Well, that seems encouraging -- each side favors a peaceful resolution
other than by a strictly bilateral negotiation.  There will probably not
be a violent blowup over whether to mediate or go to the ICJ.  

In American private law practice, parties often try mediation first,
because it's cheaper and faster than litigation, and then, only if a
skillful mediator cannot bring them to agreement, they seek a binding
resolution in court.  Or a court, on receiving a complaint, requires the
parties to try mediation first, often with a court-appointed mediator.
One technique mediators often use in such situations is called "early
neutral evaluation," sometimes by the mediator's assessment privately to
each party of the perceived strength of its case, sometimes by a
non-binding mini-trial, and sometimes by other ingenious methods.  The
objective is to bring the parties, each of whom typically enters the
process convinced it is "right" and will prevail, to a relatively
objective and accurate estimate of how they will do if there really is
litigation.  This is a useful corrective to bravado, pressure from
intransigent constituents of the decision-makers on each side, and the
one-sided views which develop when parties form their goals and
positions in isolation.  Early neutral evaluation allows reassessment of
positions and often leads to compromise.  Sometimes the case really
turns on only one crucial point, and having this decided, even in a
non-binding way, frees up the whole case for agreement.  

-----Original Message-----
From: International boundaries discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of I Made Andi Arsana
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Slovenia to block Croatia from NATO because of sea boundary
dispute


Dear colleagues,

I hope this information is useful.

For option of resolution, Slovenia prefers mediation, which is also
recommended by EU's commissioner. The Nobel Peace prize winner, Martti
Ahtisaari is viewed as the potential candidate for the mediator.
However, Croatia insists that the dispute should be brought to the
International Court of justice.

One key point in Slovenia's position is that maritime boundary to be
settled should guarantee its access to the high seas. Considering the
shape of the relevant coast for future delimitation, Slovenia may be, to
an extent, disadvantaged.

Regards
Andi
One good source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7896040.stm

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Peter Prows <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> David,
>
> Interesting case.  Two queries come immediately to mind:
>
> (1) Is there any binding dispute resolution forum to which both States

> have agreed to this point?  I see that on 11 October 2001 (six years 
> after it became party to UNCLOS), pursuant to UNCLOS art. 298, 
> Slovenia opted out of binding arbitration for disputes over the 
> delimitation of the territorial sea.
>
> (2) Are the respective coastlines along Piran Bay best viewed as 
> opposite (for which a median line would typically provisionally be 
> drawn) or adjacent (where equidistance is typically used) and what 
> difference would the choice make, if any, in the course of the line?  
> I recognize that Slovenia argues at least that there is some form of 
> agreement that was reached that governs, but Croatia disputes this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>


-- 
I Made Andi Arsana
Geodesy and Geomatics, Gadjah Mada University, INDONESIA
=====================================================
An Australian Leadership Award Scholar (PhD Candidate) Australian
National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS) University of
Wollongong, AUSTRALIA
E: [log in to unmask]
P: +61 2 4221 4883
F: +61 2 4221 5544
http://www.geoboundaries.co.nr
http://madeandi.staff.ugm.ac.id
YM, GTalk, Skype, IMUGM : madeandi
=====================================================