Page 86 - AEI Insights 2018 Vol 4 Issue 1

AEI Insights, Vol 4, Issue 1, 2018

is hard to imagine that in the area of the Neretva and Korčula Channels, with a width of not
less than 1-1.5 nautical miles, that condominium (shared sovereignty) can be established or
that an international legal regime be determined completely outside Croatian sovereignty.

Finally, in support of the assertion that any coastal state should have unimpeded (not just
innocent passage, which is subject to various restrictions on the part of the coastal state) access
to the High Seas, there is the final determination of the arbitral award of the Permanent Court
of Arbitration in The Hague in the case the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia
of 2017, according to which the Republic of Slovenia, through the so-called junction of 2.5
nautical miles wide, i.e. the physical link of its territorial waters with the high seas area of the
North Adriatic was awarded a corridor from their waters, where Slovenia enjoys full
sovereignty to the High Seas, where many freedoms are guaranteed to all countries of the
world, both coastal and non-coastal, as well as to those with an unfavorable geographic position
regarding access to the sea, as in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Namely, as the Chairman
of the Arbitration Council in this very case, G. Guillaume, stated in the public statement of the
arbitral award, "the junction between the Slovenian territorial sea and the High Seas is a space
where ships and planes have the same right of access to Slovenia as well as in the High Seas.
The Court identified the area of the Croatian territorial sea that is adjacent to the Italian waters
within which a special legal regime would be applied. The corridor is approximately 2.5
nautical miles wide, and located immediately next to the border, according to the Treaty of
Osimo, within Croatian territorial waters. A special legal regime should guarantee the integrity
of the Croatian territorial sea, and Slovenian free communication between its waters and the
High Seas." It follows that the free communication of a coastal state between its waters and the
High Seas is not the same as its right/obligation to innocently pass through the waters of another
coastal state. It should, therefore, be concluded that the first term refers to the freedom of
navigation and over flight to a little more extent than that provided by the institute of the
innocent passage of foreign ships to territorial sea, which is only a necessary passage, since
every foreign vessel must navigate through this area on the shortest conventional route, without
disruption or delay. Moreover, this accessory or connecting corridor would have a kind of
limitation of Croatian sovereignty and jurisdiction, since it would be in the spirit of this
particular legal regime that would go in the middle of the Neretva and Korčula Channel. It
would be worth questioning, moreover, whether Croatian internal waters should be left where
they are now. The same question appeared to have been posed by a legal scholar from Croatia
– “the question remains whether the waters of Croatia delimited by the territorial sea of Bosnia
and Herzegovina can continue to be considered as having the legal status of internal waters.”
(B. Vukas, 2006).

Accordingly, a maritime corridor with a specific legal regime needs to be differentiated widely,
or clarified in detail, so it does not necessarily represent identical international legal categories
with the right to innocent passage of foreign ships and the right of transit passage. These latter
terms are characteristic of the very specific maritime zones and parts of the sea which are not
the subject of our current exploration and explication.

When all interconnected notions finally acquire their coherent power in terms of consistency,
then will be the time to discuss continuing the construction of a permanent artificial installation
on the sea, called the Pelješac Bridge (mainland – Pelješac Peninsula). Having understood that
the Republic of Croatia only wants to connect two parts of the mainland, that is, the northern
and southern ends of their country with a high-quality road link, this modern traffic connection
should not endanger, or be detrimental to, the interests of their neighbors. Therefore, for the
purpose of solving the traffic difficulties of the Republic of Croatia, the continuation of the

86