Table of contentsSocio-political complaints: Slovenia's political positionThe historical importance of Piran Bay for SloveniaPopulation densityLooking to the future: possible solutionsThe delegation of the Slovenia recognizes that natural resources significantly underpin hostility between nations, particularly when their ownership is contested. Natural resources have always acted as a catalyst for conflict and unfortunately continue to do so today. This case study briefly describes the maritime border dispute arising from the geopolitical importance of the Bay of Piran, which is fueling friction between the nations of Slovenia and Croatia. Territorial divisions between nations, preceding their declarations of independence, existed. Although administrative in nature, they were ultimately considered definitive state borders when two new nations were created, independent of the former Yugoslavia.[1] However, unlike land borders, maritime borders between the Yugoslav republics did not exist historically, and therefore Piran Bay and its right of possession were disputed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayHaving recognized the complexity of the issue, then Croatian Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor and Slovenian Prime Minister Borut Pahor signed an arbitration agreement [2] in November The arbitration process began in The Hague in June 2014. The verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which is legally binding in nature, was made public in June 2017 and faced resistance from Croatia, which withdrew from the process entirely. This puts undue pressure on Slovenia, both in terms of population and in terms of foreign policy.Socio-political claims: Slovenia's political positionThe disputed Piran Bay is the subject of two contradictory verdicts which both refer to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (UNCLOS) Article 15[3] which states: "When the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither State has the right , unless otherwise agreed between them, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median. line each point of which is equidistant from the points closest to the baselines from which the width of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision, however, does not apply where it is necessary, because of historical title or other special circumstances, to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a manner inconsistent with this. "In accordance with the first sentence of UNCLOS, Croatia calls (as stated in the Position of the Republic of Croatia on the delimitation of the Bay of Piran and related issues of the Dragonja River area) that the boundary maritime is mapped in accordance with the principle of equidistance; this means that Croatia ideally favors a border in the middle of the Bay of Piran. However, Slovenia recognizes this last article of the UNCLOS, stating that the equidistance proposal is not. simply not applicable in this case because the conflict between Slovenia and Croatia is a “special circumstance” [4][5]. Slovenia maintains its claims for the following four reasons: Slovenia recognizes its sovereignty over the whole. of the Bay of Piran Slovenia draws attention to the fact that it has historically exercised jurisdiction over the Bay of Piran; its authority over the region has been exercised since the Osimo Accords in 1975[6] Therefore, it is obvious thatSlovenia administered the region in the former federation as well as after its independence. In addition to this, legal evidence of its jurisdiction can be found in “Instruction of the Police Directorate of the Republic of Slovenia”.[7[8] Accordingly, Slovenia recognizes that due to its economic and police officer in the Bay Area before and after its independence, it holds the right to continue exercising its jurisdiction. Slovenia accepts that the conflict between Croatia and Slovenia constitutes a special circumstance, therefore the first part of Article 15 of UNCLOS is not applicable. Slovenia insists that the conflict is a special circumstance because if the equidistant approach comes into force, then Slovenia will not have access to international waters, while Croatia's main demand is to maintain its maritime borders with Italy.[4][5] Slovenia proposes that these two requirements can be met by following the last section of Article 15 of UNCLOS and adopting the principle of equity instead. Such a resolution was implemented on July 20, 2001 through the Drnvosek Racan agreement between the prime ministers of Croatia and Slovenia. In the signed agreement, Croatia would get 1/3 of the gulf as well as maritime borders with Italy and Slovenia would give it access to international waters.[10] Despite signing the agreement, the Croatian population contested it, so the solution was never put into practice. However, Slovenia believes that the agreement was an iron bond because it was signed by both parties in accordance with Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that: “[t]he consent of the State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting the treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if it is thus agreed. »[9] Therefore, it becomes evident that this is a “special circumstance; and therefore, an equidistant approach is not applicable. The historical significance of Piran Bay for Slovenia The UNCLOS states that the “historical title reason” is justified to promulgate the principle of equity. Historical documents of the Catholic Church reveal that the Savudrija peninsula has always belonged to the bishopric of Koper, which is currently in Slovenian territory. This confirms that Piran Bay is a historical bay belonging to Slovenia.[11]Population densityThe population density of the Slovenian side of Piran Bay is heavily populated; approximately 800,000 people reside in this area. Thus, Slovenian control over the entire Piran Bay is justified, so that Slovenia can best serve its population.[11]Looking to the future: possible solutionsSlovenia recognizes three possible verdicts to resolve the problem at hand :Due to Croatia's rejection of arbitrary decision in 2017, Slovenia recommends open dialogue between the two nations through meetings and conferences. Slovenia hopes that this will lead to favorable relations in which any underlying hostility will be eliminated. This will enable negotiations which will hopefully make reference to the Drnvosek Racan Agreement of 2001; in which Slovenia retains its access to the high seas and Croatia maintains its territorial contact with Italy. Croatia rejected the decision before consulting it, therefore, Slovenia would also be willing to reject the arbitrary decision in the event that Croatia forms a new decision that functions as more favorable to Slovenia than the initial one. In the new verdict that Croatia intends to present at the negotiating table, Slovenia is ready to compromise on two.