Talk:Croatia–Slovenia border disputes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge proposal[edit]

Just to spell that out - Talk:Croatia – Slovenia relations#Proposed merge. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to merge this into anything - it's a huge article (49,227 bytes) that more than merits to stand alone.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template at the top of the article points here, so I'd already started the discussion on that page. You might want to move your comment there. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cohesion and style[edit]

The comment at Talk:Croatia–Slovenia_border_disputes/Archive_2#Colon stands - it's too long. The details of who proposed what at some semi-random point of 2008 are transient and not notable. It should be trimmed and condensed to what's important. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

map[edit]

The map of Europe is way off. We need two to four maps centered on actual disputed borders. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to see a map, showing the initial claims, and the final version from the verdict. There is a good map in the part of  Drnovšek–Račan_agreement, but how does the final map look like? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 01:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICJ's use of "ex aequo et bono"[edit]

"The point of dispute between the countries is also regarding the question whether the legal principle "ex aequo et bono" itself also constitutes a part of international law or not, since the principle had never been used at the International Court of Justice."

The ICJ has used "equitable criteria" in establishing its ruling in a similar scenario.[1] Hence, it may be necessary to add qualifications to the latter part of the above statement in the interest of neutrality.

--H.vitruviensis (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Case concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area" (PDF). International Court of Justice. October 12, 1984.

EU blockade - move to a separate article?[edit]

I think the section should be moved to a separate article, because it does not only concern border disputes, but also other unresolved issues, like Ljubljanska banka etc. --Eleassar my talk 08:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I upmerged it because it was a load of content basically about nothing - it was largely about the meaningless political process of negotiating, rather about anything substantial. Likewise, if you can name anything of any encyclopedic value that you remember from the 2008-2009 debates that relates to e.g. Ljubljanska banka, I'd have to congratulate you; I don't remember hearing about the issue moving one bit either way. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I should mention that it's still a crapload of stuff about nothing, only here - the whole section about the "French proposal" is particularly egregious. It looks like a textbook WP:NOTNEWSPAPER violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An important event was for example the final turndown of the lawsuit of three Croatian savers at the European Court of Human Rights,[1] dated to October 2008. In Novi list, an article was published in 2009 ascribing the blockade to the NLB instead of the border issues.(Dnevnik.si) Another one about this was published in Jutarnji list, which cited some other economic reasons for the blockade.(24ur.com) It seems reasonable at least for now to keep the section as part of this article, but these published guesses about the true motives of the blockade should also be mentioned. --Eleassar my talk 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NLB? Allens (talk | contribs) 00:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LB - Ljubljana Bank - actually (thanks). --Eleassar my talk 06:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems relevant enough to mention, but since it seems to be only journalist guesswork at this point, it should stay together until proven. Certainly, if we're spending so many bytes describing the politicking of the blockade but skirting the LB issue completely, that's putting undue weight on the politics; the former issue should be mentioned and the latter made more concise. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Slovenian or Slovene?[edit]

I've been using "Slovenian" in my copyedit; should it be Slovene? Thanks! I'll keep an eye on the article & talk page and convert it to whatever's decided, if that's desired. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed in detail in 2008 and before and a consensus has been followed since then to use Slovene for the ethnicity and the language and Slovenian for the country and its residents - therefore, the corresponding articles are titled Slovene language and Slovenes; see also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene). --Eleassar my talk 08:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do the needed corrections. Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 23:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've spotted everyplace needing a correction on this, although I might have missed something, of course. Allens (talk | contribs) 00:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Land dispute in the north"[edit]

This is a bit misleading, while it is correct from a Croatian POV (the north of Croatia), from a Slovenian POV it would indicate that there is a land dispute in the north of Slovenia (ie with Austria). I think it would be better to call it the "land dispute along the Mura river" to keep it more neutral. 86.61.120.112 (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it do that? The matter at hand is clearly the Croatian-Slovenian border, which runs from the southwest to the northeast, meaning it obviously has a northern part, which is the topic of that section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Land dispute in the northern border area" or "Land dispute in the northern area of the border"? Allens (talk | contribs) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to rename to the "land dispute along the Mur" seems reasonable. This way we avoid country-specific designations and make the heading more informative. In addition, this is in line with "Land dispute along the Dragonja river". --Eleassar my talk 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment and Edit Request[edit]

From the article: "The border runs in the direction from the southwest to the northeast." What does this mean? Vice-versa is not valid? The border has a "direction"? This must be edited, I humbly believe... --E4024 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've tagged it with {{cn}}, but the tag was removed..[2] --Eleassar my talk 10:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Croatia–Slovenia border disputes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Croatia–Slovenia border disputes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Croatia–Slovenia border disputes. 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) 18:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brezovica pri Metliki[edit]

Please assist. Where is a copy of the Expert Group report of December 1996? Does anyone have access to it? Jeff in CA (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Details:
In the matter of the PCA ruling in the Slovenia-Croatia arbitration, does anyone know how to access the map area identified as 7.1 in the Expert Group report of December 1996? (Joint Report on the results of the comparison of cadastral boundaries in the areas displaying significant discrepancies, Zagreb, 20 December, 1996.)
This report states, "A first disputed area is located near a village called Brezovica pri Metliki. In this village, the Expert Group* identified area 7.1, which covers 2.4 ha of land and which remains disputed between the Parties." (from the Minutes on Collating Unaligned Borders of Cadastral Districts, Border Sector VII, Case 1 (Sekulići-Bušinja Vas), Joint Expert Group, Ozalj, 14 March 1996, Annex HR-301.)
* Mixed Slovenian-Croatian Expert Group for the comparison of cadastral boundaries displaying discrepancies, State Border Republic of Slovenia—Republic of Croatia
I have excerpted the relevant statement from the PCA ruling of 29 June 2017:
"The Tribunal determines that, in these circumstances, area 7.1 forms part of the territory of Slovenia, and the boundary runs along Slovenia’s cadastral limits. The Tribunal recognizes that the delimitation thus made on the basis of the cadastral limits is one of great complexity. The cadastral boundary creates numerous meanders and even enclaves."
— from PCA CASE NO. 2012-04 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, SIGNED ON 4 NOVEMBER 2009 between THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA and THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA (together, the "Parties") FINAL AWARD 29 June 2017". The Hague, Netherlands: Permanent Court of Arbitration. p. 182.
Jeff in CA (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes 159 and 160[edit]

These both refer to Croatian-language sources (a fact that is not mentioned) and hence could be considered biased - not something you expect in a Wikipedia article.188.230.240.75 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute before EU Court of Justice[edit]

Slovenia on 13.07.2018 started proceedings against Croatia before the EU Court of Justice over the maritime border, case number C-457/18, see official journal (Interstate cases are rare before the EU Court)----Bancki (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatia–Slovenia_border_disputes&oldid=1206827830"