228
areas which raise the problem of boundary delimitation can be classified, in most
cases, as either territorial sea or internal waters of the Yugoslav successor States.
11
Due to the effects of the succession of States on the delimitation agreements
concluded between Italy and Yugoslavia
12
(i.e., the 1975 Treaty of Osimo
13
and the
1968 Italian-Yugoslav continental shelf boundary agreement
14
) and the transformation of the former internal (i.e., administrative) boundaries between the Republics
of the SFRY into “boundaries protected by international law”,
15
the Slovenian coast
can only project a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles into the Gulf of
Trieste and, due to the shape of the southeastern part of the Gulf, that territorial sea
is locked between Croatian and Italian territorial seas. For this reason, Slovenia may
be said to belong to the category of “geographically disadvantaged States” as
defined in Article 70 UNCLOS.
16
With regard to the maritime boundaries between
the independent Republics created out of the former Yugoslavia, however, it must be
noted that at the time of the SFRY there was no official administrative delimitation
at sea between the neighbouring municipalities of the federate Republics.
17
So, even
though upon gaining independence Croatia and Slovenia declared their mutual recognition “within existing boundaries” and stated that “there were no outstanding
territorial claims between them”,
18
it became clear as early as 1993 that a dispute
existed regarding the sea border between the two countries. More specifically, the
dispute concerned the course of the maritime boundary within and outside the Bay
of Piran—with Slovenia claiming the entire bay—and Slovenia’s position that it
should have direct territorial access to the high seas.
19
In 1994, Croatia’s response to
Slovenia’s claims was to adopt a parliamentary resolution on the delimitation of the
11 Still pending are, in particular, the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Croatia and
Montenegro, within and outside the Bay of Kotor, and that of the maritime boundary between
Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the Neum-Klek corridor and at the mouth of the Bay of Klek/
Neum. Both cases share some similarities with the Croatia-Slovenia dispute.
12 For a discussion of the relevant practice, see Migliorino (1995).
13 Treaty on the delimitation of the frontier for the part not indicated as such in the Peace Treaty of
10 February 1947, signed at Osimo, Ancona, on 10 November 1975, 1466 UNTS 72.
14 Agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf
between the two Countries in the Adriatic Sea, signed in Rome on 8 January 1968 (available at
http://www.un.org/depts/los/).
15 As is well known, in its Opinion No. 3 of 11 January 1992, the Badinter Commission endorsed
the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris to the new States created out of the former
Yugoslavia.
16 Cataldi (2013), p. 257.
17 See Arnaut (2004), pp. 429–430, and fn. 12, and Vukas (2006), p. 210, who exclude the applicability of the uti possidetis principle in the context of this particular maritime delimitation.
18 Blake and Topalovic (1996), p. 19.
19 Memorandum on the Piran Bay, adopted by the Slovenian Parliament on March 1993. See
Arnaut (2004), pp. 432–434.
A. Insolia
areas which raise the problem of boundary delimitation can be classified, in most
cases, as either territorial sea or internal waters of the Yugoslav successor States.
11
Due to the effects of the succession of States on the delimitation agreements
concluded between Italy and Yugoslavia
12
(i.e., the 1975 Treaty of Osimo
13
and the
1968 Italian-Yugoslav continental shelf boundary agreement
14
) and the transformation of the former internal (i.e., administrative) boundaries between the Republics
of the SFRY into “boundaries protected by international law”,
15
the Slovenian coast
can only project a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles into the Gulf of
Trieste and, due to the shape of the southeastern part of the Gulf, that territorial sea
is locked between Croatian and Italian territorial seas. For this reason, Slovenia may
be said to belong to the category of “geographically disadvantaged States” as
defined in Article 70 UNCLOS.
16
With regard to the maritime boundaries between
the independent Republics created out of the former Yugoslavia, however, it must be
noted that at the time of the SFRY there was no official administrative delimitation
at sea between the neighbouring municipalities of the federate Republics.
17
So, even
though upon gaining independence Croatia and Slovenia declared their mutual recognition “within existing boundaries” and stated that “there were no outstanding
territorial claims between them”,
18
it became clear as early as 1993 that a dispute
existed regarding the sea border between the two countries. More specifically, the
dispute concerned the course of the maritime boundary within and outside the Bay
of Piran—with Slovenia claiming the entire bay—and Slovenia’s position that it
should have direct territorial access to the high seas.
19
In 1994, Croatia’s response to
Slovenia’s claims was to adopt a parliamentary resolution on the delimitation of the
11 Still pending are, in particular, the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Croatia and
Montenegro, within and outside the Bay of Kotor, and that of the maritime boundary between
Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the Neum-Klek corridor and at the mouth of the Bay of Klek/
Neum. Both cases share some similarities with the Croatia-Slovenia dispute.
12 For a discussion of the relevant practice, see Migliorino (1995).
13 Treaty on the delimitation of the frontier for the part not indicated as such in the Peace Treaty of
10 February 1947, signed at Osimo, Ancona, on 10 November 1975, 1466 UNTS 72.
14 Agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf
between the two Countries in the Adriatic Sea, signed in Rome on 8 January 1968 (available at
http://www.un.org/depts/los/).
15 As is well known, in its Opinion No. 3 of 11 January 1992, the Badinter Commission endorsed
the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris to the new States created out of the former
Yugoslavia.
16 Cataldi (2013), p. 257.
17 See Arnaut (2004), pp. 429–430, and fn. 12, and Vukas (2006), p. 210, who exclude the applicability of the uti possidetis principle in the context of this particular maritime delimitation.
18 Blake and Topalovic (1996), p. 19.
19 Memorandum on the Piran Bay, adopted by the Slovenian Parliament on March 1993. See
Arnaut (2004), pp. 432–434.
A. Insolia