these Yugoslavia, of of collapse after the However, nature. in administrative of were only federation the states member the of borders land The Yugoslavia. former of division administrative in the lies Klemen These include the area south of the River Dragonja, which is also relevant for the maritime delimitation. Other delimitation. maritime the for relevant also is which Dragonja, River of the south area the include These Avbelj, Letnar Klemen of Federal a part was it ofSFRY collapse after 2006, since state anindependent as existed has Montenegro Mladen Klemen Ibid., 16-17 60 However, the collapse of communism and the dissolution of Yugoslavia in theearly Yugoslavia of dissolution the and communism of collapse the However, On the other hand, maritime borders between the republics had never been been hadnever clearly between republics the maritime borders On hand, other the þLü þLü , Topalovi , Topalovi ý erni þLü , Duško Topalovi þ ü ü , 2007,3 , 2009,, 314 , 2009,, 314 ü 58 , The core of the dispute between Slovenia andCroatia between ofthe dispute Slovenia core The Morske granice uJadranskom moru uti possidetis iuris 19 61 55 Maritime delimitations remained in place remained delimitations Maritime . 59 This is landwhy borders (Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod Leksikografski (Zagreb: ü i and the border on the on border the i and 57 The 56 CEU eTD Collection 63 62 gained independence, disputethe is nolonger anopen dispute. after the dissolution of SFRY) wanted to control the entrance to the Bay. Since Montenegro was apart Montenegro which (of Yugoslavia Federal of Republic navy, ex-Yugoslav and the for base key the Baywas the fact that wasthe dispute the of main reason The Croatia. in leaving peninsula the nearPrevlakapeninsula, Bay the liesKotor, boundary of at country. parts of the the southernmost toreach order parts join of Croatiatwo andpreventneed the topass Bosnia in through and Herzegovina arisen subsequently aremostly concerning Croatian plans to build abridge thatwould help Neum. countries The two basically resolved thein dispute 1999. The problems thathave of town the anditconcerns parts in two territory Croatian the separates coastline Bosnian regardingdisputes maritime the with border each of them. riparian isother itof states Yugoslavia, former the it not surprising that has unresolved theirindependence on samethe day-25JuneAs 1991. formerof successor states Croatia and Slovenia have always been considered as friendly countries, who proclaimed arguments of both parties. border. In order tounderstand the core of the dispute, itis necessary goto through the legal Croatia in negotiation mapsit wasusing the documents with was prejudicingwhich the that excuse the with negotiations, accession block Croatian member to European Union as power a usedits veto isbecause Slovenia that for certainly reasons the Oneof countries. Ibid, 322- 323 Klemen The dispute between Croatia and Montenegro was seen as rather controversial. The controversial. was seenasrather Montenegro and Croatia between The dispute as case, isavery and between Croatia peculiar andHerzegovina The border Bosnia This said, and taking in consideration that Croatia has a border with all the three Before the presentation of the legal arguments, it is necessary to stress the factthat stress the to itis necessary legal arguments, of the presentation the Before The is Slovenia with dispute most one burningpolitical of inboth the questions þLü , Topalovi ü , 2009,, 320-321 20 62 63 CEU eTD Collection Integrity of States Relations betweenParticipating States, recommendations III- 65 Law,vol.37, br. 1-4 (145- 148),Zagreb, 1995,25 states” and refrain themselves from occupation or useifforce. from or occupation themselves andstates” refrain “…participating According all second the of territory principle any state.” part or of participating to of the states and “…they act will accordingly from of, refrainany for, seizureorusurpation demand or willfrontiers…” another’s one all inviolable as regard respectstates “participating principle first the the territorial is named integrity integrity of each of the participating zalivu.pdf http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/2._Memorandum_o_Piranskem_ Slovenia: of Republic of the Government at: 64 Memorandumthe released on 7 April by 1993 Slovenian the parliament. 2.3.1 The Slovenian Arguments Arguments Legal The 2.3 recommendations. these to countries areguided according therefore isAct alegally not it binding document, doeshave significant political weight and participants. which atboth in they were Europe, Security Cooperation and on Conference atthe signed Act, Final Helsinki the from of provisions the of one was which frontiers, of inviolability countriesYugoslavia, both assumedsome obligations. Theyagreedtorespectthe 67 66 areparties. countries which both to agreements theinternational all with in accordance means, only peaceful be reachedusing is to agreement defined andthattheexactbe delimitation is donein is to It future. the alsosaid thatthe Memorandum, the Slovenian parliament claims that its border on the sea was never clearly Parliament of the Republic of Slovenia, Republic of the Parliament of Slovenia, Republic of the Parliament Helsinki Final Act, Degan,Vladimir- The firsttime regarding Slovenian wereclearly arguments the border defined wasin (last visited 27 May 2010) 64 The part of the Helsinki Final Act dealing with frontiers and territorial and frontiers with dealing Act Final Helsinki the of part The ; available at: Questions Relating to Security in Europe, 1. (a) Declaration on Principles Guiding Ĉ Inviolability of frontiers Inviolability of uro (1995), http://www.osce.org/item/15661.html Maritime Frontiers of the Republicof Croatia, Memorandum on the Piran Bay Memorandum on the Piran Bay and 21 Territorial IntegrityStates. of 67 Inviolability of frontiers The Memorandum consists of two main (last visited on 26 May 2010) , second paragraph second , , Ljubljana, 7 65 Although Final Helsinki and IV- in: Comparative Maritime th of April 1993, available 1993, ofApril According to Territorial 66 In the CEU eTD Collection Convention. Sea and Zone, theContiguous identical whichis almost tothe Article 15of 1892 the Article 12of Territorial 1958Convention accordingthe tothe on special circumstances, Commission. The Bay. Piran in by entire the Slovenia exercisesovereignty of quoanddefacto confirms status the circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.” above provisiondoes not apply, however,where it is necessary by reasonof historicpoints titleon theor baselines other special from which the breadth of the territorial seas of eachcontrary, of the two to extend States the its to territorialis them measured. between sea beyond agreement The the failing median lineentitled, is every States two of the point of neither whichother, isequidistant each to adjacent from or the opposite nearest http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf provision.”, available at: this with variance at is a waywhich in other States two or ofthe seas title territorial the delimit of historic to circumstances reason by special necessary is it where however, apply, not shall paragraph of this provisions points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of eachcontrary, of the two to extend States its to the territorialis them measured. between sea beyond agreement The the failing median entitled, line is every States two of the point of neither other, which each isequidistant to adjacent or from opposite the are nearest Available at: XIII.”; and VI Parts to subject research, scientific of freedom (f) (e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2; Part VI; (d) freedom toconstruct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject(c) to freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI; (b) freedom of overflight; (a) freedom of navigation; coastalfor and land-locked States: the conditions laid under down by exercised this is Convention seas high of the andFreedom by otherorland-locked. rulescoastal of whether international States, all to law. open are It seas comprises, high “The inter alia, both countriesthe two in 1991. of independence of proclamation before even Bay Piran entire the in jurisdiction exercising 70 68 territorial exit tothe high seas. and jurisdiction Slovenian under Bay Piran the of integrity territorial demands: Slovenian May 2010) 69 2010) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Parliament of the Republic of Slovenia, Republic of the Parliament 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea 1958 Convention on the TerritorialSea and the Contiguous Zone Regarding the second demand, Slovenia invokes the equity Regarding second equity invokes demand,Slovenia the principle socalled the and Slovenia believes that the principle of principle the that believes Slovenia http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm uti possidetis iuris 70 69 principle was also confirmed by the Badinter Arbitration Badinter by the confirmed also was principle 68 Concerning thefirst demand, Slovenia claims tohave been Memorandum on the Piran Bay Article 87: Article 22 , Article 15: uti possidetis iurisuti possidetis , “Where the coasts of two States are States oftwo coasts the “Where Article 12 , fifth paragraph fifth , : “Where the coasts of two States should be applied, asit be should applied, (last visited 26 of 26 visited (last (last visited 3 June CEU eTD Collection it is under Slovenian sovereign jurisdiction. This is related to the certain provisions of the of provisions certain the to is related This jurisdiction. sovereign Slovenian is under it possidetis iuris Bay of Piran had the status of internal in waters former Yugoslavia and still hasif it, the that claims Slovenia Primarily, points. three on based are arguments Slovenian Bay. Piran elaborated. better aremuch arguments However, Memorandum. from the arguments main repeat the be will agreement later. mentioned Croatian neverparliament ratified itlegallyisand it not binding. Mainpoints of the as force, into never came agreement the However, border. the countries regarding by thetwo http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/2._Memorandum_o_Piranskem_ Slovenia: of Republic of the Government at: Drnovšek-Ra the from provisions invoke often authors Slovenian the that noted be to has It Memorandum. ofSloveniaRepublic andtheRepublicof Croatia published same.TheSlovenian the government which have invoked, been constantly ever since publishing the Memorandum,the of remain zalivu.pdf 71 fishery andworld. recognizeditsto the rights internationally communication all help Slovenia exercise high seas would access tothe Direct Adriatic. high the seas of the with waters territorial Slovenian connect in would which away border draw the to necessary itfinds it zone andtherefore economic proclaim cannot its exclusive state that disadvantaged 72 Parliament of the Republic of Slovenia, Republic of the Parliament White Paper on the Border between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia According to the first argument Slovenia has sovereign jurisdiction over the entire the over jurisdiction sovereign has Slovenia argument first the to According The arguments introduced inThe introduced arguments by issued Whitethe foreign Paperministry Slovenian the As can be seen from the documents to be presented below, main Slovenian claims, Slovenia claims to beSloveniainvoke claimsentitled specialto it to as circumstances a geographically (last visited 27 May 2010) 72 þ an agreement from actually which an agreement established positions are 2001, common the is applied. Because the territory of the Bay is considered beto internal waters, Memorandum on the Piran Bay 23 White Paper onthebetweenBorder the , repeating the main arguments from the , Ljubljana, 7 th of April 1993, available 1993, ofApril 2006 71 uti CEU eTD Collection mentioned Article 15 of the UNCLOS Convention. UNCLOS the of 15 Article mentioned above the of sentence second the in mentioned circumstances, special invoke to trying Article 15of 1982UNCLOSthe Convention. the of sentence first the to according line, median the and principle equidistant the invokes 75 74 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm applied. 7is of straight article in for system the provided where case any in baselines or bays, "historic" so-called to apply not do provisions foregoing The 6. waters. internal as beconsidered shall thereby enclosed waters the and marks, low-water two these between be drawn may line a closing miles, nautical 24 exceed not bay does ofa points entrance natural ofthe marks low-water the between distance If the 4. that of the semi-circlethan, whoselarger or as, diameterlarge as is is area its a line drawn a bay unless acrossas the beregarded mouth of however, not, that shall indentation. indentation An coast. the of proportion to the widthof its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere curvatureFor2. the purposes of Convention,this abay is awell-marked indentation whose penetration isinsuch 1. This article relates only to bays the coasts of whichbelong to a single State. 73 according to therefore, and former Yugoslavia member of as a high the seas access to direct highaccess tothe seasis by main Firstly, have justified three claims hada to points. Slovenia in of Bay.the territory whole the authority economic and ecological police, legal, administrative, civil, clear had Slovenia that proving evidence of variety is a there Paper, White the In independence. their proclaimed states both when under Slovenian jurisdiction. Bay Piran the of integrity territorial the to opposing not was Croatia jurisdiction, Croatian under come had coast Southern the after even that claims Slovenia However, 1956. in The southern coast of Bay the giventoCroatiawas during times the of socialist Yugoslavia, exercised jurisdiction and taken care of property rights in the entire territory of thetitle Piran Bay. is the fact that the Bay is named after Slovenian town of Piran, whichArticle 10of 1982UNCLOSthe Convention. has always White PaperWhite on the Border between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic ofCroatia UNCLOS, 15 Article (see footnote 70) UNCLOS, Article 10- Bays: Secondly, Slovenia believes Piran Bay to be a historical bay, which means that it is it that means which bay, historical be a to Bay Piran believes Slovenia Secondly, The second main argument according to which Slovenia has the right to the direct has righttothe whichthe Slovenia to according main argument The second Thirdly, havehad in claimsto Slovenia jurisdiction Bay 1991, the25 June entire on 24 73 Slovenia opposes the Croatian argument that argument Croatian the opposes Slovenia 75 74 The reasons for The invokinghistoricreasons the , 2006 CEU eTD Collection http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm the forpurpose of rendering assistance to persons,ships or aircraft in danger or distress.” force by necessary are rendered or navigation ordinary to incidental are same the as so far 2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in (b) proceeding to or from internal waters orcall a at such roadstead or port facility. waters; or of: (a) traversing that sea withoutpurpose entering the internal waters orfor calling sea at a roadstead or port facility outside internal territorial the through navigation means Passage “1. Article 18- Meaning of passage: passage through the territorial sea”; “Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent 77 cross Croatian territory. territorial Croatian through passage waters, innocent the is which have, does it that right but the with itself itsatisfy wishes to have the direct access to the high seas without having to 76 developmentand shipbuilding. economic Slovenian the for important is which Kopar, of harbour the towards traffic maritime the is seas high the with communication have should Slovenia that claims argument jurisdiction have Italy had Yugoslavia Continental the Shelf. Fourthly, claimsto and on Slovenia even outsidegoes the south Piran from theBay, pointexit T5,tofor the which highwhich territorial Slovenia’s of seas.is point is the which T5, based point the to way the all Thirdly, go should it jurisdiction on providesthe Slovenia succession also claims someof the between establishesSlovenia,Slovenian agreementandItaly, border Slovenia this and the to agreementhavedocuments. the epicontinental betweenSloveniais thesuccessor of Osimothe agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia. According to The shelf, last which the principle of UNCLOS, White Paper on the Border between Republic of Slovenia and Republic of Croatia The bottom line of the Slovenian second main argument is Slovenia The bottom line thefactthat of second mainargument does Slovenian the Article17- Right of innocent passage uti possidetis iuris 77 76 principle, it still has the access to the high seas. Secondly, seas. high the to access the has still it principle, : 25 , 2006 majeure or distress or distress or CEU eTD Collection 79 fakulteta u Zagrebu,god. 44,br. 5-6,Zagreb: Sveu isaccept itexplainingfor Croatia to for Slovenian why the the unacceptable demand 78 has always been respectArticledetermined to 17of given the Convention. asCroatia facts, establish the to in order cases these report should is Slovenia case, that the If law. international the of provisions the breaking is Croatia that mean would which world, with communicate the to right denyingthe are Slovenia authorities Croatian concluded that be could it that says Ibler Memorandum, the on based Sixth, Convention. UNCLOS liberalmore based onArticle passage,regime,innocentof rightthan the 17of 1982 the special navigation establish a isit to willing but toSlovenia, waters ofits territorial cede parts sea. land tothe runs on border state the which at point the of determination the include to have would which process, negotiation the after only altered be can Bay Piran the in line median Fourth, Zone. Contiguous the and Sea Territorial the on Convention 1958 the of 12 Article and Seas the of Law on Convention according principlethe to equidistance, basedon of Articlethe 15of 1982Unitedthe Nations countries, two between the border be the state Bayto Piran lineinthe median the claims diminishing its territorial Third, until waters. other agreementthe is established, Croatia up on a part of its territorial sea in the Bay of Piran. Second, Croatia rejects the possibility of Turkalj from 2002. Ibler sums up Croatian in arguments a following way: Kristian by paper in the and earlier year a issued Memorandum Slovenian the of commentary 2.3.2 The Croatian Arguments Ibid. Ibler, Vladimir, Ibler, In his paper, Turkalj often quotes Ibler, with Ibler,he in In his difference that with ismuchthe Turkalj quotes clearer often paper, Fifth, regarding theSlovenian territorial exit highto the willing seas, Croatia isnot to CroatiaFirst, according rejects any whichSlovenian itgiveargument to wouldhave to Croatian havearguments been clearly byProfessordefined Vladimir Ibler1994,in his Državna granica na moru izme 78 ÿ þ u Republike Hrvatske i Republike Slovenije, ilišna tiskara,ilišna 1994, 475- 476 26 79 Zbornik Pravnog Zbornik CEU eTD Collection i Republike Slovenije Slovenian demands. However, book is the not publicly available, asitis notan official 83 http://www.pravnadatoteka.hr/pdf/aktualno/hrv/20021015/Turkalj_Razgranicenje_teritorijalnog_mora.pdf at: 24; available 2002, Database, Legal Croatian called a so published Croatia Affairs, Foreign of Ministry United Nations Convention on Law Seas)…”the of (i.e. Convention given the of 2 Article the with in accordance position a hold to obliged are representatives Croatian countries, two the seasof territorial the between border maritime the determining “while that states Declaration the 4, article the In in 1999. Parliament Croatian Relations between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia, issued by the determining of according principle. equidistance border of determining the tothe highseas.connection directthe to possible Slovenian especially the argument, regarding novine.nn.hr/default.aspx 82 81 visited 27May 2010) 80 sea.” territorial the as described sea, beltof an adjacent to waters, archipelagic its State, anarchipelagic case of in the and, waters internal and territory land its beyond extends, State a coastal of sovereignty it. to adjacent land over sovereignty the with is connected sea the whichover sovereignty to according SeasConvention, the argument against the Slovenianterritorial demand is certainly Article 2 of the integrityUnited Nations Law of of the Piran Bay and the direct territorial exit to the high seas. The 84 Zastupni Avbelj, Letnar Turkalj, Kristijan: Ibid. UNCLOS It has to be mentioned that after the publication of the of publication the after that mentioned be to has It Interstate the on Declaration the in expressed been have also positions Croatian þ ki dom Hrvatskog državnog Sabora, državnog Hrvatskog dom ki , Article 2 Article ý erni Razgrani , Croatian OfficialGazzette, No. 32/99, 2nd of April 1999, available at: þ http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm 81 , 2007,13-14 (last visited 27 May 2010) Avbelj and Letnar þ enje teritorijalnog mora izme 80 The exact phrasing of the article is the following: “The Deklaracija o stanju me ý erni 27 þ claim that this is the strongest Croatian ÿ u Hrvatske i Slovenije u sjevernom Jadranu 83 , further explaining that it involves the involves it that explaining further , ÿ udržavnih odnosa Republike Hrvatske Blue Book White Book 84 as a response to response asa by the Slovenian by the http://narodne- , (last 82 CEU eTD Collection February 2009, available at: 87 border disputes priortofull membership. disputes border itsresolve tryingUnion in to forand was themembership European the state was a candidate common established positions. Thesecommon positions were during whenSlovenia time the the of establishment the is actually agreement the as is known What ministers. prime two the by signed actually never was it although name, that by is known Agreement The dispute. the Ra The2.3.3 Drnovšek-Ra 88 (last visited 27 May 2010) 86 (last visited 27 May 2010) 85 Border Commerce andCooperation fishermen. the especially population, local the of interests the Commerce andCooperation countries- two the between signed agreement with the Fourthly, border Italy. maritime its maintain to wishes Croatia Thirdly, unfounded. completely and sea the of law international the against also are seas high the with contact direct the for demands Unitedthe Nations Convention on Law of Seas,the firstparagraph. Secondly, Slovenian according the principlemeans to invoking of equidistance, which thatCroatia is Article 15of be shoulddetermined border the that believes law.Croatia international to Bay are contrary summarized in four main points. Firstly, the Slovenian claims over the sovereigny of the Piran negotiating position. document, but a collection of scientific texts, which would represent a basis for Croatian Government of the Republic of Croatia, official webpage, available at: Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Avbelj, Letnar Nacional, 2nd February 2007, available at þ an Agreement,isan asit still mentionedthe inSlovenian public best often as solution the to Before the analysis of the legal arguments, it is useful to be aware of the Drnovšek- the of aware be to useful is it arguments, legal the of analysis the Before According to Avbelj and Letnar Letnar and Avbelj to According ý erni þ , 2007,10 85 http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=406 þ an an Agreement isCroatia, legal according to a satisfactory basis which protects Non Paper- Chronology of Slovenia- Croatia Border Issue was signed between the countriestwo in 1997. http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/31177/predstavljena-plava-knjiga 88 The Croatian Parliament failed to ratify it, so the ý erni 28 þ , the demands in the demands the , http://si.mvp.hr/?mh=234&mv=1315 86 Agreement onTrans-Border Agreement The (last visited 27 May 2010) Agreement onTrans- Blue Book , 22nd 87 can be CEU eTD Collection http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/4.b_Drnovsek-Racan_EN.pdf the of Webpage at: available 3, Article translation), 91 90 (last visited on 27 89 waters. This way, Croatia could maintain its maritime border with Italy. territorial be apartof Croatian whichwould seain form be a triangle, of would astrip of there high seas, andthe corridor the seas.Between high of the legal regime be a would there Within with high Slovenian the corridor, the waters which seas. connect would territorial in form a chimney, of special corridor wouldthe provide ithigh seas,means Croatia that Italy. seas of the Republic territorial the between be would placed junction this of that Article 5 determines Furthermore, Croatia, which is whyarea. in that rights exercise sovereign its be to allowed would country noseas and Croatia would still ashigh bebe also considered The junction would waters. territorial Slovenian seas with the have its sea border withwith Italy.An agreement was made on administering ajunction which would connect the high oftheBay. quarters three over control to exercise abandonCroatia This means hadagreedto principleSlovenia equidistance andallow the that one fourth of the way from maritimethe boundary.Article 3 Savudrija, determines boundary the in the Bay,Piran should which go of whichdelimitation the with concerned are 5 and 4 3, isArticle land. on theborder the of northernmostestablishment Croatian tip of the Bay. they are. provisions of Agreementthe are oftenmentioned, which is itis why important toknowwhat Agreementnever came intoofficially forcelegally andisnot binding. therefore However, Avbelj, Letnar Drnovšek- Ra Government of the Republic of Slovenia, Officialwebpage, Drnovšek- Ra 90 Explaining the second provision of the Agreement regarding theAgreement the Explaining Slovenian the secondthe provision of exitto Articles 4 and 5determine the Slovenian exitto the high seas and Croatianthe border the and boundary of maritime the is determination the of Treaty the The subject þ an Agreement (English translation), Articles 4 and5 ý May 2010) erni þ , 2007,11 29 þ an Agreementan (English 91 89 CEU eTD Collection Source: 24ur.com UNCLOSintroducing Convention, in arguments which stated are actually Article 15 of the side. Slovenian the of argument main Convention, where exampleCroatia disregards for convenientCroatia,thisto speak usingparagraphs which infavourits of Main arguments. the secondstatement sentence, in isonly interpreted a way which are SeasConvention Lawof the United Nations the iswhich from thearticles isthat problem main The is, Conventions. the from interpretation articles atvarious quoting strictly the same time, the in They theirofficial documents. have been expressedinvery a clear andformal manner, of the Article clearly most which stated are arguments, in to Slovenian comparison byacademics, presented 15 of theproblematic. 1982 UNCLOS When it comes Analysis 2.4 The to Croatian visited(last 3June 2010) arguments, Ra the 3.- Map it can be said that they are mostly Croatian in itsParliament 1999 Declaration wrongly Articlequotes 2of 1982 the somewhat as seen be can parties both the by presented arguments legal The þ an-Drnovšek Agreement an-Drnovšek http://24ur.com/novice/slovenija/slovenija-ima-mocne-argumente.html 30 CEU eTD Collection 92 Bay. Piran entire the over sovereignty the for claims Slovene the rejects Croatia demands in severalits Memorandum from in 1993. The third condition cannotbe satisfied as Croatia rejects these officialsatisfy hasSlovenia in thesecondsince 1991,soit cannot satisfied condition. claim first the state documents,independent an been has Slovenia that claims Turkalj state. one only to belong should while bay of the the coast whole the fourthly,demand accept that and have to states other Thirdly,the fourthbay. historic be a to bay certain a proclaiming for demand condition official be an must there Secondly, time. of period longer a for jurisdiction cannot exercise continuously and effectively must state be satisfiedbay beto considered a historic bay, based on the UN Memorandum on historic bays. Firstly, a as Turkalj,in presenting arguments, counter Croatia’s introduces four conditions neededfor a Convention. the of it Bay bystatingbelongsgroup historical tothe of the Article that according bays, to 10(6) Piran entire the over thejurisdiction claims Slovenia Slovenia. and Croatia between divided of the 1982 UNCLOS Convention. However, after the dissolution itislikely for the Bay beto while it wasunderthejurisdiction of one country, which is in accordance Article with 10 (1) Bay statusthe the baydidhavethis tohavein the Naturally, status Yugoslavia. former used is asthat be internal waters, its Bay Piran to of the territory the Slovenia claims that is fact the Bay. Piran equidistance principle, is which themain argument Croatian regarding the delimitation in the the of application the invoking is legislator Croatian the Therefore, Convention. the from Articles thecorrect andquoted Declaration the of have text notto the checked legislator of the failure is a it statements, legal Croatian main of isone Declaration As this Convention. same Turkalj, 2002, 28-29 United Convention Nations defineon Lawthe doesnot of Sea the historical bays. itWhenSlovenian comes arguments, mainproblem the to firstregarding the argument 31 92 CEU eTD Collection as there are different ways to resolve a dispute and it does not necessarily need to be need court. the to itnecessarily notdoes and adispute resolve ways to different are as there more is complicated, situation slightly law,the However, ininternational to court. certainly go rights on the jurisdiction over the Piran Bay from the factual situation on the ground. positions, while Slovenia invokes the explain toits legalinsearch for exact order facts the becauseitto tends approach, Koskenniemi’s mentionedtheory first in Croatia the would chapter. into legal fit the into fit perfectly to seems Slovenia and Croatia caseof The dispute. the resolve can parties two the so that needed is will ofpolitical amount acertain However, law. international of waters? why isnotsatisfied Slovenia innocentof with rightthe passage throughCroatian territorial signed,then contracts the to adhere do that states democratic and be peaceful to considered it is important for its economythat argument seasisthe high the accessto territorial Slovenian regarding question important and most traffic The located? be should Croatia and Slovenia to between boundary the the where portestablishing of Kopar. If Slovenia unilaterallyclearly Slovenia boundary its Italywithout claimtheposition sea to of with and Croatia are good. be common determined werenot to seaboundaries and wereconsidered the Yugoslavia in former jurisdiction thefact Bayandjustifies them Piran that outsidewith even the Slovenia Moreover, independence. offersvery slim evidence toprove thatitactually have did of proclamation it the even having after it shouldthan continue highseas, accesstothe the 93 the interprets White Paper on the Border between Republic of Slovenia and Republic of Croatia 93 If the internal maritime boundaries were not determined, how is it possible for possible itis how determined, not were boundaries maritime internal the If In domestic law,two opposing parties offeringlegal different argumentswouldmost In conclusion,both countries seem beto offering arguments based on the provisions The main problem the secondregarding lies argument in the Slovenia factthat uti possidetis iuris principle in a way that if June principle inawaythat had until 25 the 1991 Slovenia uti possidetis iuris 32 principle and tries to support its , 2006 CEU eTD Collection remain in the in remain and try to show a certain amount of flexibility on both sides. Otherwise, the two states could approaches combineis thetwo dispute resolve to way the this Therefore, to facts. the about be certain wehave to toapply rule, in the butlegalorder the search for rule, to is necessary it This is again the same thing that Koskenniemi argues. In order to see which facts are relevant, status quo forever. 33 CEU eTD Collection http://www.vlada.si/si/teme_in_projekti/arbitrazni_sporazum/zgodovina_resevanja_vprasanja_meje/ 95 94 1 June 2010) in 1991,when even problematic considered was not border maritime the that Croatia claims border. the changed itsposition regarding frequently isbecause that government, Slovenia reached. who were supposed to determine the border between the two states, but the agreement was not Developments 3.1 Early possible resolution of dispute. the the announced and improvement significant shown have which developments, political recent intolook most the is necessary to itsection, which last inthe come will part analytical the will includemade theattempt by Commission inmediating European the the Before dispute. Union, as this is the reason why the dispute gained extreme political significance. This section European the negotiationswith Croatian blocking tothe of the connected developments recent the to begiven will Special attention border. to the inrespect governments two same country,focusing they started mutual on their issues. and open differences attempts to preserve the years last of Yugoslavia, united struggle they Federation. in nationalismwere the against Serbian and However, as Uptothatmoment,countries becomingindependent. theyhad after in acommon path and the soon as they were no longer a part of the the land border, while the maritime border remained unresolved. remained border while border, landthe maritimethe on points the all almost determining in successful was commission This border. the determine Government of the Republic of Slovenia, official website, Klemen Croatia and Slovenia started negotiations in 1992 by establishing a group negotiationsof Croatia agroup experts in1992byestablishing started andSlovenia issuedby and documents the statements bilateral agreements, will The present chapter This chapter will offer the analysis of political developments between the two 94 þLü From From 1993 until joint1998, a diplomatic commission inestablishedwas order , Topalovi ü , 2009,316 CHAPTER 3- BILATERAL RELATIONS 3- BILATERAL CHAPTER 34 Zgodovina reševanja vprašanja 95 According to the Croatian meje, available at: (last visited CEU eTD Collection http://www.vlada.si/si/teme_in_projekti/arbitrazni_sporazum/zgodovina_resevanja_vprasanja_meje/ elections/14356.html 98 Slovenia’s), available at: Croatia and Slovenia 96 recognized the legitimacy negotiatingtheirof positionsin 1995. earlier described Slovenian inMemorandum mainits 1993when two expressed Slovenia demandswhichwere the with changed Everything principle. equidistance accept the to wasready Slovenia 97 European Union and after changethe governmentin of inCroatia 2000. with the negotiations accession Slovenian of times year2000,at the cameafter dispute concluded from the fact that the first substantial attempt to resolve the maritime border going periodthe through of transition, werethere so other things ontheagenda. This canbe yearsindependence,countries of whenboth still were theirconsolidating and democracies early werethe those Secondly, apriority. considered been have not could certainly Slovenia Croatia, the first halfin in atleast ways. Firstly, two understood could be decade.This from first comingthe of the 1990sstatements government official many not are wasthere independence, the proclaimed they since ever time of the war, which is why the border withSlovenia is referring to. wereexpressedinpositions Memorandum from are obviously 1993, these the ones the border dispute had been resolved. Slovenia accuses Croatia of unilaterally to refusing Croatia of unilaterally accuses hadbeen Slovenia resolved. dispute border have faithto in Union believing with thenegotiations good concluded European the that the dispute was border of one Slovenian conditionsmembership.the forthe Slovenia EU claims positions, asit was neveractually primesigned by two ministers. Thethe resolution of the common the of establishment the but agreement, an official not is actually which agreement, Office forDemocratic Institutions and Human Rights- Elections, available at: Integration, European and Affairs Foreign of Ministry Croatian Government of the Republic of Slovenia, It must be said that although the border dispute between the two countries has existed In 2001 the negotiations between the two countries led to the Drnovšek-Ra ledbetween countries negotiations to the In two 2001 the 96 (last visited 3 June 2010) , Zagreb,16 March 2009(presentation outlining Croatia’s position andcriticising . On the other hand, Slovenia points out that the two countries mutually countries two the that out points Slovenia hand, other the On . http://www.esiweb.org/enlargement/?cat=15#awp::?cat=15 Zgodovina reševanja vprašanja 35 Chronology of theBorder Dispute between meje, 97 Since Slovenian negotiating Slovenian Since http://www.osce.org/odihr- (last visited 1 June 2010) 98 þ an CEU eTD Collection available at: February 2009), available at: : Gazzette, No. 157/2003, 6October2003, available at: 101 Školska knjiga), 2009, 47 100 2010) 99 Slovenia were using Union,and Italy European of the accession to thethe its process wasbeginning same time Croatia EU bodiesthe at Since Italy. and toSlovenia states, suspend neighbouring the by welcomed not was move This the application of Article Convention Uniteddefined Nations the 55of Law bytheSea. the the1982 theon zone towards the EU agreement. given the of procedure ratification continue the 104 June 2010) 103 distance.”, that upto extend not does margin continental ofthe edge outer the where measured is sea territorial of the breadth to territory land of its prolongation the outer natural the edge of throughout the continentalsea margin,territorial its or to a beyond distanceextend of that 200 areas nautical milessubmarine from the baselines from which the 102 2010) is established. border Yugoslavia in 1968. Thisline wasproclaimed astemporary finaluntil the agreement on the between and by and agreement Italy established Croatian waters border the the territorial opposition. speak about the to not and ratification, agreement the Minister IvicaRa why itsbe legallycannot provisions binding. is which parliament, Croatian the by ratified or signed been ever has text no is that agreement http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htmConvention.“ of this provisions relevant the by governed are States other of freedoms regime established in thisPart, under which the rights andjurisdiction legal of coastal the specific State the to and the rights subject and sea, territorial to the adjacent and beyond anarea is zone economic exclusive “The shelf continental the seaabove the which included Sea, reached. have been agreement could the amore stabile government, or inCroatia, morewill political Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of Foreign Ministry Slovenian Intervju with Joško Paro, Deputy ForeignMinister inthe Ra Vidas, Davor, Vidas, UNCLOS, sabor: Hrvatski UNCLOS, Article 76(1): 1. “The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the In ecological2003 Croatia protected in andfishery proclaimed the the Adriatic zone http://www.mvpei.hr/custompages/static/hrv/templates/_frt_govori.asp?id=57 Article 55 Hrvatsko- slovensko razgrani Odlukaproširenju o jurisdikcije Republike Hrvatskena Jadranskom þ an did not have not an fromdid for thesupport his thesigning of partners coalition the : 103 The proclaimed zone was similar to the exclusive economic zone economic exclusive the to wassimilar zone Theproclaimed http://www.esiweb.org/enlargement/?cat=15#awp::?cat=15 Non Paper: Chronology ofSlovenia- Croatia Border Issue þ enje. Me http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/default.aspx 36 ÿ 100 unarodno pravo je crta ispod koje sene ide The truth is actually that Croatian Prime þ an government in Vjesnik, 24August 2010, 102 99 in central Adriatic, between the between Adriatic, in central Croatian position concerning the concerning position Croatian 101 Therefore, had been there Therefore, moru, Croatian Official Croatian moru, (last visited 1 June (last visited 2 June (last visited on 2 (22 (Zagreb, 104 CEU eTD Collection http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200593&stevilka=4021 at: available 2005, 4October 93/2005, No. Gazzette, Official Slovenian (ZRZECEP), Slovenije Republike 106 Državni zborRepublike Slovenije,Zakon o razglasitvi zaštitne ekološke incone epikontinentalnem pasu of was of border countries, 25Junewas takenasa entire both 1991, critical secondly, the date; independence, the of date the firstly, conditions: Slovenian accept to unwilling was Croatia as referred to the Court. the to referred two joint commissions establish of They to Court Justice before in The Hague. International dispute agreed also the settle the to that agreement informal an reached they Bled, where town in Slovenian met the would define a legal case. framework fora different the way,case as they thatdosituation 25 June1991. on with most was of the tointernational be borderthe inconsideration finalwill the Article the take decision on 1they agreethat law provisions applicable on this Italy and Yugoslavia from 1968 as externalthe border. between theborder took as both Adriatic, in sea Northern the the apartof on overlapping erojatno_do_kraja_godine http://www.vlada.hr/en/naslovnica/novosti_i_najave/2007/kolovoz/pravni_okvir_za_prepustanje_spora_icj_u_vj settlement of border disputes likely to be defined by year's end, 108 Government of the Republic of Croatia, official website, News and Announcements: 105 established. which is T5, point the upto between Yugoslavia, 1968 in border the established to which also extends the beginningcountries. of the high seas, while the border with Croatia is yet to be http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/6._Brionska_izjava_2005.pdf Government of the Republic of Slovenia, official website: 107 Skupna izjava o izogibanju incidentov (Slovenian version of theStatement), 10 June 2005, available at: Klemen In 2007, as the issueministers, In 2007,asthe Sanader twoJanša, prime and remainedthe unsettled, AvoidingStatement In ministers signedJointon Incidents. In primethe a 2005 the þLü 105 , Topalovi 106 In response, Slovenia proclaimed its own ecological and continental shelf zone, Therefore, the two countries’ exclusive economic zones wereobviously zones economic countries’ two the exclusive Therefore, ü , 2009,, 318 108 (last visited 2 June 2010) However, thecommission unsuccessful inwas solution, the reaching 107 However, as it turns out, the two parties interpret the situationin 37 26 August 2007, available at: (last visited on 2June 2010) Legal framework for CEU eTD Collection remarks were addedinAmended DraftAgreement. This time theAgreementwas by rejected add certainwhileinits Slovenia toprotect wantedtoorder vital interests.points, These Agreement, Draft the accepted Croatia process. negotiation Croatian of the continuation the the he proposes in which Declaration, Joint and Settlement Dispute law. the international with in dispute accordance border question.insisted the Furthermore, Croatian on resolutiongovernment borderthe of positive, with the condition that the resolution of the negotiation process is separated from the largely initiative was Rehn’s regarding position Croatia’s countries together. closer two the of intense diplomatic activities in thefirst half of 2009, he was trying bringto the positions of series the Through time. the at Enlargement for Commissioner EU the was who Rehn, Olli of in person the its services, mediating to offer decided Commission European negotiations, the countriesboth andit among causednegative sentiments populations. the in in media debates the of heated centre the in Theissuewas the process. Croatian accession incountries andit asignificantbetween delay the caused two the deteriorating relationship 109 border. of disputed the location whichCroatia the to explanation were prejudicial the that wasusingthedocuments Council,with intergovernmental open meeting European the on of an Croatia to wasplanning Commission European the by Mediation the and Veto 3.2 Slovenian This is why the commission was eventually dismissed. includeequity. theprinciplebe of hadto thirdly, of to subject adjudication adjudication; 111 2010) 110 Croatia and Slovenia”, Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign of Ministry Slovenian Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, European and Affairs Foreign of Ministry Croatian BBC News, 17thDecember2008, available at: In order to speed up the resolution of the dispute that caused the delayinthe that dispute speed up the resolution of the to In order In December 2008 Slovenia decided to block In Decemberthemajority to negotiating 2008Slovenia chapters decided the of 2009, available at: 110 That move by the Slovenian government was the peak of the Non Paper: Chronology of Slovenia- Croatia Border Issue http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/slovenia_CR%20MoFA-chronology.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7788646.stm 38 111 Rehn issuedAgreement hisDraft on Chronology of theBorder Dispute between ad hocarbitration (last visited on 1June , and , 109 , CEU eTD Collection http://www.vlada.si/si/teme_in_projekti/arbitrazni_sporazum/zgodovina_resevanja_vprasanja_meje/ available at: http://www.vlada.si/si/teme_in_projekti/arbitrazni_sporazum/zgodovina_resevanja_vprasanja_meje/ 17098 113 112 Kosor. Jadranka 2009 IvoSanader, Croatian decided resignprime minister, to and was byhisreplaced deputy events concerning positive many brought have to seem that changes severe through went life political Croatian the Croatian foreign policy and the resolution The3.2.1 Arbitration Agreement of the dispute. Onseas. 1 July high with the insistedit on contact the and Arbitration commission preside the Justice to of Court theInternational of judge the refused Slovenia because amendments, the accept mediation process. theRehn’s step of out to decided Croatia, which November 2010in Stockholm. inimprovement bilateral relations signing continued with of Agreementon Arbitration the 4 AgreementDraft would bethe basis for the resolution of borderthe This dispute. sudden between Rehn’sby twocountries theborder andthatthe willprejudice Amended Croatia Croatian accession negotiations. Kosor made a written statement that no document submitted initiated diplomatic activities which resulted in the removal of the Slovenian veto from the 115 visited on2June 2010) 114 consent of the parties. The Tribunal will reach a decision which will be legally binding for the will be resolved by Arbitration the Tribunal, composition whose should be agreed by a mutual Vecernji.hr , Vecernji.hr Government of the Republic of Slovenia, Government of the Republic of Slovenia, BBC News, 113 (last visited 2 June 2010) Just as it seemed that the relations of the two countries have come to a dead end, Kosor did not wait long to start working on the resolution of the border dispute. She Among the mainAmong provisions the Agreement Arbitration isthe of dispute adecision thatthe http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/kronologija-hrvatsko-slovenskih-odnosa-samostalnosti-danas-clanak- Croatia's PM steps down Kronologija hrvatsko- slovenskih odnosa od samostalnosti do danas 114 115 , 1July 2009, available at: Zgodovina reševanja vprašanja Zgodovina reševanja vprašanja 39 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8128746.stm meje, available at: meje, available at: , 11 September 2009, 112 Croatia refused to (last CEU eTD Collection available at: Hrvatske i RepublikeSlovenije come to power willcome power to referendumdepend on the 6Junescheduled for 2010. will it whether decision final the but Agreement, the ratified has Parliament Slovenian addition of the following statement: relations. neighbourly ofequity good and law, principles arethe international these maritime areas relevant international public of principles and rules the are these law,boundary maritime and land the For whileapplied. for the determinationmaritimeareas. therelevant useof the of the junction for regime the highseasand the to junction Slovenia’s Croatia, of Republic andthe Slovenia and the regime of use of between border Republic the of maritime andland course determination the the of for the Arbitražnega sporazuma med Vlado Republike Slovenije in Vlado Republike Hrvaške (OdZRBHRAS 120 119 um_-_podpisan_EN.pdf um_-_podpisan_EN.pdf at: http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_Arbitra%C5%BEni_sporazavailable 2010, 4 November version), English (original Croatia of Republic 116 parties and it will be the final settlement of the dispute. http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_Arbitra%C5%BEni_sporaz Available at: (c).”, and (b) 3(1) Article in to referred determinations the for circumstances relevant all account into by taking result (b) international law, equity and the principle of good neighbourly relations (a) the inrules principles and order of international to lawfor achievethe determinations referred to Articleina fair 3 (1)(a); and just “The Arbitral Tribunal shall apply 118 areas.” maritime relevant ofthe use the for regime the (c) (b) Slovenia’s junction to the High Sea; ofSlovenia; Republic the and ofCroatia the Republic between boundary land and maritime ofthe course the (a) “(1) ArbitralThe Tribunal shall determine 117 Državni zbor Republike Slovenije, Republike zbor Državni sabor, Hrvatski of the Government the and ofSlovenia Republic of the Government the between Agreement Arbitration Arbitration Agreement, 2009, Article 4: Arbitration Agreement, 2009, Article 3(1): consent to Slovenia’s claim to its territorial contact with the high seas.” Croatia and ofof Republicthe Government the Slovenia shallbe understood as Croatia’s “ Croatian ratified parliament Agreementthe on 20Novemberthe 2009,with the Nothing in the Arbitration Agreement between the Government of the Republic of http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/medunarodni/default.aspx Odluka o proglašenju zakona opotvr (last visited onJune 2 2010) 118 , 20 November2009, Croatian Official Gazzette, International Agreements, Odloka orazpisu zakonodajnega referenduma o Zakonu o ratifikaciji 117 Article 4 states legal Articlethe states shall be which 4 provisions 40 ÿ ivanju Sporazuma o arbitraži izme 116 (last visited 2 June 2010) The main purpose of the Tribunal is Tribunal the of purpose main The 119 120 ÿ u Vlade Republike The question ), Slovenian ), CEU eTD Collection of article inforceisAccording of tothat “every treaty toit Treaties. parties the upon binding of ratification process. Avbelj Letnar Avbelj and process. ratification from it partnerbecause ofbeingthe Slovenia.withdrew Croatia wasaccused an unreliable have remained unresolved. the question remains had there notbeen an external incentive, how long the question would with negotiation process the European Union, so borderduring wasraised the Slovenian resolve all the points of the dispute on both land and maritime border. The issue of the list.si/1/content?id=97580&part=&highlight=zakonodajnega+referenduma OfficialGazzette, 4 May 2010, No. 36/2010, available at: Drnovšek-Ra Therefore, reach anagreement. to inorder reconsider them to will lackpolitical of a clear was andthere to their positions initiatives came from either of the parties during the 1990s. Both countries were holding on Analysis 3.3 The to partiesthe whichhasnotbeen before. offered this particular moment. Furthermore, it is useful to scrutinise itin order to see what it offersin came resolution the that it is why and before reached been have could agreement of kind seen in whosefavour judgement the will However, question go. the whetherremains this solution problem the of beenforyears, has that presentalmostit 20 though beremains to ratification of the Agreement. added by Croatia parliamentary governmentof addedtothe of Republic the the on decision has raised a lot of controversy in the Slovenian public, particularly because of the statement pacta suntservanda The Drnovšek-Ra The chronology of the political events has shown that not many significant many not that shown has events political the of chronology The If itpasses Slovenian the referendum, Arbitration the Agreementcouldbe the , according to the Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law the on Convention Vienna the of 26 Article the to according , þ an agreement was long one of the main points of reference for of reference main points the of was long one an agreement ý erni þ accuse Croatia of not respecting the principle the not respecting of Croatia accuse þ 41 an agreement was the significant attempt to significant was the agreement an http://www.uradni- (last visited 2 June 2010) CEU eTD Collection Convention, as the treaty evensigned. was never treaty asthe Convention, Article the 14of same the according to to beboundby treaty, the theexpressed consent was Agreement neverin force it and is therefore notlegallybinding, because neverCroatia and (2)of the Convention, which should be ableshare to the surplus of the living resources and 70(1) articles 57 the to according state disadvantaged a geographically as considered Sloveniacanbe Furthermore, Slovenia. and between Croatia of bilateral relations in deterioration the further asastep beseen can zones economic of the Proclamation over. jurisdiction have certain they territory the on not if are zone, they theeconomic proclaim can how countries the of any maritime delimitation, is noclear asthere action. However, by justified be Croatian the Therefore, asprovoked border dispute. Slovenian response can unresolved the considering problematic, somewhat as seen be can proclamation Croatian Convention, states do have Article accordingof tothe countries.both the Although 55of 1982UNCLOS the the right to proclaim their economic zones, the obviouslytiming notable togain even fromsupport his own coalition partners. of the was not ratified. It actually in fact the treaty the that is weight political acertain have there not any does obligations, shows the weakness of the Prime Minister Ra http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf 121 andbeby faith”. must performedin them good http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf negotiation. the during expressed was or representative (d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full (c) the powersrepresentative of its of the Statebe required; has signed should the treatyratification that subject wereagreed States to ratification; the negotiating orthat established otherwise is it (b) (a) the treaty provides for such consent to be expressed by means of ratification;1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification 14: Article when: 122 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 26, available at: Viena Convention on Law of the Treaties, 1969, The next interesting point is the proclamation of the exclusive economic zones by zones economic exclusive the isof theproclamation interesting point The next 42 122 Although it is clear that legally Croatia 121 However, the Drnovšek-Ra the However, (last visited on 2June 2010) þ an, as he was þ an CEU eTD Collection a statement that Croatia does not give consent fro Slovenia’s exit to the highseas. to the Slovenia’s exit fro give consent not Croatia does that a statement law by making Arbitration addedasupplementgovernment Agreement, tothe the ratifying to the high seas. The importance of this have be connection territorial if does the surprising decides thatSlovenia not theTribunal provision can be seen from the fact thatitwould Therefore, neighbourly relations. and good Croatian principlesequity of the according to Article 4(b), this question shall be resolved not only according tointernational law, but also the to According seas. high the to ‘junction’ Slovenian the mentions it as controversial, most be the to seems (b) (1) 3 Article provisions. law international the interpret to decide how is to Tribunal the on It forparties. both seemsasavictory this earlier, law even As maritime Slovenia both border. haveinternational and Croatia of provisions invoked parties apply have agreed to ofinternational provisions the todeterminelaw the land and 124 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htmown. oftheir zones economic exclusive no claim can which for or region subregion the in States adequate supplies ofof other forfish the nutritional zones purposes of their populations economic or parts thereof, coastal exclusive and States the of resources living of the exploitation bordering enclosedsemi-enclosed or seas, whose geographical situation makes them dependent upon the 2. For the purposes of Part,this "geographically disadvantaged States" means coastal States, including61 and States62. of articles and article ofthis provisions the with inconformity and concerned States the ofall circumstances of zones economic exclusive coastal Statesof the of the same subregion or region, taking intoresources account the living relevanteconomic of the and geographical surplus of the part appropriate of an exploitation Geographically1. disadvantaged States shall have the toright participate,on equitablean basis,in the UNCLOS Article 70: wide. miles nautical 200 zone economic an proclaim to state any for enough wide not is Sea Adriatic The the which from baselines the breadthfrom of miles the territorial nautical 200 sea is beyond measured.“extend not shall zone economic exclusive „The 123 of purpose the this analysis, 3 articles (1) and4seem be to the most important. For sea. the and land on both Slovenia, and Croatia between dispute border the to solution What3.3.1 doesthe Arbitration Agreement offer? state. disadvantaged argue tobearticles, ageographically Croatia also could from the coastal states of the same region or sub region. However, according to these See footnotes 117 and 118 UNCLOS Article 57: As it was explained in the previous section, the Arbitration Agreementoffers a section,As it Arbitration was the inthe previous explained 43 123 124 The two The CEU eTD Collection http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/zakupci-ce-se-recesiji-suprotstaviti-povoljnim-cijenama-clanak-6108 125 themselves. theparties between accord answered is whether that was actually done as a result of an external incentive or abilateral be to remains that question only The done. have ministers prime two the what exactly to combine the two approaches in order to be able toresolve the disputes. Itseems that itis way. more conciliatory Obviously, the twoparties needed some externalincentive tounderstand their positions in a andPahor. Kosor between tothemeeting prior United the States his to from returned trip The reason in favour of this theory is the fact that Slovenian foreign minister had just by butalso partners, United States. the by its only not European Slovenia was pressured that fact the with but Pahor, and Kosor with do to nothing has reached was agreement reason why the the claim that newspapers resolve. Some to long asimpossible seemed managed speedimprove thethe situation that prime inwhich to minister newCroatian the seen. be acceptforbinding it. Croatia decisionthe How to Kosor’s will popularity affect to remains referendum makesand it theTribunal inSlovenia’s the decision favour, belegally will ifHowever, Slovenian the population confirms Agreement Arbitration the on the on 2 June 2010) 2 June on Vecernji.hr , Vecernji.hr What is also interesting about the events connected to the Arbitration Agreement is Agreement Arbitration the to connected events the about interesting is also What These events These which fitagain into it according events Koskenniemi’stheory, to is necessary Žbogar: Nema pritiska odstrane SAD-a oko grani 125 44 þ nog spora , 30 July 2009, available at: (last visited CEU eTD Collection international politics. However, due to the fact that it is different than the other legal systems, legal theother than it is different factthe that to due However, politics. international Slovenia.comparison to will the have principleof include equity in an does longand Croatia coastline, extremely decision final the as seas, high the to access gain will it that impossible not is it but Bay, Piran the two parties. of positions the between compromise be a probably will It decision the but is predictions, make highly unlikely that Slovenia will have politicalthe resolution of dispute.the jurisdiction the on States United The and Union European the factors, over external the of influence the the entire beexplainhas moved deadmightnot Koskenniemi’s from able end.However, theory the to question the why is which adjustments, these made have countries two the of ministers prime necessary interpretto the facts presented by the other party and make certain adjustments. The arguments by parties two the inwere insufficient reaching thesolutions, which is it why was availablecombining the political When itresolvecomes part, to disputewithout them. the itis to approaches impossible each other, aredependenton two As fact approach. these bewhich successful. to Croatiaproved isaclearexample of legalandthe Slovenia of a pure way. interpreting inbut adifferent legal them invoking the same provisions, parties are frequently be resolved through strict application law;of inevitably it required apolitical asthe decision, cannot dispute the that clear itbecame parties, two of the arguments thelegal of analysis the Through Slovenia. and between Croatia dispute border a of case study a based on relations, Therefore, internationala lawsignificant doubt has without position in the Regarding the possible suggestions on the legal solution of the case, it is difficult to Koskenniemi’sThe on used inthispapersovereignty, approach theory theoretical was international and law international of interdependence the shown has paper This CONCLUSION 45 CEU eTD Collection Piran Piran Bay which couldfacilitate theirdispute, in resolution future. the in disputes pending caseof the someCroatia, couldbe lessons certainly from learned the border As more there are states. between therelations inconducting moresuccessful much be also lawcould international of will, political amount With a certain relations. bilateral without a political decision and the will of the states. makecannot adecision court in aninternational end,even the Therefore, circumstance. no international legal provision can force a state to obey a certain rule under every In conclusion, this case can serve as an example for the states how not to conduct to not how states the for example an as serve can case this conclusion, In 46 CEU eTD Collection Byers, Michael, StatuteArticle 38(1), of International the ofJustice,Court Charter oftheUnited Nations Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, Convention ontheTerritorial Seaandthe Contiguous Zone Charter oftheUnited Nations Blake, G.H., Topalovi BBC News, and Matej Letnar Avbelj, Armstrong, David, Farrell, Theo and Lambert, Helen, betweenArbitration Agreement Slovenia andthe of oftheRepublic theGovernment BBC News, Arbitration Agreementbetween theGovernment oftheRepublic Croatia and the 1996. Press, ISBN81-314-2285-4.. Available atSSRN: Marine Governance Environment: Amicus Concerns, 2009, Books,Icfai University of International Law & Policy, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2007. Reprinted in A. Sabitha (ed.), Croatia -TheCaseof MaritimeDelimitation, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml Press, 1999. http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_ http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/slovenia_CR%20MoFA-chronology.pdfDispute between Croatia andSlovenia”, “ Relations sea.pdf http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7788646.stm Arbitra%C5%BEni_sporazum_-_podpisan_EN.pdf http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_ Governmentthe ofRepublic Croatia Arbitra%C5%BEni_sporazum_-_podpisan_EN.pdf Governmentthe ofRepublic Slovenia http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_ Slovenia blocksCroatian EU Croatia's PMsteps down Custom, andthePower Power ofRules, , Cambridge, Cambridge NewYork: University Press, 2007. ü , D., ý erni The Maritime Boundariesthe Adriatic Sea of Article 2,paragraph3, Article 33,paragraph1, þ , Jernej, BIBLIOGRAPHY , 1 July , 1July 2009, The Conundrum ofthePiran Bay:Sloveniav. talks, 17December 2008, 47 (original English version), 4November 2010, , Stockholm, 4 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8128746.stm The University of Pennsylvania Journal International Law International Law and International Cambridge: Cambridge University http://ssrn.com/abstract=990183 , Article 12 th November 2009, Chronology Border ofthe : , IBRU, Durham, , CEU eTD Collection Delo.si, Ibler, Vladimir, Ibler, sabor, Hrvatski Helsinki Final Act, Government of Republicthe Slovenia, of official website, Ra Drnovšek- webpage, Official Slovenia, Republic of of the Government Government of the Republic of Croatia, official website, News and Announcements: Ghebrewebet, Helen: Državni Republikezbor Slovenije, orazpisu Odloka zakonodajnegaZakonu o referenduma o RepublikeDržavni zbor razglasitvi conein Slovenije, Zakon o zaštitne ekološke Degan, Vladimir- Government of the Republic of Croatia, official webpage, official Croatia, of Republic the of Government Gazzette, International Agreements, International Gazzette, Slovenije Hrvatske iRepublike Vlade Republike http://www.vlada.si/si/teme_in_projekti/arbitrazni_sporazum/zgodovina_resevanja_vp at: meje, available http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/4.b_D (English translation), Article 3, August2007, settlementframework ofborder for disputes likely to bedefined by year's end, http://www.delo.si/clanek/72598 Maritime Law,br. vol.1-4(145- 37, 148), Zagreb, 1995. novine.nn.hr/medunarodni/default.aspx rasanja_meje/ rnovsek-Racan_EN.pdf _okvir_za_prepustanje_spora_icj_u_vjerojatno_do_kraja_godine a+referenduma 36/2010, Republike Hrvaške(OdZRBHRAS), Slovenian 4May Official Gazzette, 2010, No. ratifikaciji Arbitražnega sporazuma med Vlado Republike Slovenije in Vlado list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200593&stevilka=4021 Gazzette, No.93/2005, 4October 2005, epikontinentalnem pasu Republike Slovenian Slovenije (ZRZECEP), Official Boundaries, 1994. uZagrebu, 44,br.Zagreb:god. fakulteta Zbornik Sveu 5-6, Pravnog http://si.mvp.hr/?mh=234&mv=1315 Slovenija vztraja pri svojihpogojih Odluka o proglašenju zakona opotvr http://www.uradnilist.si/1/content?id=97580&part=&highlight=zakonodajneg Državna granica namoru izme Ĉ Frankfurt am Frankfurt Lang,Mein: Peter 2005. http://www.osce.org/item/15661.html uro http://www.vlada.hr/en/naslovnica/novosti_i_najave/2007/kolovoz/pravni Identifying Identifying Units ofStatehood andDetermining International Maritime Frontiersthe of Croatia,Republic of , http://narodne- 10 December 2008, 48 ÿ http://www.uradni- u RepublikeHrvatske iRepublikeSlovenije, ÿ ivanju Sporazuma oarbitraži izme , 20 November 2009, Croatian Official Zgodovina reševanja vprašanja in: Comparative þ an Agreement an þ ilišna tiskara, Legal 26 ÿ u CEU eTD Collection Koskenniemi, Martti, Map 1. Internal administrative borders borders of Map 1.Internal Yugoslavia administrative Malanczuk, Peter, Lalonde, Suzane: Klemen Ministarstvo Republike Slovenije za zadeve,zunanje Ministarstvo Ra Map 3.-the Map 2. The location of the Piran Bay, Kelsen, Hans, Jutarnji.hr, Jutarnji.hr, Interview with Joško Paro, Deputy Foreign Minister in the Ra Keohane, Robert O., Possideti,s Argument, Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, 2009. http://www.icty.org/x/image/ABOUTimagery/Yugoslavia%20maps/3_%20yugoslavia ICTY, Source: 1997. 2009, Tiskarna 2006; d.d., English translation). of ofbetweenCroatia theRepublic Sloveniaand the Republic (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia, Hrvaškoin Republiko Slovenijo 24ur.com http://www.mvpei.hr/custompages/static/hrv/templates/_frt_govori.asp?id=57 August 2010, Westview Press, 1989. http://mapsof.net/croatia/static-maps/jpg/bay-of-piran-maritime-boundary-dispute _map_1991_sml_en.png poglavlja/280307/ komisije-je-dobra/284717/ Publishing Company, 1968. Stanley, http://www.jutarnji.hr/slovenija-presudila--blokada-pregovora-s-eu-u-11- þLü , Mladen, Topalovi , Mladen, Slovenija presudila: blokada pregovora s EU u13 Pahor: Nazvat http://www.jutarnji.hr/pahor--nazvat-cu-sanadera--inicijativa-europske- The Essence ofInternationalLaw þ The Relevance of International Law, ofInternational The Relevance an-Drnovšek Agreement, an-Drnovšek http://24ur.com/novice/slovenija/slovenija-ima-mocne-argumente.html Determining Boundaries in aConflicted World. The Role ofUtiž (Montreal: Queen's McGill- University Press, 2002. Helsinki:Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Company, 1989. Akehurst's ModernIntroduction toInternational Law International Institutions and State Power From Utopia Apologyto .The Structure Legal ofInternational ü u Sanadera, inicijativaEuropske komisije je ü , Duško, , (Ljubljana: DELO- Tiskarna d.d., 2006) Morske granice uJadranskom moru, 49 , ed.Deutsch, Karl W. and Hoffmann Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Massachusetts: Cambridge, Bela knjigaomeji med Republiko þ poglavlja, 17December2008, an government in Vjesnik, 24 , Boulder, Colorado: White Paper ontheBorder , Ljubljana: DELO- London:Routhledge, dobra, 27January Zagreb: CEU eTD Collection Skupna izjava izogibanjuo incidentov (Slovenian version of Statement),the 10June 2005, Shaw, M. N., Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vecernji.hr , Vecernji.hr , Vecernji.hr United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Steve: Terret, Ecyclopedia Stanford of Philosophy, Marie, Burley, Anne- Slaughter Peter, Radan, Republicof the of Parliament Slovenia, for and Elections, DemocraticOffice Institutions Rights- Human Nacional, 2nd February 2007, Turkalj, Kristijan: Turkalj, http://www.esiweb.org/enlargement/?cat=15#awp::?cat=15 Issue http://www.pravnadatoteka.hr/pdf/aktualno/hrv/20021015/Turkalj_Razgranicenje_terit http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/6._Bri of Government website: Republicthe Slovenia, official of Jadranu Routhledge, 2002. http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/zakupci-ce-se-recesiji-suprotstaviti-povoljnim-cijenama- odnosa-samostalnosti-danas-clanak-17098 http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm orijalnog_mora.pdf Agenda onska_izjava_2005.pdf morandum_o_Piranskem_zalivu.pdf http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/31177/predstavljena-plava-knjiga clanak-6108 September 2009, http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/2._Me April 1993, Government of Republicthe Slovenia: of England: Ashgate, 2000. http://www.osce.org/odihr-elections/14356.html (22February available2009), at: Žbogar: Kronologija hrvatsko- slovenskih odnosaodsamostalnosti dodanas International Law, 6thedition, The YugoslaviaBreak-up of andInternational Law The Dissolution of Yugoslavia andtheBadinterArbitration Commission, , American Journal of International Law, vol. 87, No. 2 (1993). , Croatian Legal Database, 2002, 24; available at: Razgrani Nema pritiska odstrane SAD-a okograni http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/kronologija-hrvatsko-slovenskih- þ enje teritorijalnog moraizmeenje teritorijalnog International Law and International Relations: ADual http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ Non Paper: Chronology ofSlovenia-CroatiaBorder Non Paper: Memorandum onthePiran Bay Cambridge: Cambridge University 2008. Press, 50 ÿ u Hrvatske iSlovenijeusjevernom þ nog spora , NewYork,London: , Ljubljana, 7 , 30July 2009, , 11 th of CEU eTD Collection Viena Convention on Law of the Treaties, 1969, Article 14, Zagorac, Vlado, Zagorac, Zastupni Waltz, Kenneth: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 26, Vidas, Davor, September 2009, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf ne ide, of of April 1999, HrvatskeiRepublikeSlovenije Republike Columbia University 1959. Press, pregovora-otisli-kavu-clanak-16909 http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf þ ki dom državnogdom ki Sabora,Hrvatskog Hrvatsko- slovensko razgrani Zagreb, Školska knjiga,2009. Man, the Man, State and War. ATheoreticalAnalysis, Kosor iPahor dogovorili deblokadupregovora paotišlinakavu http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/default.aspx http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/kosor-pahor-dogovorili-deblokadu- þ enje. Me enje. 51 Deklaracija ostanju me , Croatian Official No. 32/99, Gazzette, 2nd ÿ unarodno pravo jecrta ispodkojese New York, London: ÿ udržavnih odnosa , 11