Given that the Commission and the Council have, from the outset, conferred their authority and made considerable efforts to settle this dispute through arbitration, what measures does the Commission intend to take when allegations of serious unlawful acts committed by a Member of the Court of First Instance and by the Slovenian party in the dispute are taken? who question the entire arbitration, do they turn out to be true? In accordance with Article 9(1) of the Arbitration Convention, the Republic of Slovenia lifts its reservations regarding the opening and conclusion of negotiating chapters in connection with the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union where the obstacle is related to the dispute. As regards infringements of lack of jurisdiction, which, on the one hand, argue that the very subject-matter of the dispute falls within the interpretation and application of international law and, on the other hand, that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the validity and effects of an international instrument which is not part of UNION law, the Republic of Slovenia recalls that the question of the validity of the arbitration agreement, the validity and legal status of the arbitration is lacking. The ruchs are not the subject of the dispute before the Court of Justice, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court and were in any case resolved by the partial decision of 30 June 2016. The fact that the Republic of Croatia does not agree with the award cannot mean the existence of an unresolved border dispute or that the Court of Justice should rule on this issue already decided. An arbitral tribunal under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration rendered its final and unanimous award in the case of Croatia against Slovenia on 29 June 2017. The arbitration concerned a territorial and maritime dispute between Croatia and Slovenia. This contribution will focus on maritime delimitation issues. This contribution covers the 2009 Arbitration Agreement (“AA”) (II), the Junction Area (III) and the Maritime Boundary (IV). The issues of contamination of the procedure and annulment of intergovernmental arbitral awards have given rise to a number of controversies. These are outside the scope of this contribution and have already been dealt with by Alison Ross and Peter Tzeng respectively. These issues were decided by the reconstituted arbitral tribunal in its partial judgment of 30 June 2016.
The device continues. Ships and aircraft exercising freedom of communication “shall not be subject to embarkation, detention, detention, circumvention or any other form of interference by Croatia during the node”. However, Croatia remains authorised to adopt laws and regulations applicable to non-Croatian ships and aircraft in the Crossroads Region, which bring into force generally recognised international standards in accordance with Article 39(2) and (3) of the Convention. Chapter IV, (B) (f)). Reading this part of the operative part, it is striking to note that there is no qualifier before the words “ships and aircraft”. One wonders: which ships? Of what nationality? All ships or a few? The arbitral tribunal found that “ships and aircraft of all flags and of all kinds, civil and military” were included (§ 1129, last arbitral award). So which non-Croatian-flagged vessel cannot be boarded, stopped, diverted or otherwise disturbed if it passes through the crossing area? Given the potentially important consequences that the absence of a qualifier could have, croatia and Slovenia can only be expected to negotiate and conclude a bilateral agreement with more detailed provisions on the specifics of the use regime in the crossing area. . . .