I seize this opportunity (again) to reply to the recent post by a distinguished professor Siniša Rodin of Zagreb University, a colleague of mine if I may say so. My writing is motivated merely by discursive purposes and not by anything else - in other words, I am writing purely as an academic to outline the arguments which should disclose a tiny little deficiency in Prof. Rodin's submission.

He writes as follows:

"It is Europe I am talking about. The Europe, envisaged by its founding fathers, who counted on solidarity as a token of common future. The Europe where border disputes are despised and set aside and those who invoke them marginalized and exposed to shame. Europe should construe its identity against negative historic experiences. Against fascism, communism and populist nationalism. All the mentioned historic ideologies have territory and national sovereignty in their core.European Union must not succumb Slovenian populist demands. "
(full post:http://pravo-eu.blogspot.com/)
All nice and well, but these strong claims lack a bit of fairness - at least from the Slovenian perspective - due to the following reasons.

Slovenia has no territorial claims against Croatia. It has always insisted that the border should be determined consensually and both sides have agreed that the decisive date is 25. 6. 1991. This is confirmed by the Badinter's Commission and even written down, at least, in Slo Constitution. Following the uti possidetis iuris int'l principle - the countries shall control those lands that they had at the relevant time, all unilateral moves following thereafter being against the int'l law and as such void. The countries moreover agreed, most recently 3 years ago at Brioni, that they will stand away from any unilateral moves.

However, it has been Croatia - and I leave it up to the reader to come up with the opposite arguments - which has consistently defied its pledge and hence also acted against int'l law at least in the Bay of Piran. A couple of concrete examples should illustrate my point:

1. The Plovanija border crossing. The prime minister of Croatia confirmed it is only of a provisional character. Years later it is a fully fledged border crossing, now even included int the documents submitted to the EU.

2. Piran bay: all of a sudden its name is unilaterally and fully artificially changed into Savudrijska Vala. All of a sudden fishermen from Umag are sent (I leave it up to the reader by whom) to create incidents, to involve Croatian police and to exercise jurisdiction.

3. The four tiny villages at Dragonja - in 1994 Croatia cuts the phone and electricity lines from the municipality of Secovlje and changes the house numbers to Croatian.

4. I will not even mention all the (irrational) affairs with Josko Joras, who was even arrested for bringing home a washing machine and 10 litters of milk just bought in Koper past the, what is supposed to be, a provisional Croatian border crossing point.
 
5. Croatian municipality of Buje decides to sell (sic!) the disputed territory along Dragonja in 2008, irrespective off all the pledges against unilateral moves.

6. The Buje municipality even allowed Croatian hunters to enter the int'l protected Secovlje environmental resort (in 2008) and shoot the birds in a flagrant violation of the int'l convention; the fishermen have planted mussels where they never existed before 1991, etc... and one  could go on and on.... but I will stop here.

Now, after all these years and all these events, to read that Slovenia is acting in a selfish, anti-European, even populist manner strikes one truly by surprise, to use the mildest word possible. Slovenia did not create this border dispute. It has not engaged into unilateral moves, but it has been constantly under pressure of the Croatian fait accompli. Moreover, Slovenia also signed and ratified the Drnovsek-Racan agreement, which would have solved the problems long time ago and forever had Croatia done the same. But it did not, as it failed to do with Bosnia and other neighboring states.

To corner one state by a number of unilateral moves, which are formally confirmed on the level of Croatian legislation and used in the EU negotiation procedure, and to demand solidarity is just a non sequitur. A mala fide non sequitur one could even say - which might even bite its own tail.  "The Europe where border disputes are despised and set aside and those who invoke them marginalized and exposed to shame", it better applies, at least it appears to me so, to Croatia than to Slovenia.

Moreover, sometimes, especially reading Croatian news and arguments, one gets an impression that it is Croatia who is a member of the EU and not Slovenia. It dictates the conditions and, so the argument goes, it might even have the veto over the Lisbon solution. It might even retaliate. Yet, if we have dragged ourselves to the int'l realism - to the power-play -, which I have always hoped it would not happen, then these convictions simply do not hold water. Those who want to enter a golf club, can not simultaneously determine its rules as non-members. Not even if the sky falls down...and the founding fathers roll in their graves.

Of course, this is not the road we should be traveling. Yet, it must be understood that Slovenia can not accept the unilaterally changed border conditions. It is the general international law that mandates Slovenian side to insist on withdrawal of all the measures that could prejudge the border lest it risks acquiescence. Croatia itself has brought the dispute to Brussels. Croatia has made it part of the acquis by relying on the amended national legislative acts, which should confirm its readiness to enter the EU but which simultaneously, volen nolens, more than apparently attempt to prejudge the border dispute resolution.

Finally, if in anyone's, then it is in the Slovenian national interest to see Croatia in the Union as soon as possible. This is for a range of super pragmatic and economic reasons, but I would hope also for some more substantive value-based reasons. Hopefully, the two countries will have got over these skirmishes soon. However, to do so both will have to act in the spirit of new Europe. Both will have to express a degree of reflexivity. For each medal has two sides and any dispute always requires two to scrabmle. The latter fails to be recognized in Prof. Rodin's post.