Talk:Gulf of Piran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User Ante Perkovic edits

Hello!

I'm tottaly unfamiliar with editing wikipedia so please bear with me. I keep editing During this time that agreement has been against Slovenian law which has been clearly saying that Slovenia is country without exit to International waters [1]. In last few years Slovenia has changed that law. because I'm having problems with the validity of the claim. The source given is a link to a Croatian newspaper. While I agree that newspaper articles in any language make a valid source of information most of the time, I think in this case both sides should refrain from asserting their views by reffering to sources such as these. As this is a heated debate for both, the Slovenians and the Croatians there is no problem in finding many populistic articles in the press of both countries. Academic or scientific articles or interviews are a great source of information, but quoting vecernji-list is like quoting some Slovenian nationalist paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.143.154 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Večernji list are respectable newspappers, one of the most influental in Croatia. --Ante Perkovic 18:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC).
Can you translate [http://www.mladina.si/tednik/200731/clanek/slo-tema--borut_mekina/index.print.html-l2 this paragraph from Slovenian to english:
Slovenija je svojo željo po dostopu do odprtega morja izrazila precej nespretno, leta 1993, ko je vlada podprla tako imenovani “Memorandum o Piranskem zalivu”, mesec kasneje pa je parlament omenjeni dokument potrdil še s svojimi stališči in sklepi o meji med Republiko Slovenijo in Republiko Hrvaško. V njem je zapisanih precej za Slovenijo škodljivih odstavkov, med drugim predvsem, da "Republika Slovenija … sodi v skupino geografsko prikrajšanih držav, ki zaradi geografske lege ne morejo razglasiti svoje izključne ekonomske cone”. Takšna formulacija pomeni, da Slovenija nima dostopa do odprtega morja. Memorandum je nastal 7. aprila 1993 in je bil uradno izročen Hrvaški 5. maja 1993. Janez Janša je bil leta 1993, v času, ko je bil omenjeni memorandum oblikovan, minister za obrambo v vladi Janeza Drnovška, na položaju zunanjega ministra je bil Lojze Peterle, odbor za mednarodne odnose pa je vodil Zoran Thaler. --Ante Perkovic 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll translate it when I have some time, sure. Ok, I did a google check and a local (najdi.si) check on Memorandum o Piranskem zalivu. I can't find the original source. So finding secondary sources reffering to the Memorandum, but just out of context is, to say the least, controversial. I agree that if the Slovenian side has published such a document it should be linked here. But finding Croatian articles relating to the referendum when there is no original source present is a bit problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.143.154 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map, de.wikipedia

The German Wikipedia has a more detailed discussion of the whole dispute at de:Internationale_Konflikte_der_Nachfolgestaaten_Jugoslawiens#Die_Meeresgrenze_zwischen_Slowenien_und_Kroatien

There's also an alternative map image at Image:BorderDispute BayOfPiran blank.png -- AnonMoos 02:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Made a new map... AnonMoos 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slovenian territorial claims? Or not?

I noticed that someone changed Piran Bay page i.e. my text Latest slovenian territorial claims was changed to Slovenian proposal of ecological protective zone.

Does proposal of ecological protective zone means that Slovenia doesn't claim that this orange triangle is under Slovenian souverenity? Because, if it does claims souverenity over this waters, than it must be explicitely stated in the article.

--Ante Perkovic 10:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No, it is not a claim

Hello!

Ecological protective zone is not a part of any nation's territory. It is usually declared in order to protect nation's rights at sea even outside its territorial waters (like Croatia declared it in 2003). Nation, which declared ecological protective zone usually wants to protect its interests and to protect ecosystem in the area. Ecological protective zone has to be in connection with nation's territorial waters (there's a problem - Slovenia says it is, Croatia says it isn't).

Have a nice day.

Sorry, but You are wrong.

See http://www.vecernji-list.hr/system/galleries/pics/050828/karta.jpg.

You see that yellow dotted line? That is line between epocontinental belt of former Yugoslavia and Italy. This is the area wher those two nations could claim some limited national right or leave it open for everyone. It's their choise. Italy and ex Yu could claim that right, but other countries, like Marroco or Zimbabve, couldn't because their territorial waters don't touch open see. Slovenia in the Adriatic today has the same problem - it's territorial waters doesn't reach the open see. Slovenia cannot possibly have connection to open see because, every drop od open waters is closer either to Croatia or Italy then to Slovenia. It's the only thing that matters. For the same reason, Bosnia-Herzegovina doesn't have access to open see - their coast is just to short.

--Ante Perkovic 06:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We are not discussing national border

Listen, we are not here to decide about that. We are only discussing that ecological protective zone isn't part of national territory. Let our Governments to decide, alright? Let's not make this article based on nationalism but on pure facts.

Have a nice day.

I really don't believe that You don't see this as a border issue. You have either been missinformed or don't understand the problem at all.

We are discussing national borders because only the countries with free acces to open see can declare ecological protective zone or any other zone. So, it is a question of souverenity over part of the see and, therefore, we are discussing national borders. These are facts, not nationalism.

--Ante Perkovic 12:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Look, you pasted the Slovenian proposal of ecological protective zone. That's cool. But we can't discuss here if it is OK or not. We can ONLY say that it's OK for Slovenia and bad for Croatia. That's all. Further more, ecological protective zone has nothing to do with Piran Bay, which we are discussing here. Maybe you should remove that and leave only the situation in Piran Bay (which was the original goal of the article).

Rok SLO


But, the problem is that Slovenia CAN NOT propose an ecological protective zone because it doesn't have the right or the authority to do it. Don't you get it? The Slovenian "proposal" is NOT legally valid. It's absurd and it's against international law. It's tantamount to Croatia declaring a national park in the Alps. A country can declare an ecological protective zone ONLY if it has free access to international waters which Slovenia DOES NOT have. Therefore, if Slovenia declares an ecological protective zone, it claims free access to international waters, therefore it claims a portion of Croatian territorial waters, and therefore it IS a matter of national border. Slovenia is the only European country which claims a portion of another sovereign nation's territory. Deal with it.

--193.198.130.27 20:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


LOL :D

But you know what's the problem? The border isn't set yet so neither you or I know if Slovenia has access to international waters or not. :) Slovenia believes it has an access to international waters and Croatia believes it does not. BORDERS HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE. So you have no right to say that we do not have access to international waters and that Slovenia takes a portion of Croatian territory. How can you say that, if we even don't know where Croatian territory is?

[edit] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

According to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in case of dispute, both side should restrain from crossing the equidistant line. Croatian fishermen has respected the 
equidistant line since the dispute started, but Slovenian fishermen keeps ignoring this rule, with the support of their govermnent.

This statement is not completely true. After this source- [1] we can see that Croatian fishermen has also entered in this area. So Croatian fishermen did not respected equidistant line. -- 5er —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.12.231 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use english sources. If none is available, please give translation with references. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you introduce a croatian refference, and later complained about people pestering with translations to refferenes? 89.143.84.42 (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find the article that would say anything like that in the convention. Can someone find it please? Otherwise we should remove this part altogether. 213.250.60.44 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] both based on and denied by

I replaced "both based on and denied by" with "based on" because:

In order for croatian claim to be denied by 2. sentence (historical claim), Slovenia yet has to prove that it controled all the bay all the time. I gave reference that proves the opposite just few lines below in the text.

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it only needs to prove it had a claim at some point in the past, or that certain special circumstances (exit to the international seas being an example) exist that would give Slovenia the claim to the gulf. The refference [3] you posted says as much, in case you red it, and the whole conflict is based on just this detail. Wheather or not that exceedes any and all Croatian claims is beyond the scope of this article and this talk page and a case for negotiations, arbiters or courts. We aren't debating the case for border, but a case for an encyclopaedia article.

p.s. Please don't introduce line breaks where they don't appear in the original treaties to make your case seem stronger. Thank you.

89.143.84.42 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tags

I added POV tags on two sections. In the first section, because the statement implies that all the incidents were provoked by Slovene fishermen. In the second section, the problem is the claim about the Slovene proposal in 1991 that the border should run in the middle of the Bay. Sources? Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I keep removing that part (about Slovenian offer for the middle of the Bay). I'm not saying it didn't happen, but there are no sources. If hearsay is enough... I heard the Croatians offered the whole Bay if Slovenia gave them weapons for their war with Serbia. Which is probably BS. But most of such statments are. So let's not put them into an article. Since this is a touchy issue, it's best to stick to info that has valid sources. Because I think we can both come up with loads of dubious materials about the other side's mischief.

Please stop removing content. If you believe something in the article is false and requires sources, then tag with {{fact}}. If no sources are provided for the disputed material after some time, then you may remove it. Húsönd 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New page for the border dispute

Should we move parts related to border dispute to new page, and link it with {{main}} template?

I have some ideas of improving the this article and some other articles related to border dispute, and if we leave all of this stuff here, it might become clumsy.

Moreover, the bay is more that just a place of dispute. Other usefull info can be lost in political analysys, and that would be a shame.

So, I suggest moving dispute related parts to Gulf of Piran border dispute or some other similar title.

Since this talk page is only about border dispute, it should be moved to new page's talk page, together with its history of changes.

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense, but if the dispute is removed from this article, then we'll be left with a very small stub. Maybe this article should be expanded first to include information about the Gulf of Piran that is not related to the dispute, and then split. I'll be going to the Gulf in the next couple of weeks and will be able to provide some visual material, if needed. Húsönd 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You are going to Piran Gulf because of this article ;)? Does wikipedia foundation pays for this stuff? BTW, I'm just preparing to work on Mars article. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I translated all the text I found on slovenian wikipedia. Regardles of the fact that this is hot topic in Croatia, I'm embaresses (being admin there for 3 years) to say that we do not have this article at all 8-P, so I have nothing to translate from croatian :(. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha, no, I'd be going to the Gulf of Piran anyway. :-) Well done, Ante. And don't be embarrassed about Croatian Wikipedia not having a good article about the Gulf. You know the Portuguese Wikipedia, one of the biggest? I often discover that they are lacking articles about some of the most common things there. Húsönd 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have some additional resources for updating this article, but if I use it all, this will look too much like like croatian POV. I would like to see some slovenian wikipedians contributing with some of their information, that I'm not familiar with. How couls I encourage them to help me write big, detaild, but above all NPOV article? If I do it alone, it will not be NPOV. I also need their help with Slovenian EEZ. I wrote it and it looks like it is written by croatian government :-P. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project for disputes between Croatia and Slovenia

Hi,

Is anyone interested in creating a project for disputes between Croatia and Slovenia.

If you are, see Project for disputes between Croatia and Slovenia and proposal for creation of this project that I left at slovenian wikipedia.

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)