Talk:Croatia–Slovenia border disputes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

User Ante Perkovic edits

Hello!

I'm tottaly unfamiliar with editing wikipedia so please bear with me. I keep editing During this time that agreement has been against Slovenian law which has been clearly saying that Slovenia is country without exit to International waters [1]. In last few years Slovenia has changed that law. because I'm having problems with the validity of the claim. The source given is a link to a Croatian newspaper. While I agree that newspaper articles in any language make a valid source of information most of the time, I think in this case both sides should refrain from asserting their views by reffering to sources such as these. As this is a heated debate for both, the Slovenians and the Croatians there is no problem in finding many populistic articles in the press of both countries. Academic or scientific articles or interviews are a great source of information, but quoting vecernji-list is like quoting some Slovenian nationalist paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.143.154 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Večernji list are respectable newspappers, one of the most influental in Croatia. --Ante Perkovic 18:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

Can you translate [http://www.mladina.si/tednik/200731/clanek/slo-tema--borut_mekina/index.print.html-l2 this paragraph from Slovenian to english:

Slovenija je svojo željo po dostopu do odprtega morja izrazila precej nespretno, leta 1993, ko je vlada podprla tako imenovani “Memorandum o Piranskem zalivu”, mesec kasneje pa je parlament omenjeni dokument potrdil še s svojimi stališči in sklepi o meji med Republiko Slovenijo in Republiko Hrvaško. V njem je zapisanih precej za Slovenijo škodljivih odstavkov, med drugim predvsem, da "Republika Slovenija … sodi v skupino geografsko prikrajšanih držav, ki zaradi geografske lege ne morejo razglasiti svoje izključne ekonomske cone”. Takšna formulacija pomeni, da Slovenija nima dostopa do odprtega morja. Memorandum je nastal 7. aprila 1993 in je bil uradno izročen Hrvaški 5. maja 1993. Janez Janša je bil leta 1993, v času, ko je bil omenjeni memorandum oblikovan, minister za obrambo v vladi Janeza Drnovška, na položaju zunanjega ministra je bil Lojze Peterle, odbor za mednarodne odnose pa je vodil Zoran Thaler. --Ante Perkovic 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll translate it when I have some time, sure. Ok, I did a google check and a local (najdi.si) check on Memorandum o Piranskem zalivu. I can't find the original source. So finding secondary sources reffering to the Memorandum, but just out of context is, to say the least, controversial. I agree that if the Slovenian side has published such a document it should be linked here. But finding Croatian articles relating to the referendum when there is no original source present is a bit problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.143.154 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Map, de.wikipedia

The German Wikipedia has a more detailed discussion of the whole dispute at de:Internationale_Konflikte_der_Nachfolgestaaten_Jugoslawiens#Die_Meeresgrenze_zwischen_Slowenien_und_Kroatien

There's also an alternative map image at Image:BorderDispute BayOfPiran blank.png -- AnonMoos 02:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Made a new map... AnonMoos 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Slovenian territorial claims? Or not?

I noticed that someone changed Piran Bay page i.e. my text Latest slovenian territorial claims was changed to Slovenian proposal of ecological protective zone.

Does proposal of ecological protective zone means that Slovenia doesn't claim that this orange triangle is under Slovenian souverenity? Because, if it does claims souverenity over this waters, than it must be explicitely stated in the article.

--Ante Perkovic 10:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not a claim

Hello!

Ecological protective zone is not a part of any nation's territory. It is usually declared in order to protect nation's rights at sea even outside its territorial waters (like Croatia declared it in 2003). Nation, which declared ecological protective zone usually wants to protect its interests and to protect ecosystem in the area. Ecological protective zone has to be in connection with nation's territorial waters (there's a problem - Slovenia says it is, Croatia says it isn't).

Have a nice day.

---

Sorry, but You are wrong.

See http://www.vecernji-list.hr/system/galleries/pics/050828/karta.jpg.

You see that yellow dotted line? That is line between epocontinental belt of former Yugoslavia and Italy. This is the area wher those two nations could claim some limited national right or leave it open for everyone. It's their choise. Italy and ex Yu could claim that right, but other countries, like Marroco or Zimbabve, couldn't because their territorial waters don't touch open see. Slovenia in the Adriatic today has the same problem - it's territorial waters doesn't reach the open see. Slovenia cannot possibly have connection to open see because, every drop od open waters is closer either to Croatia or Italy then to Slovenia. It's the only thing that matters. For the same reason, Bosnia-Herzegovina doesn't have access to open see - their coast is just to short.

--Ante Perkovic 06:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

We are not discussing national border

Listen, we are not here to decide about that. We are only discussing that ecological protective zone isn't part of national territory. Let our Governments to decide, alright? Let's not make this article based on nationalism but on pure facts.

Have a nice day.

---

I really don't believe that You don't see this as a border issue. You have either been missinformed or don't understand the problem at all.

We are discussing national borders because only the countries with free acces to open see can declare ecological protective zone or any other zone. So, it is a question of souverenity over part of the see and, therefore, we are discussing national borders. These are facts, not nationalism.

--Ante Perkovic 12:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Look, you pasted the Slovenian proposal of ecological protective zone. That's cool. But we can't discuss here if it is OK or not. We can ONLY say that it's OK for Slovenia and bad for Croatia. That's all. Further more, ecological protective zone has nothing to do with Piran Bay, which we are discussing here. Maybe you should remove that and leave only the situation in Piran Bay (which was the original goal of the article).

Rok SLO

---

But, the problem is that Slovenia CAN NOT propose an ecological protective zone because it doesn't have the right or the authority to do it. Don't you get it? The Slovenian "proposal" is NOT legally valid. It's absurd and it's against international law. It's tantamount to Croatia declaring a national park in the Alps. A country can declare an ecological protective zone ONLY if it has free access to international waters which Slovenia DOES NOT have. Therefore, if Slovenia declares an ecological protective zone, it claims free access to international waters, therefore it claims a portion of Croatian territorial waters, and therefore it IS a matter of national border. Slovenia is the only European country which claims a portion of another sovereign nation's territory. Deal with it.

--193.198.130.27 20:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL :D

But you know what's the problem? The border isn't set yet so neither you or I know if Slovenia has access to international waters or not. :) Slovenia believes it has an access to international waters and Croatia believes it does not. BORDERS HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE. So you have no right to say that we do not have access to international waters and that Slovenia takes a portion of Croatian territory. How can you say that, if we even don't know where Croatian territory is?

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

According to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in case of dispute, both side should restrain from crossing the equidistant line. Croatian fishermen has respected the equidistant line since the dispute started, but Slovenian fishermen keeps ignoring this rule, with the support of their govermnent.

This statement is not completely true. After this source- [1] we can see that Croatian fishermen has also entered in this area. So Croatian fishermen did not respected equidistant line. -- 5er —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.12.231 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use english sources. If none is available, please give translation with references. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you introduce a croatian refference, and later complained about people pestering with translations to refferenes? 89.143.84.42 (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find the article that would say anything like that in the convention. Can someone find it please? Otherwise we should remove this part altogether. 213.250.60.44 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what he is referring to is article 15 which, in my view doesnt state that at all. not to mention the second part of the article which slovenia claims applies(historical right) so yes it should be removed or reworded:

Article15 Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith. @ http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

78.29.210.205 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

both based on and denied by

I replaced "both based on and denied by" with "based on" because:

In order for croatian claim to be denied by 2. sentence (historical claim), Slovenia yet has to prove that it controled all the bay all the time. I gave reference that proves the opposite just few lines below in the text.

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it only needs to prove it had a claim at some point in the past, or that certain special circumstances (exit to the international seas being an example) exist that would give Slovenia the claim to the gulf. The refference [3] you posted says as much, in case you red it, and the whole conflict is based on just this detail. Wheather or not that exceedes any and all Croatian claims is beyond the scope of this article and this talk page and a case for negotiations, arbiters or courts. We aren't debating the case for border, but a case for an encyclopaedia article.

p.s. Please don't introduce line breaks where they don't appear in the original treaties to make your case seem stronger. Thank you.

89.143.84.42 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

POV tags

I added POV tags on two sections. In the first section, because the statement implies that all the incidents were provoked by Slovene fishermen. In the second section, the problem is the claim about the Slovene proposal in 1991 that the border should run in the middle of the Bay. Sources? Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I keep removing that part (about Slovenian offer for the middle of the Bay). I'm not saying it didn't happen, but there are no sources. If hearsay is enough... I heard the Croatians offered the whole Bay if Slovenia gave them weapons for their war with Serbia. Which is probably BS. But most of such statments are. So let's not put them into an article. Since this is a touchy issue, it's best to stick to info that has valid sources. Because I think we can both come up with loads of dubious materials about the other side's mischief.

Please stop removing content. If you believe something in the article is false and requires sources, then tag with {{fact}}. If no sources are provided for the disputed material after some time, then you may remove it. Húsönd 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New page for the border dispute

Should we move parts related to border dispute to new page, and link it with {{main}} template?

I have some ideas of improving the this article and some other articles related to border dispute, and if we leave all of this stuff here, it might become clumsy.

Moreover, the bay is more that just a place of dispute. Other usefull info can be lost in political analysys, and that would be a shame.

So, I suggest moving dispute related parts to Gulf of Piran border dispute or some other similar title.

Since this talk page is only about border dispute, it should be moved to new page's talk page, together with its history of changes.

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense, but if the dispute is removed from this article, then we'll be left with a very small stub. Maybe this article should be expanded first to include information about the Gulf of Piran that is not related to the dispute, and then split. I'll be going to the Gulf in the next couple of weeks and will be able to provide some visual material, if needed. Húsönd 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are going to Piran Gulf because of this article ;)? Does wikipedia foundation pays for this stuff? BTW, I'm just preparing to work on Mars article. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I translated all the text I found on slovenian wikipedia. Regardles of the fact that this is hot topic in Croatia, I'm embaresses (being admin there for 3 years) to say that we do not have this article at all 8-P, so I have nothing to translate from croatian :(. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no, I'd be going to the Gulf of Piran anyway. :-) Well done, Ante. And don't be embarrassed about Croatian Wikipedia not having a good article about the Gulf. You know the Portuguese Wikipedia, one of the biggest? I often discover that they are lacking articles about some of the most common things there. Húsönd 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some additional resources for updating this article, but if I use it all, this will look too much like like croatian POV. I would like to see some slovenian wikipedians contributing with some of their information, that I'm not familiar with. How couls I encourage them to help me write big, detaild, but above all NPOV article? If I do it alone, it will not be NPOV. I also need their help with Slovenian EEZ. I wrote it and it looks like it is written by croatian government :-P. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm repeating my suggestion to move parts related to border dispute to new page. Border dispute is not solely related to Piran Bay, but also to some disputed areas on the land and to acces to the open sea (point T5) that is actually far from Piran Bay, in front of central parts of the western coast of Istria. Subjects described in this article are becoming increasingly unrelated to the bay itself.

IMHO, it would be best to move all this dispute-related text into new article, and leave only a link here. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Project for disputes between Croatia and Slovenia

Hi,

Is anyone interested in creating a project for disputes between Croatia and Slovenia.

If you are, see Project for disputes between Croatia and Slovenia and proposal for creation of this project that I left at slovenian wikipedia.

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section

Sea border between Slovenia and Croatia according to the Drnovšek-Račan Agreement which was never ratified

I've tagged the section 'Dispute' as POV, as it includes a map showing a part of the Gulf as claimed by Slovenia. It should be marked as disputed territory, as from the Slovenian point of view, it is claimed by Croatia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Claim" isn't a derogatory word -- claiming something doesn't imply that that thing must be true or must be false. However, Slovenia is the side which wants to most change the more or less status quo situation... AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WORDS#Claim is quite clear about the word claim: "By itself, the word "claim" does not carry POV. However, it has a high potential for abuse because it can often suggest or imply that a speaker is not being truthful. "Claim" can be appropriate for characterizing both sides of a subjective debate or disagreement. Do not use "claim" for one side and a different verb for the other, as that could imply that one has more merit."

As for who wants to most change the status quo, it's actually Croatia that wants to start an international arbitration as soon as possible. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

When Croatian government officials look at Croatian government maritime maps, they're basically satisfied with the current situation; when Slovenian government officials look at Slovenian government maritime maps, they're not satisfied with the current situation. Therefore Croatia is the status quo power. AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be mean, but that's just something you made up over the dinner. It's a fact that Slovenia wants to retain the status quo of 25 June 1991, while Croatia wants to disrupt it.[2] The newspaper Delo reported that even Marjan Podobnik, the founder of the Institution of the 25 June (Zavod 25. junij), argued for the status quo.[3] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Croatia thinks it already owns all the maritime territory in the area that it's seriously interested in, and wants its title confirmed and acknowledged, while Slovenia does not think that it already owns all the maritime territory that it's seriously interested in (cf. the corridor). AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles provided say just the opposite: "From the very outset of the dispute, the Slovenian side has maintained that it expects Croatian authorities to respect the border situation of June 25, 1991—the date the two countries declared independence from the former Yugoslavia—and the accord on avoiding incidents that the two governments signed in June 2005. The most straightforward Slovenian argument is that Slovenia has sovereignty over the whole Piran Bay and, therefore, the maritime border needs to be set according to the principle of equity with due regard to the relevant circumstances."[4] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've now removed a useful map from the article over matters of abstract theoretical metaphysics and fine semantic hair-splitting. AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Although your way of expression amuses me, you have to know that WP:CIVIL is a policy and your post does not seem very civil to me. It may look like semantic hair-splitting to you, however the map caused a lot of controversy in the Slovene Wikipedia community. I agree that it is potentially useful and invite you to remove the pov so that it may be included in the article again (or I'll do it in some time). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: why is Koper tagged with its Italian name Capodistria? As it is situated in Slovenia, we should use its Slovene name. Per Wikipedia:NCON#Proper nouns: "If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation (or an English translation thereof) applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found." --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See also commons:Image talk:Bay-of-Piran maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Croatian territory in Savudrijska vala that is claimed by Slovenia is patrolled by Croatian coast guard and Slovenian trespassers are fined, as it has been shown in the ZERP controversy earlier this year. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In direct contradiction with the agreement, yes, which is why for example the fishing boats in the area are accompanied by Slovene police forces. ZERP itself violates EU regulations and doesn't legally affect Slovenia or Italy. --Yerpo (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We could argue about the hegemonistic political machinations through which the EU had the ZERP disbanded, but I'm not talking about ZERP territory here. There are countless articles in the newspapers about Slovenian fishers caught or spotted by Croatian police but I've never read about a Croatian fisher caught by Slovenian police. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 13:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, leave your personal opinion to yourself and refrain from calling political decisions you don't like "hegemonistic machinations". There are two reasons you have never read about Croatian fishers spotted or caught by Slovenian police: a) your reading is limited to sources from one side (here's an example from the other side) and b) Slovenian police respects the agreement about avoiding incidents in disputed waters more than Croatian (+ partly they don't dare to intervene for several reasons). All in all, your opinion is far from being a point in the case. --Yerpo (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

SVG map

I made this. I can make changes if necessary. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks ok, however, I think it would be better to tone down the colors of land areas and make the dotted lines thicker. Also, the corridor is technically not disputed territory, but a proposal on how to address both countries' interests. Therefore, I suggest to separate it from the disputed territory with a line (like in the original map) and label it simply as "corridor". — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do all of these over the weekend. Thanks for your input. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Any further comments? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Much better. The colors still seem to clash, though, try making Italy a shade of brown, green or orange. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing false part

This text makes no sense:

The exact maritime border between Croatia and Slovenia was never defined in the former Yugoslavia.

...

Slovenian claims are also based on the treaty of mutual recognition between both countries, which sets the border between them on the borders existing on 25 June 1991, the date when Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence.

If borders are never defined, how can Slovenia base its claims on "borders existing on 25 June 1991".

It is clearly a nonsense, so Ićm deleting this second part. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I changed part where slovenian claims of historical rights are taken for granted, as noone is disputing it. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See also [5]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No

The sentence "This would allow it free access to the open sea." should be deleted because Slovenia enjoys free access to the open sea via Croatian waters.

The sentence should also be deleted because it is very well known that even in the case of Slovenia gaining the entire Gulf of Dragonja (entire sea surface of that gulf) it would not have an access to the International waters without passing through Croatian or Italian waters.

Imbris (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian "claims" over the corridor to international waters

An edit war almost erupted over the paragraph that presented the issue as if Slovenia claims the corridor from its territorial sea to international waters on the basis of historical control without providing any evidence. The paragraph was of course unsourced, because what it claims isn't true and so the source doesn't exist and it is another in the long series of Croatian POV pushing on this issue - trying to present Slovenia as the evil neighbor. The issue is better explained by the (sourced) paragraph on the Drnovšek-Račan agreement below, and I rephrased it as well to be clearer. Therefore I'm removing the unsourced paragraph again and I ask people to discuss it here before reintroducing so maybe we can find a wording that is more neutral. --Yerpo (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's go one by one:

• 1.Do Slovenia claims access to open sea?
• 2.Does Slovenian access to open sea would extend it's territorial waters beyond 12miles?
• 3.Did Slovenia provided any argument for historical control (or even existence) of that corridor ?
• 4.Are Slovenian claims to access to open sea based on the fact that Slovenia had free access to open sea while being part of SFRJ?

I'm sure that you are not going to have any troubles on answearing this questions. If the answers on all of them is Yes, than the paragraph should be included in the article, no? --Čeha (razgovor) 01:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. This question is POV as it implies that the argument is based solely on claims of historical control. Where did you hear that?
4. No, where did you hear that?

So, first provide sources for both "Where did you hear that?", then we can talk about the rest. --Yerpo (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So, just the two last things are arguable? Well, there is a thing called google, if you didn't know that:) Here is a long list of sources about that claims, but I think the most important statment of Slovenian minister Rupel.

• "Slovenija ima povijesno pravo na izlaz na otvoreno more, a naslijedila ga je od bivše zajedničke države kao kompenzaciju za gubitak slovenskog "etničkog prostora" sjeverno od Trsta koji prilikom razgraničenja poslije Drugog svjetskog rata nije uključen u Jugoslaviju, navodi slovenski ministar vanjskih poslova Dimitrij Rupel u svom blogu." [6]
• "Slovenia argued that the move amounted to a unilateral grab by Croatia of a sea area that had still to be formally divided by the successor countries of the former Yugoslavia." [7]
• Petar Toš: "Toš glede razgraničenja ponavlja teze o "povijesnim pravima" današnje Slovenije na cijeli Piranski zaljev, pa i dio "otvorenog" mora uz istarsku obalu. " [8]
• Slovenian memorandum of Piran gulf of 7th april 1993, [9] (you can also check about "Nacrt sporazuma o zajedničkoj granici" which Ljubljana gave to Croatian ambasy in 1991 and see the diferenses...
• [10] "Memorandum o Piranskom zaljevu"
• Few more documents [11]
• compromis ? [12] RD agreement
• Dr. Davor Vidas, comment of Slovenian claims to eco-zone in Jadran (section Slovenian arguments) "• Kao jedna od nasljednica bivše Jugoslavije i kao obalna država Jadranskog mora, Slovenija je pomorska zemlja s pravom izlaza u međunarodne vode Jadrana." [13]

So, your good friend Rupel:) Now the answer to every of that questions is yes, no? --Čeha (razgovor) 14:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. The thing called Google can be used very selectively, as you have just proven. Slovenian claims still aren't based solely on historical control, as the second paragraph of the "Arguments" section says. The "principle of equity" is another argument (as in the case of maritime border between France and Monaco, and between Gambia and Senegal - more about that), based on the unfortunate geographical condition. There is also still the Drnovšek-Račan agreement. You see, bilateral agreements don't just dissapear if one side suddenly decides not to confirm them, but still have some weight, because they were signed by the lawful representatives of both countries - see this article, section "Arguments on the Slovenian Side". As for Croatian rejection of Slovene historical control, I only saw a mention of "numerous documents that prove Croatian controlled the area as well" - nothing substantial, where Slovenia quotes Pula Agreement, church documents showing both sides of the bay belonging to Piran from 1893 until 1945, and demographic facts - there is a high population density on the Slovene side of the bay, where Croatian side is almost barren (which would fall under special circumstances). All these arguments are described in the same article. So, if we write a paragraph that would present all those arguments, then I'd have nothing against including it. --Yerpo (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you asked for the sources and I gave them to you. Even if Savudrija was part of Slovenia (which is not) Slovenia would not have access to the open sea.

So everything which is in the paragraph is sourced, no ? It can go back in the article.

Unfortunately I do not understand Slovene. It is a similar language to Croatian and if you give me some concrete quote I think (I hope at least:) that I will be able to understand it

I don't see what are you trying to add to that paragraph. Beyond Croatian teritorial waters are the waters of its epicontinental area (on the other side are Italian epicontinental waters, and Italian teritory waters, that waters were demarked in the times of former Yugoslavia). Open sea begins somewhere in Albania.

If you call to "special intrest", I think that you could add a sentence to it. "And Slovenia tries to underline it's special interest in doing so (like in Monaco or Gambia example)." or something similar.
--Čeha (razgovor) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you gave me some sources (actually some of those are irrelevant, blogs for example), and then I gave my sources which partially contradict yours. I still don't understand why the sentence "Slovenia never provided any argument for historical control of the corrido from the bay to the open sea (this area is adjacent to the croatian coast), nor even claimed that it had such a control." should be in. If Slovenia never claimed that it had control over the corridor, then mentioning that the country never provided arguments for it is completely irrelevant.

Therefore, I propose something like this:

“ Slovenia also claims acces to international waters, despite the fact that it would mean extending its territorial waters beyong 12 miles, limit defined by the international law, and ratified by Slovenia. Slovenian claims are based on the following facts: that it had free acces to the open sea while being part of Yugoslavia, that its exclusion from epicontinental waters could have serious economic consequences (invoking the principle of equity due to unfortunate geographic conditions), and that the Drnovšek-Račan agreement in 2001 included such a solution (source). According to this agreement, a corridor classified as international waters would extend from Slovene territorial waters towards the epicontinental part of the Adriatic sea, while Croatia would retain a triangle of territorial waters on the other side of the corridor, forming the border with Italy (as required by Croatia). Although the agreement was not ratified afterwards and experts on international law argue that such a solution is legally unfeasible (source 1, source 2), it remains the only concrete proposal so far on this issue. ”

One thing is, this paragraph would more appropriately be placed somewhere else as it doesn't really discuss Gulf of Piran. I suggest appropriate sections in Foreign relations of Croatia and Foreign relations of Slovenia. --Yerpo (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the pdf. And some things in it are prety much pov "All of these requirements were clearly defeated by the Croatian National Assembly, which shows the Croatian state, if not in the breach of the international law, at least as an utterly unreliable partner under international law." this is basicly personal opinion...

I sugest :

Slovenia also claims acces to the open sea, despite the fact that it would mean extending its territorial waters beyong 12 miles, limit defined by the international law, and ratified by Slovenia. Slovenia never provided any argument for historical control of the corridor from the bay to the open sea (this area is adjacent to the croatian coast) and it's claims are based on the fact that it had free acces to the open sea while being part of Yugoslavia.

There is no evidence of economical damage as Croatia has an obligation to give free access to international ships through it's waters. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting on the "Slovenia never provided any argument..." part? If Slovenia doesn't use the argument of historical control, then it isn't required to provide proofs and the sentence is completely irrelevant (except for implying that Slovenia is the irrational and evil neighbour, which doesn't belong anywhere, particularly not in an encyclopedia). As for economical consequences, things aren't so simple. Croatia could theoretically decide one day to cancel the agreement and ban foreign ships with no business in Croatia from its territorial waters. That would of course provoke international response, but in the weeks required for things to settle, Slovene ports would be ruined. The allegedly POV part of the article is authors' own conclusion (clearly labeled as such) and has nothing to do with arguments in question. If you feel that my proposal is one-sided, we could add that "Croatia disputes those arguments on the grounds that the corridor would mean ceding its territorial waters and that there exists a bilateral agreement allowing foreign ships on the way to Slovene ports free passage through its territory." --Yerpo (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. a)Does Slovenia uses "special circumstacies" argument? Does that argument goes onto the "historical control" of the bay and it's conection to open sea? Doesn't the Yugoslavia period qualifies in historic periods?

b)That for economy is unsourced speculation which should not have anything to do with an encyclopediae such as wiki.

This should be neutral as possibleSlovenia also claims acces to the open sea, despite the fact that it would mean extending its territorial waters beyong 12 miles, limit defined by the international law, and ratified by Slovenia. Slovenian's claims are based on the fact that it had free acces (but not sea corridor) to the open sea while being part of Yugoslavia.

Part in the brackets is puted to underline the difference.--Čeha (razgovor) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we've established that historical access is not equal to historical control over some corridor area. Slovenia claims the first, not the second and the corridor as proposed is only one method of granting historical rights. I think my proposal says that more clearly. Secondly, the fear of economical consequences is not unargumented speculation and is explained here. To quote: "Kljub spodbudnim predlogom o nekakšni mednarodni pogodbi, s katero bi Slovenija od Hrvaške "za zmeraj" dobila pravico do "neškodljivega prehoda", se stvari niso premaknile z mrtve točke. Pogodba je namreč pogodba, to pa pomeni, da jo je v načelu mogoče tudi preklicati. Ali kršiti. Sočasno je predvsem glavni hrvaški pogajalec, dr. Hrvoje Kačić, v tem času večkrat jasno povedal, da "neškodljiv prehod" skozi hrvaške teritorialne vode ne pomeni tudi tega, da bi v slovenska pristanišča lahko plule katerekoli ladje "tujih" držav. Kačić je s svojimi pripombami mislil predvsem na jugoslovanske (kar je bilo v političnem kontekstu sicer popolnoma neverjetno), toda ta "rezerva" bi seveda lahko veljala za ladje katerekoli druge države. Slovenija bi bila na morju torej zelo omejeno suverena." Do you need translation? --Yerpo (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: Would it be better if we said "Slovenian claims are based on the following arguments" instead of "facts"? This way we present the issue less strictly. --Yerpo (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Slovenia also claims acces to the open sea, despite the fact that it would mean extending its territorial waters beyong 12 miles, limit defined by the international law, and ratified by Slovenia. Slovenian's claims are based on the arguments that it had free acces (but not sea corridor) to the open sea while being part of Yugoslavia.

From what you've gave to me it seems that they are still just speculations (I don't know who wrote that article, and although I can comprehend general tone, translation would be nice as it is about finer niances). You could add that Slovenia is asking for Croatian aquatory that would garanty its access to the open sea if relationships between countries go on the bad side.

And as for everything I know, Slovenia also did not ratify DR agreement. So please return that into the article, or provide sources for it. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They may be speculations, but those are arguments used by Slovene politicians and we aren't in a position to say whether they will be considered or not. We can only say that Croatians dispute its validity. Time will tell whose opinion will prevail, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article I quoted was written by Igor Mekina, a MSc in politology. It says that there were negotiations about a contract that would allow Slovenia "harmless passage" forever, but they were stopped. A contract can in principle be revoked. Or violated. At the same time, the main Croatian negotiator dr. Hrvoje Kačić said clearly that "harmless passage" through Croatian international waters doesn't mean a passage of aevery ship from every "foreign" country. By this he meant Yugoslavia, but this "reservation" could include ships from any other country. That would significantly limit Slovenia's sovereignity at sea. There. Your proposal doesn't sufficiently explain every argument, so consider mine again, which is adequately sourced and as neutral as they get.

And as for everything I know, Slovenia also did not ratify DR agreement. The source I provided is clear about it, so please read it first. --Yerpo (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

New York University School of Law,Summer 2002 : (It was ratified by Slovenia.) . No date, no nothing. One sentence, without an author. Better sorcing?

If somebody presents its POV than we shall not say that someone else dispute its validity. Only things can be said is that; This should be neutral as possibleSlovenia also claims acces to the open sea, despite the fact that it would mean extending its territorial waters beyong 12 miles, limit defined by the international law, and ratified by Slovenia. Slovenian's claims are based on the fact that it had free acces (but not sea corridor) to the open sea while being part of Yugoslavia. Slovenian politics have also presented fears that withouth territorial conection with the open see, Croatia coud revoke "harmless passage" to its ports (although that would be contrary to international agreements and practice)which could provoke economical damage to Slovenia .

That should be it (you should put source at the end of the bold part). Try to keep it simple. It clearly shows it is a speculation, and it should be sourced as a statment.

If doing so, we should also add: Piran issue was also much popularized in Slovenia as some politicians claimed that Slovenia should get bigger aquatory also as reparation that when Yugoslavia and Italy draw its borders some municipalities with slovenian majority where left out, while all of municipalities with croatian majority where included in Yugoslavia.[14]

No matter the add-ons, main part of paragraph is well sourced, and I would ask you to put it in article, and any further add-ons can be discussed later. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is beginning to look reasonable. I'll do it tomorrow, when I have the time to think this over. The add-ons are necessary to explain the context. --Yerpo (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok.--Čeha (razgovor) 02:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Piran municipality

Piran municipaly prior to 1944 was made of 5 katastar's municipalities

• Piran
• Portorož
• Sečovlje
• Kaštel
• Savudrija

As border betwen Croatia and Slovenia was river Dragonja according to agreement between it's resistance (partisan) leaders in 1944 Andrija Babić (Croatia) and Milana Gučeka - Javora (Slovenia) the same was to be divided. Piran and Portorož went to Slovenia and Sečovlje, Kaštel and Savudria went to Croatia. Prior to that year, municipality had italian majority. That border was north to current border.
In 1954 the border was moved south to the sv.Odorik canal which was "proclaimed" as main course of river Dragonja. By doing so Slovenia got parts of Sečovje katastar municipality, and part southern of Dragonja was administred by Croatian policy and court in Buje (Joško Joras was there with his case if you remember). But that is another story... [15]
Also Piran municipality was not the only one which was divided between Croatia and Slovenia (Štrigova itd). Slovenian's claim to entire prewar municipality with Italian majority or some special rights wich it had is seen as very humoriuos as such from Croatian point of view... --Čeha (razgovor) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Savudrijska vala

For Slovenia, the names Savudrijska vala, Uvala Savudrija, and Savudrijski zaliv Bay of Savudrija refer to a small inlet that cuts into the extreme northwest part of the Savudrija Peninsula, south of Cape Savudrija. This sea name appears written in various forms in Italian and Croatian on many older and modern detailed maps of the area under discussion. [16] Text in the paragraph on the wiki is for that incorect and its stile is hevily POV. I deleted it, because of that. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I rephrased the paragraph to reflect this and put it back. Is it ok now? --Yerpo (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, added part in the (). --Čeha (razgovor) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bled agreement

I returned Bled agreement section because I se no good reason to delete it. I also added one reference. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The part "trying to present the dispute as a political, not legal" is POV, so I removed it. Croatian politicians can claim that it should be (only) legal, but it is inherently political, because politicians are involved and they will make the decision. Legal experts from both sides have presented their arguments long ago, many of which have been ignored and/or publicly ridiculed (by the same politicians), so claiming that the dispute is exclusively legal afterwards is a bit childish. Also, the reference you provided isn't exactly neutral, I think. --Yerpo (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Badinter comission clearly defined borders long time ago. Now, it's up to lawyers to find the border, meter by meter, in the field. So, border is purely legal issue. But, slovenian refusal to completely ignore international law when it comes to drawing the maritime border is definitely a political issue. And a bit childish too.

Regarding the non-neutral source, I gave the only one I have, BBC and CNN are not really crazy about the subject. The story is covered mainly in Cro and Slo press. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? And where did the Badinter commision "clearly" define borders that didn't exist before (i.e. on the sea)? I ask you again to stop muddying this discussion. I'm sure that Croatian media would like you to believe that Slovenia is the only one ignoring law here, but that isn't relevant for an encyclopedic article. Nobody can say who is right and who is wrong right now, so for the sake of WP:NPOV, let's not go there, please. --Yerpo (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: I didn't mean that Nacional isn't good enough reference to use (because, obviously, foreign media don't really cover the issue at length), just that we should be careful before quoting either side's journalistic description of the events.

Can you give some axamples of Croatia violating international law?

Regarding maritime borders, it is well known fact that even the municipalities have maritime borders. The border between Croatian and Slovenia run throught the center of the bay, as shown ba map File:Piran bay yugoslavia.jpg, published in 1989 by Slovenia-based Cankarjeva založba.

BTW, international law states that, in case of dispute, neither side should cross median line until reaching agreement. I don't see any sign that Slovenia is planning to respect that clause. Not the police, nor the fishermen. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you cannot seriously claim that this map shows anything more accurate than fancy icons.

neither side should cross median line until reaching agreement Nor should they unilaterally proclaim an exclusive ecological-fishing zone in disputed territories. Or attempt to change long-standing toponyms (not strictly against the law, but against all established practices). --Yerpo (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Croatian EEZ is not in disputed territory since it is not even connected to slovenian waters. Slovenia ratified UN agreement that limits its territorial waters to 12 miles. Note that Slovenia even explicitely accepted this 12-miles limit once more in "NEGOTIATING POSITION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA ON CHAPTER 8 – FISHERIES" (all caps in original title). Look for part "Slovenian territorial waters (12 miles from the coast)". But, your government conviniently "forgot" about this official EU document as soon as it entered EU and proclaimed its own EEZ that starts at 15 miles from its coast (not in contact with its territorial waters) and shamesly drawn the line in front of Vrsar! This is hillarious.

I agree on "renaming" issue, but this isn't takne seriously in Croatia. Even our wikipedia article is named hr:Piranski zaljev.

What? Slovenian EEZ? This is ridiculous. See, the article Slovenian Exclusive Economic Zone has been deleted[17] for being a completely unsourced nonsense. --Eleassar ^{my talk}

The fact that my article Slovenian Exclusive Economic Zone, written badly for lack of my time, was deleted (for a good reason, but I will rewrite when I have enough time) doesn't change the fact that Slovenia proclaimed its EEZ or whatever-you-call-it against their own previous statements, and contrary to basic logic. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that Slovenian EEZ is ridiculous and illogical only shows your imperfect grasping of concepts such as sense of humour or logic. By the way, Slovenia is an internationally recognised maritime country, no matter whether you like it or not. Andharkhand (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ZERP map

To Ceha: the map's caption, as it is, conflicts with the statement about Slovenia "illegally extending its territorial waters further than 12 miles", which is so painstakingly explained that it smells of WP:UNDUE. How come the caption labels the area clearly stretching a lot more than 12 miles into the sea, as "Croatian territorial waters"? So either explain the terms exactly (inner territorial waters vs. contiguous zone (as per this map) or something else), or remove one of the conflicting statements.

While you're at it, you can also stop quoting blogs and other such nonsense as references, because it isn't even funny anymore. Thank you. --Yerpo (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the map of Drnovšek-Račan agreement is disputed since it labels one area "claimed by Slovenia" while, if taken the agreement into account, it would belong to Slovenia and if not taking agreement into account, it's POV since the area is claimed by both countries. Removing from the article. --Tone 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yerpo I realy don't understand what are you trying to say here. I thought that you found sentence "Note the contact between Croatian and Italian territorial waters in the south-central Adriatic" is in dispute (you deleted that sentence). Onto that blog is a map which shows contact between Croatian and Italian territorial waters (without ZERPs) near Palagruža.

Definition of territorial waters can be found here [18] Near Palagruža Croatian and Italian Territorial waters are in contact... As for other things, as far I can see it seems that lightly blue includes inner and territorial waters and not contiguus one. I'm not certain, and I did not put that map. Ask Ante:) --Čeha (razgovor) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tone, Slovenia did not clame that aquatory before RD agreement, and as the border is not settled in agreement to international laws the valid line is median one, against which Slovenia claims that aquatory for itself. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- it's not a "map of Drnovšek-Račan agreement" as such, but is rather a map of the overall current situation. It doesn't take sides, but it takes into account the fact that Croatia is the current status quo party... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop with this status quo nonsense already, please? There is none - Slovenia claims historical (and recent) control over the disputed part (along with other arguments), Croatia disagrees. So status quo according to Slovenia is the majority of the bay vs. the minority (as opposed to halves) and the map is therefore POV. --Yerpo (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what status quo means -- in this context, Croatia claims that it already has full legal ownership of all the territory it wants, while Slovenia does not claim that it already has full legal ownership of all the territory it wants (e.g. the "corridor"). Q.E.D. ergo ipso facto Croatia is status quo... AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wha...? The corridor isn't even an issue here, because it is only labeled as "the corridor". The area actually labeled as "claimed by Slovenia" is. Besides, Slovenia does not claim ownership of the corridor; as far as I know, the agreement says that it should be classified as "open sea" (but I agree, Croatia is the status quo party regarding the corridor itself). I'm not sure, perhaps there is a small part of the area now labeled as "claimed" that is further than 12 miles from the coast, which would currently be under Croatian jurisdiction. But that should be labeled separately. --Yerpo (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Ceha: you can see that the lightly blue area extends approximately one quarter of the way across the Adriatic (a little bit less), which is considerably more than 12 nautical miles. What I'm trying to say is that you have double standards, first thoroughly explaining why Slovenia breaks the law when it tries to extend its territorial waters beyond 12 miles, and then proclaiming a quarter of the Adriatic as Croatian territorial sea. Such a way of parading international laws only when it suits Croatia is one of the main resentments on Slovene side of this dispute. --Yerpo (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yerpo, you confused me with Ante. I never had anything to say about 12 nautical miles(you can check history). Furthermore, it seems to me that this map shows only territorial water which include 12 nautical miles after inner waters (which includes aquatory between most distanced (izbačeni) capes and islands to the coast. That is 22km. Hower I do not know that for certain (and currently haven't a wish to google:), so discuss it with Ante who puted that map and spoke about 12 nautical miles bondery.

As for status quo, it is defined by international rules (UN sea charter). --Čeha (razgovor) 08:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't confuse you; I don't really care who answers, because you support each others' actions and it looks like you agree with them. As for status quo, the exact quote (and not ripped out of context) would be really nice. --Yerpo (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Than you shouldn't have puted @ Ceha: sign. My agreement with him on the most of the issues does not meean that I am able to read his mind when he did something. As I previously said adress that issue to Ante... If I have some knowledge of the issue (and free time), I'll also try to participate.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So you didn't know if what he was doing was right and just put back a contested edit of his because he happens to be a Croatian like you? That's really an objective way to contribute to an encyclopedia, I must say... --Yerpo (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yerpo I would call you to stop with provocations. I gave you sources on which I reverted your edits edits, [19]. Croatian sea borders with Italian one near Palagruža islands and there is no international waters between them (no matter the ZERPs).

You accused me here [20] of having double standards, with explanation that I'm claiming that Slovenia is breaking international law when proclaming international waters which goes beyond 18 nautical miles (which I've never did). I did not even discussed that with you! After that you concluded that [21] I have a similar opinion as user Ante; so I obviously must know every word and thought of him.

And as cherry to the end, you accused me of being Nationalistic POV user?

I realy don't know what is wrong with you? Please stop your personal attacks and stick to the subject.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop making a scene out of this and reading what I didn't write. I'm very sorry, but the sources are far from clear about the issue, that's what's wrong. I simply asked you to explain how come the term "territorial waters" means 12 nautical miles in one case and a lot more in another (an edit you supported). Nobody explained, so the only two options are a) assuming that you don't know what you're doing (=assuming good faith, at least) or b) assuming you're doing it deliberately (because you insist on it). The rest you said is your opinion, not mine. --Yerpo (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Yerpo look at this for 12 nm zone. Croatia does not claim any contigous zone; Contiguous zone claims

None: Albania, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Cameroon, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Nigeria, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, São Tomé and Príncipe, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Sweden, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania

Source:[22], and map [23] shows (lightly blue) just Croatian inner and territorial waters.

I do persume option a) and would like you to the same. Cheers --Čeha (razgovor) 14:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would really like it too, but how, if you're so insisting on something you don't know? I said very clearly, map's caption, as it is, conflicts with the statement about Slovenia "wanting to illegally extend its territorial waters further than 12 miles". It just can't be both - Slovenia's territorial waters legally extending only 12 miles into the sea, and Croatia's a lot more (the light blue area here is, I think, wider than 12 miles). WP:OR rules say "unsupported facts may be contested and removed at any time". Which I did (the map gives no sources whatsoever), and you put it back (with a source that's unclear and which still conflicts). What part of this you don't understand? Maybe I'm wrong, and the area is 12 miles, it's just that I haven't seen any clear evidence of that and I would like the text to be precise about legal terms. --Yerpo (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This [24] the site from Croatian ministry of the sea. It clearly shows borders of Croatian territorial sea (it is exacly 12nm, see the legend).--Čeha (razgovor) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also clearly visible line of division of epicontenal shelf between ex Yu (now Croatia) and Italy, and you can sea location of the islands of Plagruža and Pianosa, and by calculating their's distance see that is the point in southern Jadran where Croatian and Italian territorial seas touch each other. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally a map where you can see the scale. OK, I admit that I underestimated how far 12 miles is. --Yerpo (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yerpo, You called me to comment, but I see you solved the problem. Am I free to go now :)? --Ante Perkovic (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Land dispute

First off, a f**ing disclaimer: I ain't neither a Croat nor a Slovene, and I made this map myself because the article about a border dispute sorely lacked a map of the disputed area. The yellow line I drawn is according to the Google map of the area. I don't care how you're going to phrase the legend, but the map itself should stay because it merely depicts the important lines on the ground.

Now, Viator, would you please explain your edit summary in this edit removing the map: " (1) The chanel of St. Odoric is not a geographic fact, but a Croatian interpretation of the state of things;" Are you trying to say that the canal does not exist or what? Both Slovenian and Croatian sources mention the canal and that it was built around 1948-1950 to solve the draining of the saltpans or something like that. The canal should be on the map because, well, it's an important landmark of the dispute.

As I got it, there's also the dispute about the land border as well, but it's not well explained in the article, and you folks should rather spend some time describing it rather than edit warring about inclusion or exclusion of that map, among other things. The land dispute there has something to do with infamous Joško Joras case, right? As I understand, here the dispute is somewhat reverse, as Croatia claims some land on the Slovenian-controlled teritory; the base for the claim is a messy situation with cadastral books and municipal borders, which over the years shifted from one republic to another. Can anyone care to shed some light on that aspect? No such user (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No disclaimer needed, we are all rational people, and I believe we all try to do our best to be impartial. As of my changes: I deleted the map because it depicts an exclusively Croatian point of view. The problem is precisely the existence of the Canal of St. Odoric. The interpretation that what has been considered the main course of the river Dragonja is in fact only a canal, built in the 1950s, can only be found in some Croatian statements and media. As far as I know, this is an exclusively Croatian view of the state of things, which only appeared in the late 1990s, as an additional argument for Croatian claims. What is the source for such claims, I do not know. Already Austrian-Hungarian geography books from the 19th century refer to the "canal" as the main flow of the river; such is also the case with most of Italian maps of the interwar period (Some references, although many more are available, both online and in books: Reproduction of Italian map of the Julian March from the 1920s). Apparently, the canal was built much before the 1950s. Since the lower course of the Dragonja has been transformed into saltplants already in the 15th century, the interpretations which is the "original" course are divergent; but it seems that at least from the 1910s onward, the interpretation that its southernmost course is the main one has been prevalent (just have a look at maps produced in Croatia before the mid 1990s: I don't believe you'd find a single reference to the "canal"). In fact, the historical origins of the current main course of the river as the "Canal of St. Odoric" have been digged up in the 1990s. Since then, this name is used by most Croatian media. I don't know if this is actually the official Croatian use; but in any case, it is just Croatian.

It has to be noted, however, that this naming controversy has very little to do with the actual border dispute. The issue is elsewhere: Croatian officials claim that the Dragonja (or what they refer to as the "Canal of St. Odoric") is the border between the countries. And in fact, since at least the late 1950s, local Croatian authorities have exercised (a least partial) authority over the left bank of the river ("canal"). In Yugoslavia, however, the borders between republics were drawn according to cadastral municipalities; in this case, the cadastral boundiaries leave the whole lower flow of the river ("canal") to Slovenia, including a narrow strip of territory on its left bank, precisely where Joško Joras lives. In 1991, the border checkpoints were set on the river, but officially the border between the countries follows the old boundiaries between the Socialist Republic of Slovenia and S.R. of Croatia, which is the "yellow" line on your map (also recognized by international law - thus the Google maps line). The issue is that Croatia exercises its sovereignity in this area, as it has done for decades preceding the independence of the two states, while Slovenia claims it is part of its territory (based on both costitutions and international law which recognizes official republican borders). In the meantime, Croatia has unilaterally changed the cadstral maps, denying the official Slovenian sovereignity over the strip of land.

This is, as far as I understand, the land dispute in this area. I think the map is thus misleading. I suggest we remove it, at least until we write a decent section on the land border issues. Otherwise it might create the false impression about the real extent of the border dispute. Viator slovenicus (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge Croatia currently does not claims any land north of St. Odoric. If cadastral borders would be taken as principle for the border line, Croatia could claim some land on that principle near town of Buje and on several points of Slo-Cro border. House of Joško Joras is south of St. Odoric which is also Croatian line of Control.

It should be also stated that because of the messy line Croatia could claim northern cadastar border of Sečovje as it's international border.

But Croatia currently does not have any of that claims (it could have, but:) --Čeha (razgovor) 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vidicator, can you tell me where does it writes that southern cadastar border of Sečovje was border between Cro and Slo? Have you read previous discussion on this page [25]. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Viator. I drew the map (using the Google as the ground for landmarks, but based on depictions from Croatian sources) under the impression that the underlying facts were undisputed; apparently I was wrong. From your description I still don't understand whether Slovenes accept the existence of "St. Odoric canal" and how do they call it?

However, I still don't see how the map itself (as opposed to its legend, which is open to discussion) can create a false impression. At worst, it depicts the Croatian land claims in the area. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong:

• The yellow line is the border line as defined by cadastral municipality borders (and thus the line of former republics)
• However, Croatia controls everything up to the cyan line (though yellow-cyan is a narrow strip of land AFAICT -- ~200 m wide?)
• The main flow of Dragonja is (was) on the blue line according to Croatia (but not according to Slovenia). No such user (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

By the way, here's a map of the area (centered around Joras's house): http://www.geopedia.si/#b2_x392487_y36321.375_s20 No such user (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right, your summary is correct. I suggest we slowly start writing a section on the land border dispute, but let's discuss it first. User:Ceha: pre-1991 cadastars are available in any major libraries. I know copies have been reproduced in the (in)famous Slovenian "White Book" on the border issue, published by the Slovenian Foreign Ministry in 2006, but originals from the 1970s are very well accessible. The southern border of the Sečovlje cadastar municipality is a simple fact. If you don't get access to original cadaster (although I'm sure you can), you can always check out maps from the Yugoslav period and you'll see. Viator slovenicus (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Viator, that was not my question. Listen again. Do you have any proof that border between SR Croatia and SR Slovenia went on cadastral borders, or better said that cadastar line?

Because if so, Slovenia curently holds a lot of land in Croatian Cadastar.

Also, to my knowledge, border between Croatia and Slovenia is not based just on one (cadastral) principle. You can check documentation from ex-Yu period (and Croatian "Blue Book") where is clearly shown that those four villages were under juridictical jursdiction of (Croatian) kotar Buje. Joško Joras himself went to that court :)

I thought we solved this. [26] --Čeha (razgovor) 10:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I started reorganizing the article, and wrote several paragraphs concerning the land dispute, but my browser crashed :( and I have to run now. I don't think I'll find some time to work on it in the next few days, so feel free to expand... No such user (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Ceha: the border of the republics was drawn along cadastral borders. All documents, both internal Yugoslav and international can confirm this. This however does not mean that the actual borders of both local (municipal etc.) and republican jurisdictions actually followed these borders. This is the whole issue. There is no doubt that Croatia has exercised its sovereignity on the left bank of the Dragonja ("Canal of St. Odoric", if you fancy calling it that way) over a long period of time (although this has always been only a partial exercise of soveregnity, since the Slovenian judicial has always maintained its jurisdiction over the area, and the people in the villages have been granted Slovenian citizenship from the very beginning). This is the whole issue: while the area has been officially part of Slovenia, Croatia has exercised most of the jurisdiction over it. That's why is it called disputed border area (This is, as far as I understand, almost exactly the opposite case as in the Trdinov vrh/Sveta Gera dispute, where Slovenia exercises sovereignity over territory which is partially in Croatia accrding to cadastral maps). Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As for your link, I don't think opinions on blogs and blog comments are pertinent to this discussion. Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I think the corrected version of the land border map is ok now, although I believe we should try to find a more detailed map of the area. Viator slovenicus (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If the border of the republics were drawn along cadastral borders then here we would not have an issue. This would be Slovenia and that would be the end of it.

However this is not the case.

Croato-Slovenian border in the area was created by division of former (pre-ww2)Piran municipality(which had italian majority at the time). In 1944 Piran and Portorož went to Slovenia and Sečovje, Kaštel and Savudrija to Croatia. In 1954 this border was moved a little bit southern (to St.Odoric) and by doing so Slovenia got parts of Sečovje catastar unit.

That move was never ratified by Croatian parliment (border between Croatia and Slovenia was agreed to be on river Dragonja). So when you say official, that is just Slovenian version. Croatian version is that that area was always part of Croatia, and the area north of St. Odoric was part of Croatia but was left to Slovenia because of "de facto" posetion.

As I'm familiar Slovenia recognises that that military camp on St. Gera is in Croatia so there we do not have anything which is disputed (exept that Slovenian army is currently in the object which is on Croatian soil and propriety of Croatian army, but as both states are members of NATO there should be some way to fix that strange position). And if the JNA had not gone by Slovenian side when they left from St. Gera, that would probably not be the case today :) But as I said, the difference is obvious and there is little room for comparison.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As for blog, I do recomend for you to read it because it is full of official documents and a lot of things from there were used in this discussions.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You have forgotten to mention one important fact. The fact that the very decision that the border was to be set at the Dragonja was never ratified by any of the two parliaments. As for the pre-WWII municipality of Piran, its inhabitants were about 80% Italian, 18% Slovenian and only about 2% croatian at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Therefore, the inclusion of Kaštel and Savudrija in Croatia's territories is also disputed and not founded on any legally bounding documents and legal acts. So, that part, too, should be included in the map as disputed territory, especially since you took the liberty to include the territory, north of the new Dragonja basin, as a part of the disputed territory.

I know it is hard to remain objective, but it is necessary if one wants to take part in a seemingly academical discussion. Andharkhand (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cadaster principle in other parts of the border

The paragraph Ceha added (this) was removed, because it discusses other problematic parts of the border between Slovenia and Croatia, not the Gulf of Piran. So I kindly ask the aforementioned user to remove it from here and put it in some other article (Croatia-Slovenia relations or something similar would be the right spot IMO). While he's at it, he should also stop accusing other people of POV, because this doesn't have anything to do with view. Thanks. --Yerpo (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It does talk about gulf of Piran. In it Slovenia wants to made cadastar border into international one. Croatian reply to that is that then the Slovenia would lose a lot of land on the other sides of the border... So please put it back.

Also, sorry but if someone calls something "irrelevant" and remove it as such without previously discussiong it, it's POV... --Čeha (razgovor) 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about Croatian-Slovenian ping pong, but about the Piran Bay. So I believe it's enough to state that Croatia disagrees on the cadastar border as the sole basis for definition of international border (if this is truly the case, that is). Viator slovenicus (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, but that is not good enough. Article should also state that Slovenia is for cadastar border, but only in this issue. I'll try to found some Cro-Slo foreign relationship article on wiki and put it onto the page. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a brief introduction about the causes of differing understanding about the borders — as I understand it — but along with Ceha's additions, it should be referenced to reliable sources. The Croatia-Slovenia relations article should be expanded, making it a summary of all the border disputes (and their consequences). No such user (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, currently Croatia-Slovenia relationshas less data than Piran pages:) Nice work. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful photos

Commons:Category:Sečovlje has a few interesting images pertaining to the land dispute. Not sure where to incorporate them, though. No such user (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Plavonja border crossing

So where is that supposed Plavonja/Plavonje border crossing? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Plavonja+prehod gives grand total of 7 hits, while http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Plavonja+prijelaz yield one more, all of them in forums and news comments. Please provide the correct spelling and source. No such user (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Plavonja border checkpoint is located in the described area next to the dragonja river. The term border checkpoint Plavonja (Slovenian: kontrolna točka Plavonja) is considered, it is the term that has been repeatedly used by the Slovenian media and politics, as well as Slovenian civil society. I am still in the process of searching suitable and accessible resources for that matter and will supply you with them as soon as they are found.

I doubt that any other official name has been used for that border checkpoint. But the term as well as the problematics itself have seldom been brought to international attention.

Greetings.

Andharkhand (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Land dispute, continued

To counterbalance the one-sided argument claiming that the border between the two countries should be along the old channel of the Dragonja, which causes Slovenian claims of the territory inhibited by Joško Joras to look like another extremist endpoint along the continuum, I decided to include some stronger Slovenian positions, concerning the disputed land area, which I also equipped with proper sources. (The fact that I do not call those position extremist, is explained below.)

The fact is that moderately extreme Slovenian position states that the border should be the south border of the cadastral municipalities of Kaštel and Savudria. This argument represents the proper Slovenian counterpart to Croatian claims of establishing the border at the old channel of Dragonja. This is especially so, since both positions represent approximately the same departures from the proposed borderline on the Dragonja, which is not the case in the presented map (where it seems that the Slovenian position is favourised, since the border on the Dragonja is closer to the mentioned Slovenian proposal).

Therefore, instead of deleting the Croatian position, I added the (moderately extreme) Slovenian counterpart.

The real extreme Slovenian counterpart, on the other hand, states that the whole Peninsula of Istria should belong to Slovenia, since the whole Istria was (as well as Slovenia) included in the Austrian part of the Austro-Hhungarian empire. Croatia, on the other hand, was included in the Hungarian part.

This is the extremist Slovenian position which I did not (dare) include. But my inclusion of the stated paragraph (with somewhat milder position) was necessary from the objectivist point of view, especially considering the fact that the former paragraph is included in the text.

Since the former paragraph is also equipped with a map, I also intend to include another map, supporting the last paragraph, in the future.

Andharkhand (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's better update the existing one. I still have the background hanging around. I wasn't aware that there are other Slovene positions when I created it.

I wish, however, that the article does not deviate into an endless array of more or less extreme claims and counterclaims. We can't run away from such form because, well, it is a dispute, but I'd like that we put more focus and other aspects of the dispute, i.e. how the main events and incidents unfolded, what are consequences for both nations, reactions of important EU and neutral officials etc. While the Piran Gulf dispute is probably the most bitter one, the article Croatia-Slovenia relations should be expanded with other border disputes and the wider framework, and the two sections of "Foreign relations of..." merged there, according to summary style. No such user (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with updating the existing map. I will try to find the data suitable for that aim.

I guess no one wants such articles to turn into endless debates. This is the task for the politicians and for lawyers. But, as far as the issue was open, the only fair thing is to represent both sides of the argument. That was my attempt. I think I myself have not violated the norm for writing articles of such kind (cf. Kuril Islands dispute), though it is true that the mentioned title of the article about the Gulf of Piran does not mention the term dispute. But I still believe that its (probable) international interest has been recently (at least to some degree) raised due to the Slovene-Croatian conflict.

And I agree with the fact that such issues be dealt with more thoroughly in the article about Slovenia-Croatia relations, though I propose that the mentioned article be left in its present scope, at least generally. I am afraid that leaving out all the facts about the international dispute would mean that the article would reduce to the size of no more than a paragraph. But, considering the current affairs concerning the Gulf of Piran, such extent could, in my opinion, hardly be justified. So I propose the retention of articles present scope, extent and (at least intended) neutrality and balance.

Andharkhand (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any rescoping; scopes are just fine. However, this article now tends to "hijack" the whole Slovenia-Croatia relations. The solution is to expand that article at least somewhat more, maybe by moving some of contents from here to there. For example, it fails to mention Slovenian blocking of Croatian negotiations, or the issues concerning the Slovenian highway vignettes, to mention just two more widely known aspects.

A case could be made that Gulf of Piran be an article about geography, and Piran Bay dispute about the dispute; personally, I prefer the current, integral treatment. Landform articles can be "boring"; compare e.g. amounts of text about a major island of Kalymnos and the nearby islet called Imia :).

Uh, just now I noticed that we have a lengthy article about Slovenia's blockade of Croatia's EU accession. It was created on July 22 -- some guys were hard-working recently. No such user (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the need of expansion of the article about Slovenia-Croatia relations. I will try to provide some material for its expansion. Otherwise, I agree with Your proposals and viewpoints.

Andharkhand (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the erroneous and unciting mentioning of Zmago Jelinčič Plemeniti from the unrelated context. Jelinčič's proposal was that the whole Istria should belong to Slovenia, the reason being the fact that Slovenia and Istria were included in the same part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (The Duchy of Carinthia sensu lato), while the rest of modern-day Croatia was includd in the Hungarian part.

This is a rather extreme position, so I did not dare mention it.

Instead, I incleded another, seemingly neutral and sensible proposal of the senior Slovenian politic that the border should be determined by referendum (plebiscite). This proposal of the border determination seems more relevant than many other mentioned proposals since it is directly based upon the legal principle of the right of Self-determination. And, I believe, it should not be perceived as one-sided, so I think, that it is appropriate to mention this proposal in the article. Andharkhand (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Bled agreement

I have also noted some incompletenesses and inaccuracies in the chapter Bled agreement.

1. The translation of the cited article would say that the two prime ministers have reached principal agreement about the need of resolving the border issue at the ICJ. This is important, since the agreement did not receive a wide political support in Slovenia, therefore it was abandoned. that was similar to the Croatian abandonment of Drnovšek-Račan agreement.

2. It is important to stress the fact that the agreement was not politically supported in Slovenia.

According to these I will take the liberty of making this smaller completion.

Andharkhand (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also deleted the sentence concerning the Slovenia's blocking of opening Croatia's negotiation chapters with the EU, since it was not included in any logical or explanatory context. This issue is mentioned later, under the subtitle Land dispute, where the asserted reasons of Slovenia's blocking are explained.

I also have the opinion that a statement, such as the purported statement that having sovereignty over parts of sea unconnected to the land is contrary to international law (from the former paragraph: Drnovšek-Račan agreement), must have direct citations to a specific legal instrument, or should even be qouted in some way. Such statement also evaded the fact that BOTH sides have often refered to the Drnovšek-Račan agreement without quoting any departure from international law.

From what is written now, it seems that the agreement was written preferring the Slovenian side and that the Croatian side has rejected it for not being accordant with international law, an assertion which is not accurate.

I hope this problem to be resolved shortly. I also intend to propose a further solution of the stated inconsistency.

Andharkhand (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Territorial waters disconnected from land

Concerning {{cn}} on territorial waters disconnected from land: I found Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone which in Article 1 states that "The sovereignty of a State extends, beyond its land territory and its internal waters, to a belt of sea adjacent to its coast, described as the territorial sea.", emphasis mine; it does not seem to further address the issue at hand. However, Turkalj, at p. 24, says that

Zahtjev Slovenije, u stvari, znači zahtjev za teritorijalnim koridorom do otvorenog

mora [...] dok bi prema drugoj, blažoj varijanti, Hrvatska imala zapadno od slovenskog koridora svoju «enklavu» uz talijansku granicu. Zahtjev Slovenije odnosi se na prostor izvan Tršćanskog zaljeva, odnosno na morski prostor koji leži ispred obale susjedne države (Republike Hrvatske), a ne ispred slovenske obale. To znači da se ovim zahtjevom traži odstupanje od načela da je more pripadnost kopna i da se suverenost države prostire na susjedni pojas mora u skladu s člankom 1. Konvencije o teritorijalnom moru i vanjskom pojasu i člankom 2. Konvencije

o pravu mora.

In a nutshell: the Convention says what it says, but it's open to interpretation to an extent. Turkalj (and probably other Croatian experts) reads the said Article 1 so that it prohibits "maritime exclaves". Indeed, "maritime exclaves" do exist, but they're supported by islands (such as Chizumulu) or land exclaves (Kaliningrad). But then, I don't think that anyone would have legal grounds to object to such solution should the two interested parties agree to be so. No such user (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You kindly for updating the link and for formalising the statement in the paragraph in a more neutral manner. Hope to not have caused You too much work. Andharkhand (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Move content somewhere else?

The article says very little about the gulf itself, but goes at length about the dispute. This is not bad - on the contrary - but I think it would be better to create an article titled Croatia–Slovenia border disputes specifically for that purpose. Just a suggestion, if anyone is feeling bold at the moment. GregorB (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We had some discussion about it above. In a nutshell: I'm against splitting of this article, though some material can be copied/moved into an article about the wider border dispute. However, the material is not ripe yet to create Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, because there are already Croatia–Slovenia relations (which needs expansion) and Slovenia's blockade of Croatia's EU accession (a bit too fat, mostly one man's work). Some refactoring of the material would be welcome indeed.
Well, should the two countries reach that elusive agreement, I suppose that the interest for writing articles about the dispute would drop, and we would be left with this fairly incomplete (or, more accurately, uneven) coverage... But it's probably a good thing, on the balance. No such user (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)