sign in sign up
<<
Home , Adriatic Sea, Albania, Gulf of Venice, Italy, Prevlaka, Province of Rovigo

Maritime boundaries and geographical names in the Adriatic

Mladen KLEMENČIĆ* 1)

The delimitation of boundaries in semi-enclosed such as Adriatic is a complex issue. The first bilateral agreement on the was reached at an early stage in the of maritime delimitations in the 1960's, but potential offshore boundary system became complicated with the increase of number of coastal states in 1990's. The paper provides an overview of the development of the system, and highlights remaining unresolved boundaries. Present-day geographical names are generally harmonized with actual political division between coastal states: geographical names along coast of the Adriatic have names of Italian origin, while along the eastern coast Slavic (mainly Croatian) names are in use.

The Adriatic Sea is the northernmost arm of the . It is a semi-- closed sea that sits as a lobe deeply incised into the European separating the Apennine (or Italian) Peninsula from the coast of semi-peninsular Southeastern . In the north and , the Adriatic touches the western shore of , and in the east, proceeding from north to south, the coasts of , , Bosnia-, Croatia again, and . In total, the Adriatic Sea covers approximately 138,595 sq km of maritime space. At its southern end, it connects to the at the approximately 60 km wide Strait of between Italy and the Greek of , where it opens into the greater Mediterranean. The Adriatic sea (Mare in Italian, Jadransko more in Croatian) is named after , presently a and commune in Italian of . In Roman times Adria was a coastal town and flourishing harbour which gave its name to the sea. Paradoxically, the town is presently some 20 kms away from the Adriatic coast, due to continual silting of the and deltas. There is a striking contrast between the two adjacent coasts of the Adriatic. Western,

* Fellow, Lexicographical Institute in , Croatia

81 Mladen KLEMENČ IĆ i.e. Italian coast is generally low and straight; much of it is sandy, with marshy north- ern headlands; having no in front of it. Opposite, the eastern side, presently mainly belonging to Croatia, is bold and rocky, well indented, full of large and small is- lands as well as inlets. The first bilateral maritime boundary agreement in the Adriatic between Italy and was reached in 1968, at the early stage in the history of maritime delim- itations, especially in the Mediterranean , and it drew considerable attention from researchers (Scovazzi, 1993). The collapse of the political framework established follow- ing the War II in 1990's has had a profound effect on the maritime boundaries in the Adriatic. The potential offshore boundary system became more complicated because of the increase in number of coastal states (Blake, 1993/94). Among the consequences of this was the increase of number of disputes concerning maritime delimitations since 1991. The Adriatic appeared to be an interesting field for researchers, especially in the context of application of detailed instructions concerning maritime delimitation provided by the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (Blake and Topalović, 1996).

Maritime boundaries in the Adriatic

In the period following the WW II there were just three coastal states in the Adriatic. The total of 3737 km of coast was shared between former Yugoslavia (56%), Italy (33%) and Albania (11%). A small number of coastal states should theoretically enhance the prospects for co-operation, but it did not flourish as it might have been expected. This was largely the consequence of the fact that each of the coastal states had distinct ideo- logical orientations and geopolitical codes. Italy was a part of NATO , Albania was a rigid , initially a Pact member and later on a dissident of the Soviet bloc with a strong isolationistic policy. Yugoslavia, ideologically a "soft-communist" state, maintained a neutral position between the East and the West, while co-operating with both sides. With regard to developments in the maritime boun- dary system, this political context meant that the only bilateral achievements between the Adriatic states were delimitations settled between Italy and Yugoslavia. Due to its unfriendly foreign policy, Albania did not want to delimit its maritime boundaries. Remaining maritime jurisdiction and their limits, namely territorial seas and base- lines, were proclaimed unilaterally.

82 Maritime boundaries and geographical names in the Adriatic Sea

All three coastal states proclaimed territorial sea. Albania initially proclaimed terri- torial sea which extended 15 nautical miles. In 1990 Albania corrected the breadth of ter- ritorial sea to the conventional 12 nautical miles. Italy in 1974 and former Yugoslavia in 1979 proclaimed their 12 nautical miles territorial seas. The straight baselines were also adopted by all sides. Yugoslavia completed its baseline system, the most complex of the three, in 1965. Albania proclaimed its baseline system in 1970 and modified it in 1976. Finally, Italy proclaimed its system in 1977. Besides Adriatic coast, Italian baseline sys- tem extends to Ionian and . Detailed overview of the straight baselines and territorial sea in the Adriatic was provided by Blake and Topalović (1996). The agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia, signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970, was the first concluded for the delimitation of the in the Mediterranean. The boundary line extended for 353 nautical miles, and basically was equal to equidistant line. A more complex delimitation was needed only in the cen- tral Adriatic in order to compensate Italy for the effect of Yugoslav open-sea islands of Jabuka and Palagruža. The parties agreed not to extend the boundary south of Point 43 because Albania might have its . The parties to the treaty also decided to leave open the territorial sea boundary in the Gulf of , taking into account that delim- itation of the Italy-Yugoslavia was only provisionally resolved at the time when the treaty was concluded. Blake (1993/94) has emphasized the agreement was widely considered as a fair and mutually satisfactory delimitation (Blake, 1993/94). The northernmost section of the Italy-Yugoslavia maritime boundary, the territorial sea boundary in the , was agreed upon by the Treaty of in 1975 which was concluded mainly to put an end to the longstanding issue of land boundary delimitation between the two countries. The boundary line connects five points. Terminal point 5 has the same co-ordinates as starting point 01 of the 1968 continental shelf agreement. Redrawing of the European political map in the period of geopolitical transition, which came following the collapse of bipolar world and demise of , created new - uation in the Adriatic. A number of coastal states doubled. Former Yugoslav coast was divided into Slovenian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, and, immensely longest Croatian part. Croatia inherited about 85% of Yugoslav coast (1780 km) and practically all the islands. Such a long coastline ranks Croatia at the first or second position among “new” European states, depending on whether one islands or not (Blake, 1993/94).

83 Mladen KLEMENČ IĆ

Figure 1. Maritime boundaries in the Adriatic Sea

84 Maritime boundaries and geographical names in the Adriatic Sea

Most of the present-day off-shore boundaries were initially parts of former Yugoslavia-Italy boundary agreed in 1970's (Figure 1). The former Italy-Yugoslavia maritime delimitations remained in place and were unaffected by the of Yugoslavia. On the basis of the principle of succession, the formerly integral Italian-Yugoslav boundary line through the Adriatic has been inherited as the Italy-Slovenia, Italy-Croatia and Italy-Montenegro maritime boundary. Although the succession has not been confirmed by a formal document, none of the sides involved have expressed any legal, political, geographical or other reason to claim revision. In 1992 Albania and Italy concluded the agreement on maritime delimitation of con- tinental shelf. The boundary was agreed on the basis of the principle of equidistance that is expressed by the median line. It was simple and clear case of delimitation, easily reached under the new geopolitical circumstances following international opening of Albania.

Unresolved maritime boundaries

To complete maritime boundaries system in Adriatic, four boundaries are still missing. All of them are lateral ones, which means in length, but not necessarily easier to negotiate. One of them is Montenegro-Albania, which was not settled before 1990’s between Yugoslavia and Albania. Other boundaries which are to be settled ap- peared as the result of the break-up of Yugoslavia. Contrary to the land boundaries, maritime boundaries between former Yugoslav re- publics were not precisely defined. Boundary lines on land were generally well-defined, widely in use on a daily basis and widely recognized as such. The need for the delim- itation of republican jurisdictions at sea was not priority and consequently the lines were not clearly defined. In new situation which developed following the break-up of the former federation, successor states needed to delimit initially integral . Croatia and Slovenia were the first two states to start negotiations of the new inter- national boundary. Long-lasting negotiations have been monitored by researchers who analysed the backgrounds of certain problems (Klemenčić and Schofield, 1995; 2002) and also tried to help in finding a peaceful solution (Gosar et Klemenčić, 2000; Klemenčić&Gosar, 2000). In spite of seemingly favourable circumstances, and almost

85 Mladen KLEMENČ IĆ two decades of efforts, Croatia and Slovenia have not managed to find a commonly sat- isfactory solution. Instead of resulting with progress towards solution, negotiations in 2008 resulted with Slovenia's blockade of Croatia's EU Accession negotiations. The dis- pute was finaly submitted to arbitration in accordance with an Arbitration Agreement between Croatia and Slovenia concluded in 2009 under the auspices of the . According to the agreed arbitration procedure, the parties completed and in February 2013 exchanged Memorials in which they elaborated their own views and proposed solutions. Presently, both parties are simultaneously filling Counter-Memorials, scheduled to be completed by 2013. Maritime delimitation between Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina is geographically a peculiar case. It illustrates the enduring importance of history in creating political map because Bosnia-Hercegovina’s exit to the coast is “one of Europe’s most extraordinary historic legacies” (Blake and Topalović, 1996). Short corridor to the sea at , split- ing Croatian land territory in two parts, entitles Bosnia-Herzegovina to its own terri- torial sea within Croatian . Maritime boundary was formally settled as part of the overall boundary treaty between two states reached in 1999. It is defined as “median line between the land of the of Croatia and of , in accordance with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea” (Klemenčić, 1999-2000). However, the agreement has never been ratified by parlia- ments, while some proposed solutions were occasionaly questioned in public on both sides. Following 2000 the issue of jurisdiction over sea was repeatedly raised by Bosnia-Herzegovina concerning Croatia’s project of building the 2.5 kms long bridge across the Channel of Ston to connect its mainland and the Pelješac peninsula and by-pass Bosnia-Herzegovina’s exit to sea at the Bay of Neum. Although the bridge itself was planned beyond the potentially disputed territory, Bosnia-Herzegovina repeatedly questioned its existence because it, allegedly, may restrict navigational conditions. In practice the at Neum is virtually valueless, but the Neum-Klek has become a potent bargaining counter in the post-war negotiations. A new dimension to the issue has been added with Croatia's EU membership. What was until 2013 the issue of Croatia's territorial integrity, became 's ter- ritorial problem when Croatia gained membership. Whatever the result is, the outcome of that issue will be highly interesting in the context of both, international relations and political .

86 Maritime boundaries and geographical names in the Adriatic Sea

Another unresolved maritime boundary is the one between Croatia and Montengro. In early stage it also envolved the issue of the peninsula, which is the part of Croatia and forms the northern arm of promontories guarding the entrance to the bay of , majority of which is part of Montenegro. As long as Montenegro was part of joint state with , dispute over the Prevlaka peninsula seemed to be the most con- troversial in ex-Yugoslav space. As soon as Montenegro gained independence, the issue ceased to exist as an open problem. Presently it seems that solution might be reached between neighbouring states and within the framework of UNCLOS.

Use of geographical names

having in mind that the maritime boundary system is generally almost completed, it is not surprising that the use of geographical names is not a source of conflicts and dis- putes between coastal states. In international use, names of coastal and , as well as islands and maritime features are respected due to existing international boundaries. This means that along western and northern Adriatic coast Italian geo- graphical names are used, along most of eastern coast Slovene, Croatian and Montenegrin names are in use, and along the most southeastern coast Albanian names prevail. Such a situation developed in the period following the WW II and is a consequence of tolerant political relations between coastal states and their succesful eforts to define maritime boundaries as described previously in text. In previous periods, however, geo- graphical names of Italian origin were dominating and widely used, while geographical names of Slavic origin were less known in international use. The Adriatic has been of great importance in the historical development of the Mediterranean Europe. In the the Adriatic served as the shipping route between Europe and , dominated economicaly and politicaly for centuries by the Republic of , for some time the greatest maritime power of the . Due to that fact on majority of so-called old maps, drawn by the best-known world cartog- raphers, Adriatic sea was named Golfo di Venezia - . This is illustrated by the two examples, the 1669 map by Dutch cartographer J.Blaeu (Figure 2) and the 1684 map by G. Cantelli da (Figure 3). It is a rare case that the entire sea was named after a single coastal town, no matter how strong and influential it was.

87 Mladen KLEMENČ IĆ

Figure 2. J. Blaeu, Map of Illyricum, , 1669

Independent Venetian republic ceased to exist in 1797 and after a turbulent period of wars it came under Austrian rule in 1815. Part of historical Venetian terri- tory was incorporated into in 1866. The rest of the former Venetian possesions along Adriatic coasts remained disputed between Italy and until the end of the WW I, and later between Italy and newly created un- til the end of the WW II. During those times Italian names continued to be almost ex- clusively present in international use. This refers primarily to place names and names of islands, and consequently to names of maritime areas, usually named after the land features. In reference , such as encyclopedias, and on majority of maps, Croatian towns , or Split were known primarily in their equivalented Italian form as Fiume, Zara and Spalato. The same refered to name of islands, let me mention only the largest among them, islands of , Brač, and , which were usually known as Cherso, Brazza, Veglia or Lesina, respectively.

88 Maritime boundaries and geographical names in the Adriatic Sea

Figure 3. G. Cantelli da Vignola, Map of , ..., , 1684

Land boundary between Italy and Yugoslavia was finally settled only after the WW II. After the break-up of Yugoslavia it continued to be the international boundary divid- ing Italy from Slovenia as one of the succesor states of the former Yugoslavia. Regarding the use of toponyms, situation changed significantly in the second half of the 20st . Names of Slavic origin for geographical features along the eastern side of the Adriatic gained wide international recognition and gradually substituted Italian names in international use. In most encyclopedias and on maps coastal towns, islands and maritime areas along eastern the Adriatic have been named in localy used forms. When Yugoslavia was replaced on the political map by its succesor states, those new subjects did not need to affirm national names - they were already widely in use. Presently, even Italian map makers respect existence of Slavic toponyms along the east- ern coast of Adriatic. As an example, I can quote the map of Tre Venezie in scale 1:250 000, published by Istituto geografico in 2005. This map presents and neighbouring parts of Slovenia and Croatia. Place names in Italy are writen

89 Mladen KLEMENČ IĆ in Italian form, while place names, as well as other names in Slovenia and Croatia, are writen in dual form: local Slavic name at first place, accompanied with in parenthesis. For example, the biggest Slovene port is writen (Capodistria), and its adjacent maritime space is writen as Koprski zaliv (Vallone di Capodistria). Similarly, two biggest towns on Croatian territory embraced by the map are also given in dual form, with , Croatian form being at first place: (Buie), (Umago). The name of peninsula in northern Adriatic is given exclusively in its Slavic form Istra, which is the same in Croatian and Slovene . I think it is a fair and politically correct aproach to the use of toponyms in that ethnically mixed border area. From my own experience, I can say that both Croatian and Slovene map makers are usually open towards use of Italian names - they usually appear in parenthesis after the Slavic name. Moreover, dual geographical names are legally common feature in the Adriatic , particularly in its northernmost part where national minorities are present. In the Slovene and Croatian parts of the Istria peninsula, where Italian - ity live, Italian place names are in official as well as colloquial use alongside original Croatian and Slovene names. On the other side, in the Italian region -Venezia Giulia, in towns and villages with Slovene national minority, the Slovene place names officialy stand alongside Italian names. Another interesting case regarding use of geographical names surfaced during the last two decades of dispute between Croatia and Slovenia regarding maritime boundary. Disputed maritime area embraces indentation, recessed into the northwest- ern part of Istrian peninsula, framed by Croatia along the southern coast and Slovenia along the northern coast. Before the dispute arose, that indentation was commonly known as the Bay of (Piranski zaljev or Piranski zaliv), named after the main town and port of Piran, which lies on its northern i.e. Slovene coast. In order to avoid naming which might be in favour of the Slovene boundary claim, at a certain stage Croatian side coined a new name, and started to refer to it as Savudrijska vala. New name was given after the nearest Croatian coastal town, , which lies just south of the Bay. Whenever refering to maritime dispute, Croatian oficials and resper- esentatives favour newly created name to the former one. As far as I was able to check in relevant sources, I could not find justification for such re-naming. It is a clear example of intentional use of a geographical name for political purpose. That case is ex- tensively elaborated by the Slovene geographers (Kladnik and Pipan, 2008), and was al- ready presented at the one of previous International Seminars on Sea Names.

90 Maritime boundaries and geographical names in the Adriatic Sea

Despite several unresolved boundary issues, the Adriatic sea is generally a good ex- ample of international cooperation regarding maritime delimitation. Majority of poten- tial boundary lines in the Adriatic has been agreed, or will be agreed through mutually accepted international arbitration (Croatia-Slovenia). Regarding the use of geo- graphical names, Adriatic sea is a good example of maritime space where toponyms of different language origin are fairly used in international practise and respected by the coastal states.

References

Blake; G. H. (1993/94), Croatia’s Maritime Boundaries. In: Croatia– A New European State. Zagreb: Department for Geography and , . Blake, G.H. and Topalović, D. (1996), The Maritime Boundaries of the Adriatic Sea. Martime Briefing, Vol. 1, No. 8. Durham: IBRU. Glassner, M. I. (1993), Political Geography. New York: John Willey& Sons, Inc. Gosar, A. et Klemenčić, M. (2000), Les problemes de la délimitation de la frontiere Italie-Slovénie-Croatie en Adriatique septentrionale. In: Sanguin, A. L. (ed.) Mare Nostrum. Dynamiques et mutations géopolitiques de la Méditerranée, pp.123-134. : L’Harmattan. Kladnik D. and Pipan, P. (2008), Bay of Piran or Bay of Savudrija? An example of problematic treatment of geographical names. Acta Slovenica Vol. 48, issue 1. Klemenčić, M. (1999-2000), The Border Agreement between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina: The first but not the last. Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol.7, No.4, pp. 96-101. Durham: IBRU. Klemenčić, M. & Gosar, A. (2000), The problems of the Italo-Croato-Slovene border delimitations in the Northern Adriatic. Geojournal 52, no.2 pp. 129-137. Klemenčić, M. and Schofield, C. (1995), Croatia and Slovenia: The “four Hamlets” Case. Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol.2, No.4, pp. 65-77. Durham: IBRU. Klemenčić, M. and Schofield, C. (2002), Maritime Boundaries Claims and Disputes in the Adriatic Sea. In: Schofield, C.; Newman, D.; Drysdale, A.; Brown, J.A. (ed) The Razor’s Edge, pp. 201-221. London, , New York: Kluwer Law International. Scovazzi, T. (1993), The Agreements fot the Delimitation of the Italian Coastal Zones. Mediterranean Social Review, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 61-74.

91