Talk:Island of Vukovar

Serbia Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Both islands including Baranja belongs to Serbia[edit]

When Yugoslavia has dissolved basic principle of what has entered to union has to go out of the union has not been respected, and Yugoslavia was formed first as Kingdom of SHS. First of all, Baranja was part of Vojvodina, which joined with Serbia (and not as autonomous province) and then Yugoslavia was formed.77.176.10.209 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)(talk) 10:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and POV[edit]

The following:

By decision of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, the borders between the republics became the borders between the countries, so the Island of Vukovar officially became Croatian territory under Serbian occupation, like other parts of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem (east Croatia) at the time.

is original research, as the author of this paragraph arbitrarily interprets the BAC decision in a particular way. The BAC decision rules on principles, not on particulars; it makes no mention of the Island of Vukovar.

Also - and correct me if I'm wrong - according to the international law, national borders running along navigable rivers are not fixed, but are moving depending on changes in the river's main flow. In other words: if the main flow of the river changes, the border also changes. (For non-navigable rivers this is not so: the border is fixed.) Was the Island of Vukovar closer to the Serbian or the Croatian bank in 1991? The matter is far from clear. It may well be argued that this island was Croatian at one time, but now it isn't. However, the article is presenting one side of the story as an established fact. GregorB (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAC is not speaking about any territory, but it is saying that republic border has become international border. Island of Vukovar has been without any question part of Croatia during Yugoslavia. During 1991 there has been Croatia war of independence during which eastern part of Croatia (together with island) is occupied by Serbian forces. Even Serbian source in article is saying that Serbia is refusing to accept decision of BAC !

Because Channel Islands are closer to France of UK will you give this islands to France ?

International convection on water border is saying that borders are going in middle way between 2 territory of 2 states or you can call it coasts but then Croatian coast is Island of Vukovar coast and Serbian coast is other side.--Rjecina (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once Croatia joins the EU, it'll block Serbian EU-negotiations until Serbia hands over disputed islands... And is Serbia persist, Croatia will most likely use force, and prevent Serbia from entering EU. I know, not most diplomatic way, but Croatia is in NATO, I doubt Serbia would start another war with NATO over land that it doesn't belong to her.

I said "closer to the Serbian or the Croatian bank" only because the main flow of the river is usually wider. So, if a river island belongs to a particular country, it's usually closer to the corresponding river bank. (See the map at Island of Šarengrad - it is clear where the main flow goes.) This all applies to rivers only, sea islands have nothing to do with it.

BAC decisions can be read both ways: if republic borders are to be treated as international borders, then one could apply international laws all the way.

Anyway: the point here is not to be an advocate of a particular side in dispute. The conclusions I draw here serve precisely that function: by showing that it can go both ways, I illustrate the point (well, hopefully) that the article should avoid unwarranted conclusions and POV presentation. GregorB (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand tag and original research. There is agreement between Croatia and Serbia that in 1991 island has been Croatian territory. There is agreement that Vukovar area is overrun by Serbian forces in 1991 and there is agreement that Serbia has not returned island when everything else is returned ?

I will rewrite statement with tag original research.--Rjecina (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This statement ("BAC says so and so, therefore the Island of Vukovar is Croatian territory") should clearly be presented as the Croatian government's view. (It would also be a good thing if it could be backed up with a reference.) I'd have no objections to that, on the contrary... GregorB (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now is better ?

I do not see any legal argument that Serbian claim is valid, because Serbia is not calling any international convection which support Serbia position.

For me Serbia position about middle of river (so island is Serbian) is similar with Slovenian that all Piran bay is Slovenian territory :)--Rjecina (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of Slovenia too, but I see it differently:

	Gulf of Piran	Danube islands
Croatian position	International law ("middle line") applies	Croatia used the islands, so BAC ruling applies
Slovenian/Serbian position	Slovenia used the bay, so BAC rulling applies	International law ("middle of the main flow") applies

I simplified it a bit, of course (I'd say that Slovenian argument is the weakest of all here; also, they don't really appeal to the BAC ruling directly), but that's the general idea. BTW, the article is better now. GregorB (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not realy, better simplification would be;

	Gulf of Piran	Danube islands
Croatian position	International law ("middle line") and BAC ruling applies (Croatian station in Umag was responcible for southern half of the gulf)	Croatia used the islands (there were also part of Croatian municipalities), so BAC ruling applies
Slovenian/Serbian position	Some slovene inhabitet territories were left out of Slovenia in 1945 (even if it got some italian inhabitet ones), basicly Slovenia wants more territory.	International law ("middle of the main flow") applies, even if those areas were part of Croatian municipalities in SFRJ.

Both Slovenia and Serbia goes contra BAC disisions in which administrative borders are relevant. BTW: Croatia even let Slovenians some land (border in 1954 was few miles norther on old Dragonja flow, Portorož airport was in Croatia) only latter border moved on canal Sv.Odorika...
Also Slovenia got some villages from Croatia after ww2 in Međimurje, Prekokupje (near Karlovac, few Serbian inhabitet ones), and after 1954 few north of Buzet.
Baranja and Syrmia borders on Danube where pinpoited in the era of Austria-Hungary and were characterized as such due to freequent changes and floding of Danube. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The press is beginning to notice: "Zvuči li vam poznato: Hrvatska za katastarske granice, Srbija bi granicu preko sredine Dunava". GregorB (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do, try to read the commentaries... Yellow pres :) --Čeha (razgovor) 13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Island of Vukovar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]