EurActiv - Letters to the Editor


Regarding ‘A sceptical view of the Slovenia-Croatia arbitration agreement‘:

Slovenia’s mainland is simply too far away from international waters and direct contact of her territorial waters with the high seas would run against the 12 miles rule, which is firmly established in international law.

Second, introducing nationalist territorial claims and arguments that the border between the two countries should be at the Mirna river is a disgrace in itself. It runs against European values and re-introduces Blut-und-Boden philosophy.

Giving public space to advocate territorial claims is, in my opinion, not protected by the freedom of speech. Mr. Türk is giving public space to nationalist arguments in a way that does not befit his position as secretary-general of the Reflection Group on the Future of Europe.

Sinisa Rodin

University of Zagreb

Author :


  1. Sir,

    Mr. Rodin is correct that the international law only exceptionally allows for territorial waters to extend for more than 12 miles, however, such solution is possible if both parties would agree to it.

    There is a dispute between Slovenia and Croatia about certain areas of sea and land. Listing reasons why some of that should be Slovenian in spite of the fact that Croatia treats it as undisputed is not “Blut und Boden”, “nationalist territorial claims” or “nationalist argument”. In fact he is introducing a language and a style of argument, including ad-personam, I have no intention of lowering the debate down to.

    prof.dr. Žiga Turk

Comments are closed.