page_title: Croatia–Slovenia border disputes
section_title: Sea dispute
hierarchical_section_title: Croatia–Slovenia border disputes / Sea dispute
caption_attribution_description: Adriatic sea map
context_page_description: Following the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991, Slovenia and Croatia became independent countries. As the border between the countries had not been determined in detail prior to independence, several parts of the border were disputed, both on land and at the sea, namely in the Gulf of Piran.
  According to the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, the two countries share about 668 kilometres of border. According to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, the border spans 670 km. The border runs in the direction from the southwest to the northeast.
  The countries have attempted to resolve the dispute, most notably with the Drnovšek–Račan agreement in 2001 that was ratified by Slovenia but not by Croatia. Because of the disputed border, Slovenia blocked Croatia's EU accession talks until the agreement was reached by both countries and the EU to settle the dispute by a binding arbitration.
context_section_description: Croatia claims that the boundary should be an equal distance from each shore. The claim is based on the first sentence of Article 15 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:
  Article 15: 'Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith.'
  — 
  Slovenian claims are based on the same article. However, it favours the second sentence, which stipulates that historical claims or other unusual circumstances supersede the equidistance rule. The Law of the Sea also states that international waters begin 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the country's shore – while the nearest international waters are 15.5 nautical miles (28.7 km; 17.8 mi) away from Slovenia's shore.
  The Convention states that a coastal state has an exclusive right to manage all natural resources in a band up to 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) from its shore (an 'exclusive economic zone').
  When Slovenia notified the UN Secretariat in 1995 of its succession to Yugoslavia's ratification of the Convention (continuing the agreement), it included a note saying that this system of exclusive economic zones has become part of international law and asserted its rights as a geographically disadvantaged state. The convention makes it clear that any decision to declare an exclusive economic zone should be made in co-operation with all interested parties; Croatian sources claim that Slovenia's self-description as a geographically disadvantaged state amounts to an admission that it is a country without access to international waters.
  Slovenia also claims the right to access international waters; Slovenia bases this claim on the country's free access to international waters while part of Yugoslavia. Due to the statements of Croatian negotiators, Slovenian politicians have also presented the concern that without a territorial connection to international waters, Croatia could limit "harmless passage" to its ports (contrary to international agreements and practice); this would complicate Slovenia's sovereignty at sea and could cause economic damage. Because of these concerns, Slovenia has invoked the principle of equity for unfortunate geographic conditions.
  According to Slovenia, Savudrija was associated with Piran (which had an Italian majority at that time) for centuries, and claims that Slovenian police controlled the entire gulf between 1954 and 1991. If this claim prevails, Slovenia could request certain bay parts on the median line's Croatian side. Croatia disputes historical Slovenian control.
  The Croatian side asserts that the corridor in the Croatian waters would be useless for traffic, since traffic regulations in the Gulf of Trieste allow only incoming traffic on the Croatian side of the border, while outgoing traffic must go through Italian waters. The Slovenian response is that Slovenia's access to international waters is not an exclusively practical or commercial issue; it is rather the logical consequence of that Slovenia is said to be an internationally recognized maritime country with granted access to international seas. The latter assertion has been repeatedly disputed by the Croatian side.
  Croatia wants to solve this dispute only by certain articles of international law, while the Slovenian side insists on consideration of the principle "ex aequo et bono". The disputed points between the countries include whether or not the legal principle "ex aequo et bono" is a part of international law. Article 38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that the court may decide cases ex aequo et bon
caption: Area of the proclaimed Croatian Ecological and Fisheries Protection Zone (ZERP) in the Adriatic Sea, including territorial waters
exif: {}