Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Serbia-Croatia, Danube border

Expand Messages
  • kubana2005
    If you look at different map, you will notice that Croatia claims a portion of Serbia east of Danube river. Borders of ex Yugoslav countires are suppose to
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      If you look at different map, you will notice that Croatia claims a
      portion of Serbia east of Danube river.

      Borders of ex Yugoslav countires are suppose to stay same as they were
      before the fall of Yugoslavia.

      What is your view of CRO-SR border on Danube? Croatian claims are not
      recognized by UN.

      Regards, Alex
    • Anton Zeilinger
      This is not an easy issue - both states claim that they correctly apply the uti possidetis principle, i.e. that the border follows pre- independence internal
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 30, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        This is not an easy issue - both states claim that they correctly apply
        the uti possidetis principle, i.e. that the border follows pre-
        independence internal boundaries.

        However, it appears that already in Yugoslav times, there was a dispute
        as to the location of the boundary. Croatia claims that the border
        follows the catadastral boundaries of the villages in the area which do
        NOT coincide with the Danube river and thus create "pockets" of
        Croation territory on the other side of the river. Serbia, however,
        claims that the river itself must be the border.

        In my opinion, both sides have legitimate arguments; if Croatia can
        actually prove that Serbia recognized Croatian administration of the
        territory on the "wrong" side of the river during Yugoslav times,
        Croatia would have a very strong position.

        I'm not sure what you mean by "Croatian claims are not recognized by
        UN" - I don't think it's up to the UN to decide on bilateral border
        disputes, unless a case is submitted to the International Court of
        Justice, or the Security Council passes a binding resolution.

        Cheers,
        Anton

        --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@...> wrote:
        >
        > If you look at different map, you will notice that Croatia claims a
        > portion of Serbia east of Danube river.
        >
        > Borders of ex Yugoslav countires are suppose to stay same as they
        were
        > before the fall of Yugoslavia.
        >
        > What is your view of CRO-SR border on Danube? Croatian claims are not
        > recognized by UN.
        >
        > Regards, Alex
        >
      • kubana2005
        On every ex Yugoslav map, border was on the Danbue river. Everything that is found in those practical exclaves was built by Serbian tax payers, and most of
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 30, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On every ex Yugoslav map, border was on the Danbue river.

          Everything that is found in those 'practical exclaves' was built by
          Serbian tax payers, and most of the land is owned by the Serbs.

          What I tried to say about UN, is that most international maps do not
          recognize these claims.

          Any more info is appreciated.

          Cheers, Alex


          --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
          <anton_zeilinger@...> wrote:
          >
          > This is not an easy issue - both states claim that they correctly
          apply
          > the uti possidetis principle, i.e. that the border follows pre-
          > independence internal boundaries.
          >
          > However, it appears that already in Yugoslav times, there was a
          dispute
          > as to the location of the boundary. Croatia claims that the border
          > follows the catadastral boundaries of the villages in the area
          which do
          > NOT coincide with the Danube river and thus create "pockets" of
          > Croation territory on the other side of the river. Serbia,
          however,
          > claims that the river itself must be the border.
          >
          > In my opinion, both sides have legitimate arguments; if Croatia
          can
          > actually prove that Serbia recognized Croatian administration of
          the
          > territory on the "wrong" side of the river during Yugoslav times,
          > Croatia would have a very strong position.
          >
          > I'm not sure what you mean by "Croatian claims are not recognized
          by
          > UN" - I don't think it's up to the UN to decide on bilateral
          border
          > disputes, unless a case is submitted to the International Court of
          > Justice, or the Security Council passes a binding resolution.
          >
          > Cheers,
          > Anton
          >
          > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@>
          wrote:
          > >
          > > If you look at different map, you will notice that Croatia
          claims a
          > > portion of Serbia east of Danube river.
          > >
          > > Borders of ex Yugoslav countires are suppose to stay same as
          they
          > were
          > > before the fall of Yugoslavia.
          > >
          > > What is your view of CRO-SR border on Danube? Croatian claims
          are not
          > > recognized by UN.
          > >
          > > Regards, Alex
          > >
          >
        • Anton Zeilinger
          Well, maps are only a clue as to where the border runs. The AVNOJ decrees of the 1940s divided Croatia and Serbia by assigning towns and villages to either
          Message 4 of 7 , May 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, maps are only a clue as to where the border runs. The AVNOJ
            decrees of the 1940s divided Croatia and Serbia by assigning towns
            and villages to either Serbia and Croatia. But some of these towns
            had territory on the other side of the river. By a strict reading,
            the border between Serbia and Croatia thus ran along the limits of
            these towns. I think that is what you mean by "practical enclaves".

            Serbia would have to prove that Croatia did not administer
            these "enclaves" before the dissolution of Yugoslavia and that Serbia
            in fact administered it, which - I think - would be very hard to
            prove.

            Whether most of the land is owned by Serbians privately is, I'm
            afraid, wholly irrelevant as to the issue of sovereign title.

            My experience as to maps is that more often than not they cannot
            really be trusted as to the exact location of the boundary.

            Cheers,

            Anton


            --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > On every ex Yugoslav map, border was on the Danbue river.
            >
            > Everything that is found in those 'practical exclaves' was built by
            > Serbian tax payers, and most of the land is owned by the Serbs.
            >
            > What I tried to say about UN, is that most international maps do
            not
            > recognize these claims.
            >
            > Any more info is appreciated.
            >
            > Cheers, Alex
            >
            >
            > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
            > <anton_zeilinger@> wrote:
            > >
            > > This is not an easy issue - both states claim that they correctly
            > apply
            > > the uti possidetis principle, i.e. that the border follows pre-
            > > independence internal boundaries.
            > >
            > > However, it appears that already in Yugoslav times, there was a
            > dispute
            > > as to the location of the boundary. Croatia claims that the
            border
            > > follows the catadastral boundaries of the villages in the area
            > which do
            > > NOT coincide with the Danube river and thus create "pockets" of
            > > Croation territory on the other side of the river. Serbia,
            > however,
            > > claims that the river itself must be the border.
            > >
            > > In my opinion, both sides have legitimate arguments; if Croatia
            > can
            > > actually prove that Serbia recognized Croatian administration of
            > the
            > > territory on the "wrong" side of the river during Yugoslav times,
            > > Croatia would have a very strong position.
            > >
            > > I'm not sure what you mean by "Croatian claims are not recognized
            > by
            > > UN" - I don't think it's up to the UN to decide on bilateral
            > border
            > > disputes, unless a case is submitted to the International Court
            of
            > > Justice, or the Security Council passes a binding resolution.
            > >
            > > Cheers,
            > > Anton
            > >
            > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@>
            > wrote:
            > > >
            > > > If you look at different map, you will notice that Croatia
            > claims a
            > > > portion of Serbia east of Danube river.
            > > >
            > > > Borders of ex Yugoslav countires are suppose to stay same as
            > they
            > > were
            > > > before the fall of Yugoslavia.
            > > >
            > > > What is your view of CRO-SR border on Danube? Croatian claims
            > are not
            > > > recognized by UN.
            > > >
            > > > Regards, Alex
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • kubana2005
            Anton, As you said, AVNOJ did make up the border (which I personally, think that they are irreelevant, e.g. republics where only administrative subdivison
            Message 5 of 7 , May 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Anton,
              As you said, AVNOJ did ''make up'' the border (which I personally,
              think that they are irreelevant, e.g. republics where only
              administrative subdivison of Yugoslavia, but not ethnical, which
              made dissolution of Yugoslavia very hard.)

              Anyway, Serbian Socialist Republic did administer that land
              (although there is little to administre, most of the land is Danube
              swamp, great for fishing), citizens of several Serbian
              muncipalities, even payed to built bridge and railway truck.

              I have talked with few cadastral geographers which are working on
              this issue. They said that it is still disputed, but the recognized
              border is still the Danube river.

              the most disputed area is the island of Vukovar.
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Vukovar

              Hope to find more info on this,
              cheers, Alex

              --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
              <anton_zeilinger@...> wrote:
              >
              > Well, maps are only a clue as to where the border runs. The AVNOJ
              > decrees of the 1940s divided Croatia and Serbia by assigning towns
              > and villages to either Serbia and Croatia. But some of these towns
              > had territory on the other side of the river. By a strict reading,
              > the border between Serbia and Croatia thus ran along the limits of
              > these towns. I think that is what you mean by "practical enclaves".
              >
              > Serbia would have to prove that Croatia did not administer
              > these "enclaves" before the dissolution of Yugoslavia and that
              Serbia
              > in fact administered it, which - I think - would be very hard to
              > prove.
              >
              > Whether most of the land is owned by Serbians privately is, I'm
              > afraid, wholly irrelevant as to the issue of sovereign title.
              >
              > My experience as to maps is that more often than not they cannot
              > really be trusted as to the exact location of the boundary.
              >
              > Cheers,
              >
              > Anton
              >
              >
              > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > On every ex Yugoslav map, border was on the Danbue river.
              > >
              > > Everything that is found in those 'practical exclaves' was built
              by
              > > Serbian tax payers, and most of the land is owned by the Serbs.
              > >
              > > What I tried to say about UN, is that most international maps do
              > not
              > > recognize these claims.
              > >
              > > Any more info is appreciated.
              > >
              > > Cheers, Alex
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
              > > <anton_zeilinger@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > This is not an easy issue - both states claim that they
              correctly
              > > apply
              > > > the uti possidetis principle, i.e. that the border follows pre-
              > > > independence internal boundaries.
              > > >
              > > > However, it appears that already in Yugoslav times, there was
              a
              > > dispute
              > > > as to the location of the boundary. Croatia claims that the
              > border
              > > > follows the catadastral boundaries of the villages in the area
              > > which do
              > > > NOT coincide with the Danube river and thus create "pockets"
              of
              > > > Croation territory on the other side of the river. Serbia,
              > > however,
              > > > claims that the river itself must be the border.
              > > >
              > > > In my opinion, both sides have legitimate arguments; if
              Croatia
              > > can
              > > > actually prove that Serbia recognized Croatian administration
              of
              > > the
              > > > territory on the "wrong" side of the river during Yugoslav
              times,
              > > > Croatia would have a very strong position.
              > > >
              > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "Croatian claims are not
              recognized
              > > by
              > > > UN" - I don't think it's up to the UN to decide on bilateral
              > > border
              > > > disputes, unless a case is submitted to the International
              Court
              > of
              > > > Justice, or the Security Council passes a binding resolution.
              > > >
              > > > Cheers,
              > > > Anton
              > > >
              > > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@>
              > > wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > If you look at different map, you will notice that Croatia
              > > claims a
              > > > > portion of Serbia east of Danube river.
              > > > >
              > > > > Borders of ex Yugoslav countires are suppose to stay same as
              > > they
              > > > were
              > > > > before the fall of Yugoslavia.
              > > > >
              > > > > What is your view of CRO-SR border on Danube? Croatian
              claims
              > > are not
              > > > > recognized by UN.
              > > > >
              > > > > Regards, Alex
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • Anton Zeilinger
              Alex, thanks for the information. Yet the core of the uti possidetis principle is that pre-independence administrative boundaries transform into international
              Message 6 of 7 , May 3, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Alex,

                thanks for the information. Yet the core of the uti possidetis
                principle is that pre-independence administrative boundaries
                transform into international boundaries, irrespective of the ethnical
                make-up! Prime examples are the Central Asian post-USSR republics
                and , of course, also Yugoslavia. The ethnical set-up is more or less
                irrelevent, what matters is the trace of the administrative boundary.
                I know that this is often creates new problems, but it was generally
                thought that this would result in the least disputes.

                The catadastral boundaries along the Danube were drawn extremely
                early (I think as early as the 18th century) and were never adjusted.

                It is not an easy issue, and any solution would have to be achieved
                through bilateral negotiations, I would think.

                Cheers,

                Anton


                --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Anton,
                > As you said, AVNOJ did ''make up'' the border (which I personally,
                > think that they are irreelevant, e.g. republics where only
                > administrative subdivison of Yugoslavia, but not ethnical, which
                > made dissolution of Yugoslavia very hard.)
                >
                > Anyway, Serbian Socialist Republic did administer that land
                > (although there is little to administre, most of the land is Danube
                > swamp, great for fishing), citizens of several Serbian
                > muncipalities, even payed to built bridge and railway truck.
                >
                > I have talked with few cadastral geographers which are working on
                > this issue. They said that it is still disputed, but the recognized
                > border is still the Danube river.
                >
                > the most disputed area is the island of Vukovar.
                > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Vukovar
                >
                > Hope to find more info on this,
                > cheers, Alex
                >
                > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
                > <anton_zeilinger@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Well, maps are only a clue as to where the border runs. The AVNOJ
                > > decrees of the 1940s divided Croatia and Serbia by assigning
                towns
                > > and villages to either Serbia and Croatia. But some of these
                towns
                > > had territory on the other side of the river. By a strict
                reading,
                > > the border between Serbia and Croatia thus ran along the limits
                of
                > > these towns. I think that is what you mean by "practical
                enclaves".
                > >
                > > Serbia would have to prove that Croatia did not administer
                > > these "enclaves" before the dissolution of Yugoslavia and that
                > Serbia
                > > in fact administered it, which - I think - would be very hard to
                > > prove.
                > >
                > > Whether most of the land is owned by Serbians privately is, I'm
                > > afraid, wholly irrelevant as to the issue of sovereign title.
                > >
                > > My experience as to maps is that more often than not they cannot
                > > really be trusted as to the exact location of the boundary.
                > >
                > > Cheers,
                > >
                > > Anton
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005" <kubana2005@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > On every ex Yugoslav map, border was on the Danbue river.
                > > >
                > > > Everything that is found in those 'practical exclaves' was
                built
                > by
                > > > Serbian tax payers, and most of the land is owned by the Serbs.
                > > >
                > > > What I tried to say about UN, is that most international maps
                do
                > > not
                > > > recognize these claims.
                > > >
                > > > Any more info is appreciated.
                > > >
                > > > Cheers, Alex
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Zeilinger"
                > > > <anton_zeilinger@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > This is not an easy issue - both states claim that they
                > correctly
                > > > apply
                > > > > the uti possidetis principle, i.e. that the border follows
                pre-
                > > > > independence internal boundaries.
                > > > >
                > > > > However, it appears that already in Yugoslav times, there was
                > a
                > > > dispute
                > > > > as to the location of the boundary. Croatia claims that the
                > > border
                > > > > follows the catadastral boundaries of the villages in the
                area
                > > > which do
                > > > > NOT coincide with the Danube river and thus create "pockets"
                > of
                > > > > Croation territory on the other side of the river. Serbia,
                > > > however,
                > > > > claims that the river itself must be the border.
                > > > >
                > > > > In my opinion, both sides have legitimate arguments; if
                > Croatia
                > > > can
                > > > > actually prove that Serbia recognized Croatian administration
                > of
                > > > the
                > > > > territory on the "wrong" side of the river during Yugoslav
                > times,
                > > > > Croatia would have a very strong position.
                > > > >
                > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "Croatian claims are not
                > recognized
                > > > by
                > > > > UN" - I don't think it's up to the UN to decide on bilateral
                > > > border
                > > > > disputes, unless a case is submitted to the International
                > Court
                > > of
                > > > > Justice, or the Security Council passes a binding resolution.
                > > > >
                > > > > Cheers,
                > > > > Anton
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "kubana2005"
                <kubana2005@>
                > > > wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > If you look at different map, you will notice that Croatia
                > > > claims a
                > > > > > portion of Serbia east of Danube river.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Borders of ex Yugoslav countires are suppose to stay same
                as
                > > > they
                > > > > were
                > > > > > before the fall of Yugoslavia.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > What is your view of CRO-SR border on Danube? Croatian
                > claims
                > > > are not
                > > > > > recognized by UN.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Regards, Alex
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • kubana2005
                What I tried to say about ethnical borders is that borders were made up by Tito and communist, not by the will of people, which makes those borders not the
                Message 7 of 7 , May 4, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  What I tried to say about ethnical borders is that borders were made
                  up by Tito and communist, not by the will of people, which makes those
                  borders not the real borders of those states. But this is another
                  story.
                  It is similar as if Alabama or Oregon deaclered independence (I hope
                  you understand me).

                  I am not sure whether those practical exclaves were indeed part of
                  Croatia or Serbia, but I am not sure wheter cadastral areas borders
                  have to be same as ex republics border. Perhaps they were just
                  administred by other cadastral muncipality, which is not related to
                  republics.

                  Any more informations, apprecieted.

                  Regards, Alex
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.