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

Re: Serbia-Croatia, Danube border

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.