The Croatian-Slovenian conflict surrounding the Piran Bay has entered into its most critical phase: threats of arms have become a daily event and it is difficult to tell which side is ahead in the series of bad moves. At the end of last week, the Croatian fishermen threatened war in their meeting with Premier Račan, while on the Slovenian side, a demonstration was planned in front of the house of Joško Joras, who was arrested by Croatian police and is now facing a jail term of between three months and three years.

The Račan-Drnovšek Agreement “The Agreement has only been initialed, meaning it has no strength” NACIONAL: The fact that the Agreement between Drnovšek and Račan was not ratified in Croatia is the key argument for rejecting its implementation. How obligatory does Slovenia view that Agreement to be? That is difficult to say, as it depends who is talking about the Agreement. The Agreement has only been initialed, and will now enter into the process of ratification. An initialed agreement marks only that both sides have agreed in principle, or rather that both sides believe that they can achieve no more and will accept no less. As far as I know from the press, the agreement was on the agendas at meetings of both governments, which confirmed the agreement. If this is the best both sides could achieve, then it is difficult to believe that arbitration will find a better solution, however, legally, this Agreement is not valid. NACIONAL: How clear is that fact to the Slovenian politicians? You have to ask them that. I am not the one to express their statements and decisions. However, I do believe that they understand that this document has no real strength, but it would seem to me that both sides there are many who have forgotten just what kind of a procedure is required to make this Agreement valid. This interview with Bojko Bučar, professor of international relations at Ljubljana University and one of Slovenia’s leading experts in the field of international relations, is an attempt to discuss the conflict between Slovenia and Croatia in a different way – without heightened passions, from a legal perspective and as an overview of the existing and potential consequences of the conflict continuing.

NACIONAL: Just how serious of a problem are border conflicts, and how much are they the result of general political needs?

If we look at this issue from another continent, or from the perspective of one of the EU states, then it appears to be a small problem, even somewhat odd and comical. But looking from the perspective of those nations involved, this is a great problem for their politics. First of all, I would say that this conflict arose from the internal political needs of both countries, but we don’t have to ignore the fact that these so-called fisheries wars have existed between the US and certain Latin American countries, and between Canada and some European states, as well as among European states prior to the creation of the Union. These have been serious incidents, but they never grew into armed conflicts. It is worthwhile keeping in mid that the same could happen between Slovenia and Croatia.

I don’t expect this to escalate into an armed conflict, but the position of police on both sides of the border shows that serious incidents are possible, regardless of who initiates such, and there could be victims. The police are also just human beings, who carry guns legally. Assume that someone gets their priorities mixed up, that they lose their nerve… Victims are possible, which I why I would in no way underestimate nor overly stress this conflict.

International Experience

NACIONAL: What would such a conflict mean for Slovenia?

I hope that the leaders and administration of both countries no that a conflict is in no one’s best interests, neither the states, nor individuals, excluding some which may have their own calculations. My thinking includes the mistakes which could be made leading to a tragic unfolding of events.

NACIONAL: You mentioned international experience in such conflicts. How was this resolved by other nations?

To be honest, we can say that the resolution was very difficult. In some cases, war ships were sent to accompany the fishing boats, American battleships protect fishing boats off the coast of Peru. In the conflict between Canada and Spain, there were even cases of warning shots fired by the Canadian side because the European boats were fishing in Canadian coastal waters. The negotiations were long and brutal, dealing with much greater economic interests, but in the end an agreement was reached.

NACIONAL: Just how negative is this conflict for Slovenia and for its international reputation?

Conflicts with your neighbours are not good for any country. Looking from Europe, this conflict does not appear to be a significant crisis, which is why at least for now, the damage to Slovenia is not overly great.

NACIONAL: If it comes to arbitration, what can Slovenia hope for and what can Croatia hope for? How welcome a solution is arbitration in border conflicts?

In the last while, politicians are treating arbitration as some sort of a magic wand, which it is not. It’s not clear to me just what politicians are thinking when they mention arbitration. The idea has been mentioned many times, but what I’ve concluded from the statements of politicians is that they are speaking of some kind of non-binding arbitration, which does not exist in international relations. If arbitration is not binding, then it needs to be called something else, like conciliation. There have been requests from the Croatian side for non-binding arbitration, or binding to a certain level. I don’t know how that could be carried out, and what the point of arbitration is if you do not abide by the decisions made by the arbitrator. This only prolongs the situation, and brings no one anything.

Troubles with Arbitration

NACIONAL: Is it realistic to expect that the two sides can even reach an agreement as to the type of arbitration?

If they agree to the usual form of arbitration, the two sides must first decide what the arbitrator will ask, what kind of authority he or she will be granted and how the arbitration commission will be formed. This is also a form of contract that both sides have to agree to. The negotiators can initial that agreement, but the governments need to confirm and ratify it, which again does not mean that the final decision to go to arbitration will be signed. In the end comes the arbitrator’s decision, which can of course be interpreted differently by both sides. Which is why prior to the arbitration both sides have to agree to a contract to implement the arbitration decision, which again means working out the agreement, initialing it, ratifying it and signing it…Who guarantees that we can take all these steps when we know how this last Agreement fared? Arbitration is simply a legitimate means of resolving a conflict between two states, but not all problems can be resolved in that way.

NACIONAL: The Slovenian side has also sought arbitration for the entire Slovenian-Croatian border, land and sea.0

I think it would be very unusual to place the entire border under arbitration. Such a case is unknown to me in international law. I believe that the length of border entering into arbitration should be defined in a pre-arbitration agreement. According to the statements of the Slovenian politicians, some other points on lands may be included in addition to the Piran Bay as the Slovenians believe these were concessions made to Croatia. If this were to happen, I’m sure that Croatia will find other concessions made, such as Mlini, Škrile, Škudelin and Bužin, as well as others which are questionable, such as Tomšić’s parcel and Sveta Gera some sections on the Mura River…Just what will go to arbitration has to be decided in advance, because without such an agreement, there can be no arbitration.

Role of emotions and symbols

NACIONAL: The president of the Slovenian board
responsible for supervising the secret service has claimed that the conflict in Piran Bay was a planned Croatian move aimed at de-stabilizing Slovenia.

Let’s put it this way: the parliamentarians are free to think as they wish, they even have a certain amount of immunity for their statements and actions. Which is why the president of that board could call that board meeting to discuss the threat to Slovenia’s interests. After the meeting, we did not learn what they spoke about, and I think there are a lot of questions to be asked. Personally, I think that his statement was a tragically-comic detail in the entire case.

NACIONAL: Did you expect Slovenia and Croatia to resolve the border issues following the 2000 elections in Croatia?

No, I didn’t. I was pleasantly surprised when I heard the news that an agreement had been reached and the premiers initialed it. I thought these politicians knew something. I didn’t expect the later events though. There were many reasons, on both sides, which gave me reason to not believe that such a deal would be possible. In the Piran Bay conflict, emotions play an important role on both sides and with a portion of the politicians, the word and symbol sovereignty over a territory means a lot. I think that Croatia has yet to resolve its border issues with Yugoslavia and BiH and look at the whole solution, which will last some time. Much patience and skill will be needed on the Croatian side to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.

NACIONAL: Those who live on the borders would quickly find a solution, but those in decision-making positions are not listening to them.

It’s all the ancient issue of national interests. For me, national interests are no objective category, but rather what the current political elite defines important at that time and place. In that case, Piran Bay is of national interest to both sides because that’s how it’s been proclaimed by both sides.

NACIONAL: According to a recently promoted thesis, the Piran Bay case could help Slovenia to become a NATO member.

It could be that someone has calculated that a connection exists between these two things, but that is something that we cannot know. I have made the attempt of looking at it from a legal perspective, from the perspective of international relations, and I can say that this case will play no role in Slovenia’s acceptance to NATO. In the same way, if it does not become a NATO member, that will have nothing to do with the border conflict with Croatia. It is true that the NATO statute states that member states are to resolve border issues with neighbours in a peaceful manner, and I think that Slovenia has fulfilled that criteria so far and I hope it will continue to do so in the future. On the other hand, I would repeat that this is not a serious conflict, at least not in the eyes of the international community, one which could endanger the peace in the region and result in a larger scale conflict.

NACIONAL: How real are the fishing interests in the Piran Bay, both Slovenian and Croatian?

I think there are not real at all, or they are very small. Just as small as that bay is. But regardless of how small the fishing interests as a whole, we mustn’t forget that this bay could be of great significance to the individual fisherman. Northern Adriatic fisherman are a group facing extinction, they face hundreds of problems, they are not wealthy and in such a situation, even a small conflict can explode into catastrophic consequences, though the roots of the problem may be somewhere else.

NACIONAL: How important is access to the open sea for Slovenia, for which Račan was criticized in Croatia?

From the beginning of negotiations, Slovenia has made it clear that access to the open sea is the only priority. This was politically wise, and proof of this is that all coastal nations are seeking access to the open sea, while those which are not coastal are seeking some other benefits as they are deprived of the natural advantages of having a coastline. Slovenia had a very interesting argument: the sea was not divided among the republics of the former Yugoslavia, and as such, taking access to the open sea is not taking away anything Croatian. This access would be a constitutive part of the succession agreement for the former Yugoslavia. If we look at a map of the Adriatic, that access to the open sea has little practical value as the sailing routes in the Adriatic were drawn up long ago and they must be respected. That access obviously has some symbolic value for Slovenian politics.

International Court in The Hague

NACIONAL: Just how typical a process in international law is succession prior to the breakup of a country?

In terms of succession of the sea, I must admit that I’ve never heard of such a case. I now of studies of federal states in which the sea is divided according to federal boundaries, but in the case of a breakup and succession, the division is already made. However, I know of many conflicts regarding maritime borders. The recent conflict between Spain and Morocco over one uninhabited island was the most recent. There have also been cases concerning epicontinental land, the sea floor. Many of these cases ended up before the International Court in The Hague, and many will end up there in the future.

Chronology of the Piran Bay border crisis

The crisis escalated on August 5, 2002 when Slovenian fishing boats first entered the Croatian territorial waters

1991
The fall of Yugoslavia. According to the decision made by the Badinter Commission, the borders of the republics of the former Yugoslavia would be the republic borders. According to international maritime law, Piran Bay was divided in half between Croatia and Slovenia
Summer 1996
Slovenia administratively annexes four Croatian villages on Bujština – Mlini, Bužin, Škudelin and Škrile
July 1997
After a series of disagreements, the Agreement on border traffic and cooperation is signed by Croatia and Slovenia, but is ratified by Slovenia in 2001 with delayed application of the mutual fishing in the waters of both countries
July 17, 2001
Janez Drnovšek announces that a deal has been reached giving Slovenia access to the open sea
July 20, 2001
Agreement on borders initialed.
July/August 2001
Croatia expressed dissatisfaction with the Agreement on borders
August 5, 2002
Four Croatian trawlers enter into Croatian territorial waters
August 8, 2002
Slovenian fishing boats again in Croatian waters
August 10, 2002
Two Slovenian fishing boats cross the demarcation line and enter Croatian territorial waters
August 13, 2002
Two Slovenian fishing boats again in Croatian waters, joined that same afternoon by another four fishing boats and the Slovenian police
August 14, 2002
Three Slovenian fishing boats and police boat in Croatian waters
August 16, 2002
Račan states it is obvious that the implementation of borders with Slovenia will not pass, while Slovenian opposition calls for the initialed agreement to be revoked
August 17, 2002
Three Slovenian fishing boats in Croatian waters
August 18, 2002
Slovenian citizen, Joško Joras, living in Croatian village of Mlini hangs a Slovenian flag on his house. A group of Croats then broke into his house and replaced the Slovenian flag with a Croatian flag
August 21, 2002
Joško Joras arrested “for non-payment of violation fines”
August 24, 2002
Jelo Kacin, president of the foreign policy board of the Slovenian parliament, rejects the Croatian proposal of “non-binding” arbitration
August 28, 2002
Croatian ruling coalition supports arbitration of border conflict with Slovenia, but rejects Slovenian proposal that this process cover the entire border between the countries
August 30, 2002
Drunken Croatian fisherman brings Slovenian fishing boat into Savudrija, and the owner of the vessel is still being sought. Istrian fishermen threaten war at their meeting with Račan
September 3, 2002
Meeting between Premiers Račan and Drnovšek in Zagreb