235
such a reserve, but it gave no indication of the territorial extent of the rights recognized as belonging to each of them”.
44
Nonetheless, the fact that Slovenia established a reserve 14 years before Croatia and, most importantly, enacted specific
regulation for its management, whereas no specific regulation was adopted by
Croatia, leads the Tribunal to conclude that “the fishing reserve was of limited interest for Croatia”.
45
The Tribunal then finds that Slovenia was more active in the Bay
than Croatia also with regard to police patrol activities.
46
With respect to Croatian
search and rescue operations, safety of navigation operations or activities against
illegal fishing, the Tribunal notes that they took place in the vicinity of the Croatian
coast. On the contrary, no weight is given to fishing activities in the Bay.
47
At the end of its analysis, the Tribunal notes that, “on the occasion of the creation
of a fishing reserve by Croatia, Slovenia recognized that it had no exclusive jurisdiction over the whole Bay”, which was in contrast with its repeated claims to the
contrary. At the same time, however, the Tribunal finds that Croatia did not exercise
jurisdiction over the whole area south of the median line proposed by it. Therefore,
it concludes, “the delimitation is to follow a line situated between the lines advanced
by the Parties”. And it adds:
[The Tribunal] notes that in the agreement contemplated by them in 2001, that line was
drawn to join the end of the land boundary in the mouth of the Dragonja River to a point on
the closing line of the Bay, which is at a distance from Cape Madona that is three times the
distance from that same point to Cape Savudrija. The Tribunal considers that that line corresponds to the effectivités it has been able to determine and will adopt it.
48
As regards the regime for the use of the Bay, the Tribunal notes in closing that
“there is no need for it to define any particular usage regime in the Bay, different
from what applies under international law”.
49
3.1 Analysis
This aspect of the dispute, which was largely ignored by commentators writing at
the time of the Final Award, raises particularly complex issues, not least because of
uncertainty as to the applicable international norms. Moreover, despite the small
size of the Bay, it is in this area that major problems are currently taking place—and
that significant shortcomings of the Final Award are clearly becoming apparent. A
more in-depth analysis of these problems is therefore necessary.
44 Ibidem, para. 897.
45 Ibidem, para. 901.
46 Ibidem, paras. 902–907.
47 Ibidem, para. 908. Similarly, according to the Tribunal, Slovenia’s marine research and water
quality monitoring activities cannot, “in most cases”, be considered “as having been pursued à titre
de souverain” (para. 911).
48 Ibidem, para. 913.
49 Ibidem, para. 914.
The Law of Maritime Delimitation in the Croatia/Slovenia Final Award
such a reserve, but it gave no indication of the territorial extent of the rights recognized as belonging to each of them”.
44
Nonetheless, the fact that Slovenia established a reserve 14 years before Croatia and, most importantly, enacted specific
regulation for its management, whereas no specific regulation was adopted by
Croatia, leads the Tribunal to conclude that “the fishing reserve was of limited interest for Croatia”.
45
The Tribunal then finds that Slovenia was more active in the Bay
than Croatia also with regard to police patrol activities.
46
With respect to Croatian
search and rescue operations, safety of navigation operations or activities against
illegal fishing, the Tribunal notes that they took place in the vicinity of the Croatian
coast. On the contrary, no weight is given to fishing activities in the Bay.
47
At the end of its analysis, the Tribunal notes that, “on the occasion of the creation
of a fishing reserve by Croatia, Slovenia recognized that it had no exclusive jurisdiction over the whole Bay”, which was in contrast with its repeated claims to the
contrary. At the same time, however, the Tribunal finds that Croatia did not exercise
jurisdiction over the whole area south of the median line proposed by it. Therefore,
it concludes, “the delimitation is to follow a line situated between the lines advanced
by the Parties”. And it adds:
[The Tribunal] notes that in the agreement contemplated by them in 2001, that line was
drawn to join the end of the land boundary in the mouth of the Dragonja River to a point on
the closing line of the Bay, which is at a distance from Cape Madona that is three times the
distance from that same point to Cape Savudrija. The Tribunal considers that that line corresponds to the effectivités it has been able to determine and will adopt it.
48
As regards the regime for the use of the Bay, the Tribunal notes in closing that
“there is no need for it to define any particular usage regime in the Bay, different
from what applies under international law”.
49
3.1 Analysis
This aspect of the dispute, which was largely ignored by commentators writing at
the time of the Final Award, raises particularly complex issues, not least because of
uncertainty as to the applicable international norms. Moreover, despite the small
size of the Bay, it is in this area that major problems are currently taking place—and
that significant shortcomings of the Final Award are clearly becoming apparent. A
more in-depth analysis of these problems is therefore necessary.
44 Ibidem, para. 897.
45 Ibidem, para. 901.
46 Ibidem, paras. 902–907.
47 Ibidem, para. 908. Similarly, according to the Tribunal, Slovenia’s marine research and water
quality monitoring activities cannot, “in most cases”, be considered “as having been pursued à titre
de souverain” (para. 911).
48 Ibidem, para. 913.
49 Ibidem, para. 914.
The Law of Maritime Delimitation in the Croatia/Slovenia Final Award