It would be foolish for any country to allow even for a theoretical possibility of extortion by a neighbouring country.

And before you start - yes, this is precisely what Slovenia is doing to Croatia right now. It is using a favourable position against Croatia to force some sort of a settlement. Had it not done that, Croatia would gain the upper hand by having its border claims become part of the acquis.

It is all very logical.

In the final analysis no country can rely on another country to look after the former’s interests. And it is absolutely obvious that Slovenia will do everything in its power to preserve its interests.

You mentioned Antwerp a couple of times. There is one huge difference. The maritime border between The Netherlands and Belgium is not disputed. Whereas in our case the border was never set.

This is not a case of Slovenia trying to chip away a part of Croatian sea. It is a matter of Slovenia and Croatia having to partition the once-common sea in a manner that will equaly satisfy (or equaly dissapoint) both parties.

Concerning natural resources, Croatia gets more than 50% of its needs for natural gas from its own sources. This is no joke. Especially in time of economic and energetic crisis. If you don’t give a damn, well Slovenian politicians do. And unfortunatelly for them, Croatian politicians too.

I will make a last attempt to argue that neither Croatia nor Italy can LAWFULLY block Slovenian access. Ever. Period. Read Law of the Sea and right of innocent passage! Practice? Since Law of the Sea was signed in 1984 there has not been a single instance that this right was denied. Moreover, at least one huge port - 10 times larger than Koper and Trieste together - operates exclusively through foreign territorial sea. And nobody cares.

Corridor regimes are not here to ensure the right of innocent passage (this is per se guaranteed) but to regulate traffic. You don’t want big ships to crash, do you? So there is an agreed traffic separation scheme: all ships to Trieste and Koper go through Croatian territorial waters and return through Italian terriorial waters. And Croatia is prepared to give in its half of corridor even more liberal conditions than guaranteed by right of innocent passage (which is actually meaningless unless Slovenia gets the same conditions from Italy, but it is still a nice gesture toward Slovenia).

Second, suppose that Slovenia has territorial corridor with international waters. Suppose that both Croatia and Italy decide to block Slovenia (which is of course an illegal act). And let’s suppost that they still decide to respect the Slovenian corridor (this is contradictio in se, but let’s suppose so). Then they could put blockade between island of Pianosa (Italy) and island of Palagruza (Croatia). Islands are 21 miles apart, even less than Grado and Savudrija peninsulas. So this Slovenian corridor is pure nonsense, because it is bridging only one of two consecutive obstacles.

And finally. Yes, let’s suppose the worst case scenario - that both Croatia and Italy start the war with Slovenia. Do you believe that Slovenian corridor to international waters would pose any serious barrier for blockade? I seriously doubt.

You have many many if’s - and yet, there is no logical explaination.

Sapienti sat.

Regards.

It is about the removing even the theoretical possibility of Croatia or Italy lawfully blocking Slovenian access to international waters. If a clash of interests should occur it is foolish to expect of any country to put it’s neighbour’s interests first. Slovenia therefore does not want to be at the mercy of Croatia, no matter how benign a regime of passage Croatia can offer. Because it can also revoke this regime.

Again, let me stress that I don’t automatically assume that every Slovenian claim is justified. But I also don’t believe that every Croatian claim is justified.

As for playing the blame game - we can go on and on and on. I have no desire to do so. Fact of the matter is that Slovenia raised objections which must be overcome rather than circumvented. And once a solution is reached (it has to be), things will be back to normal.

You argued that it takes two to tango. I agree with that. Both sides contributed to the conflict. However I would disagree with you on who contributed more. Let’s take “creating a new reality on the ground”. You are most probably aware that Croatia has no problem defining 25.6.1991 as a starting point of negotiations. If Croatia was so successful in creating a new reality on the ground, this would most certainly not be so.

As for Koper becoming a marine, this might happen, but I repeat again - this has absolutely nothing to do whether Slovenia has territorial contact with international waters. Croatia de facto controls access corridor to port of Koper and Trieste for last 18 years and there was no problem (exit corridor goes through italian territorial waters). Koper is far from being the only port which access goes through foreign territorial waters (take Antwerp as an example). And finally even if Slovenia had territorial contact with international waters, ships for Koper should still pass through Croatian territorial waters near island of Palagruza, not to mention Maltese and Spanish territorial waters in order to access Atlantic ocean…

I am sorry, but as explained at http://slo-pretensions.blogspot.com/ I cannot find any other reasonable argument on why Slovenia needs contact with international waters except for the fact that in such circumstances it could have its own ECONOMIC ZONE, have GAS EXTRACTION CONCESSIONS and have its own FISHING ZONE up to Vrsar. Let’s look at arguments, let’s use Occam’s razor!

As for Koper becmoming a marine, you know that it would happen, especially with neighbouring ports of Trst/Trieste and Rijeka. I’m not saying that Croatia should just give in because of that, I’m merely stating that it would happen.

Furthermore, I’m not my government’s shoutbox, so you will have to try very hard to find me simply repeating minister Žbogar’s position. It is he and PM Pahor who will have to bear political consequences of a solution (if any). Same goes for PM Sanader and FM Jandroković on the Croatian side. Therefore, any problems you have with minister Žbogar, you can direct them at him.

As for maritime borders: One cannot claim that a maritime border existed if it didn’t exist. You can use legal principles and documents as tools for defining zones of control and cosequently draw borders, but that something both sides can agree with. Which is of course the gist of the dispute. Anything beyond that is an attempt at creating a new reality on the ground. Something Croatia has been very good at - and by saying that I’m again merely stating a fact, without prejudice.

First of all, this statemenst suggests that huge Belgian port of Antwerpen (2nd in the world) is also a marine, since access to that port goes only through Dutch territorial waters…

Second, Mr. Zbogar, your minister of foreign affairs has said two days ago, responding to his Austrian counterpart, that Slovenia already has direct access to international waters, and that this is so according to international law. Mr. Zbogar said that what Slovenia really wants is contact with international waters. Maybe Mr. Žbogar should first make clear what your country really wants. And of course define what “direct access to international waters” (expression invented by Slovenia) really means.

And the last, but not the least, you claim that maritime borders were not defined in Yugoslavia. That is your opinion that I disagree with. According to Badinter’s principle ut posseditis iuris one can rigthfully claim that maritime border existed, since the border of jurisdical authorities was well known. There are several clear documents that prove that matters in southern part of Bay of Piran were resolved on courts in Pula and Umag.

Regards!

And to show you that I did read your comment, let me point out a small-but-significant trick you’re trying to pull:

“Direct acces to international law is regulated by right of innocent passage in the Law of the Sea.”

This is not true. Claiming the right of innocent passage is an indirect access to international waters. Which makes all the difference. Besides, it was established by both sides beyond doubt that a maritime border between republics did not exist and has yet to be drawn.