Search

Uporedno-pravna rešenja podstiču arbitražno rešavanje sporova u oblasti sporta, a pravila mnogih međunarodnih sportskih saveza zabranjuju članicama da vode sudske sporove pod pretnjom zabrane nastupa na međunarodnim takmičenjima. Najznačajniji i najpopularniji arbitražni sud za razrešavanje međunarodnih sporova u domenu sporta jeste Arbitražni sud za sport Lozani (The Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS) sa sedištem u Lozani (Švajcarska). Da bi CAS bio nadležan za rešavanje određenog spora, on mora biti podoban za arbitražu i mora postojati punovažan arbitražni sporazum. Osim toga, za punovažnost odluka CAS-a važe isti procesni zahtevi kao i za odluke državnih sudova: nezavisnost suda, pravo stranke da bude saslušana, pravo na pošteno suđenje, zabrana retroaktivnih pravila i kazni, načelo ne bis in idem, načelo proporcionalnosti u odmeravanju kazne, načelo nezavisnosti sudije, načelo pisanog obrazloženja odluke. Autor u radu razmatra pitanje punovažnosti i obaveznosti odluka koje donosi CAS i mogućnosti njihovog osporavanja pred nacionalnim sudovima, kako nacionalnim sudovima prema sedištu CAS-a tako i nacionalnim sudovima strana u sportu (u postupku izvršenja odluka CAS-a ili nezavisno od toga). Ovo pitanje je posebno razmotreno u svetlu tzv. slučaja Pechstein (tužba Claudie Pechstein protiv International Skating Union za naknadu štete zbog dvogodišnje zabrane takmičenja usled dopinga) koji je svoj epilog dobio presudom nemačkog Vrhovnog saveznog suda (Bundesgerichtshof) od 7. juna 2016. godine, a ticao se upravo punovažnosti arbitražnog sporazuma o nadležnosti CAS-a i priznavanja odluke CAS-a, kao strane arbitražne odluke, od nemačkih sudova., Comparative law solutions encourage resolving disputes in the area of sport through arbitration, and instigation of court proceedings is forbidden by the rules of many national sport associations under the sanction of barring the athlete from international competing. The most important and most popular arbitration court for resolving the international disputes in the area of sport is the Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS based in Lausanne (Switzerland). Jurisdiction will be given to the CAS if it is competent for arbitration and if there is valid arbitration agreement. Furthermore, same procedural demands apply to the CAS decisions as for the ruling of national courts: judicial independence, the right of the party to a hearing, the right to a fair trial, forbidding ex post facto laws and sanctions, principle ne bis in idem, principle of proportionality of punishment, principle of a judge impartiality, principle of reasoning behind the decision made in writing. In his paper, the author considers the issue of validity and enforceability of the decisions made by the CAS, and possibility of their denial in front of national courts according to headquarters of the CAS, as well as national courts of the parties to a dispute (in the proceedings of enforcement of the CAS decisions or regardless of that). This issue is particularly considered in the light of so-called Pechsteins case (complaint of Claudia Pechstein against the International Skating Union requesting compensation for receiving two-year ban from competition because of doping results) which was resolved by the ruling of the German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) from 07th June, 2016, and where it was dealt exactly with validity of the arbitration agreement on the CAS jurisdiction and recognition of the CAS ruling as a foreign arbitration decision by the German national courts.

V svetu se je v mednarodnem pravu s civilizacijo postopoma uveljavila težnja po mirnem reševanju mednarodnih sporov. Načelo je hitro preraslo v dolžnost, ki jo morajo upoštevati tako države kot vsi drugi subjekti mednarodnega prava, uzakonjeno pa je v Ustanovni listini Organizacije združenih narodov. Mirno reševanje sporov v praksi poteka z uporabo diplomatskih in pravnih sredstev mirnega reševanja. Med zadnja uvrščamo sodni in arbitražni postopek, ravno slednji pa je tudi predmet obravnave tega diplomskega dela. Arbitraža je izvensodni način reševanja sporov, v katerem države prepustijo odločanje o sporu določenim osebam, ki jih imenujejo same. Za arbitražno posredovanje se morajo odločiti sporazumno, pri čemer lahko izbirajo med ustanovitvijo ad hoc arbitraže ali pa spor predložijo stalnemu razsodišču. Arbitražna razsodba je zavezujoča in dokončna, države stranke jo morajo upoštevati, priznati in izvršiti. V kolikor tega ne storijo, mednarodno pravo ne določa nobene sankcije, bi pa to bilo v nasprotju z načelom pacta sunt servanda. Za arbitražno reševanje medsebojne mejne problematike sta se leta 2009 odločili tudi Republika Slovenija in Republika Hrvaška. V ta namen sta ustanovili ad hoc arbitražno sodišče, ki je svoje delo opravljalo v Haagu. Postopek je bil prekinjen 22. julija 2015, ko so srbski in hrvaški mediji objavili sumljive zvočne posnetke med slovensko agentko pri razsodišču in slovenskih arbitrom, kar je povzročilo odstop Hrvaške od sporazuma in vseh nadaljnjih dejanj. Sodišče je po temeljitem preudarku odločilo postopek nadaljevati in leta 2017 izdalo arbitražno razsodbo, ki pa jo Hrvaška, vse od objave spornih prisluhov vztrajno zavrača in ne priznava. Peaceful settlement of international disputes is a fundamental principle of international law, which contains states' obligation to resolve their differences by pacific methods. It is formulated as such in the United Nations Charter and binds not only states, but also other subjects of international law. The principle is divided on diplomatic methods and legal methods. Adjudicative methods of dispute settlement consist of two types of procedures, judical settlement and arbitration. The last one is defined as a main topic of this particular degree. Arbitration is out-of-court settlement of differences between states by judges of their choice. Arbitration must be initiated with the agreement of the parties to a dispute. Parties can choose between ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration. Arbitration award is binding and final on the parties, which undertake to carry out the award without delay. If recognition and enforcement of an award are refused, there are no legal punishment for parties. However their actions would mean a breach of principle pacta sunt servanda. In 2009 Republic of Croatia and Republic of Slovenia also decided to settle their border dispute with the help of arbitration. Therefore parties agreed to apply the Permanent Court of Arbitration with its seat in Hague. Procedure was cancelled on July 22, 2015, because Serbian and Croatian newspapers emerged that Slovenia violated the Arbitration Agreement by engaging in ex parte communications with its party-appointed arbitrator. Consequently Croatia decided to end any further participation in the arbitral proceedings. After Arbitral Tribunal held a hearing, Tribunal decided that arbitral proceedings pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement would continue. In 2017 Tribunal issued final Arbitration award, which is still unacceptable and refused by Croatia.

V magistrski nalogi je skozi poglavja predstavljen postopek kreacije državne meje z izbranimi primeri sodne, arbitražne in druge pravne prakse. Določanje državne meje je eden izmed nadvse zapletenih procesov na področju mednarodnega prava. Še težjo kategorijo predstavlja nadaljno reševanje mejnih sporov, ki iz določanja le-te tudi izvirajo. Gre za izredno široko področje, zato je smiselno problematiko pogledati skozi celoto, ki jo dotična magistrska naloga vsekakor ponuja. Za razumevanje meddržavne mejne problematike je potrebno vsaj temeljno poznavanje pojmov v zvezi z državno mejo in državnimi ozemlji, kakor tudi razumeti možnosti reševanja meddržavnih sporov s področja mejne problematike, za potrebe implementacije znanja v konkretne primere in razumevanje le-teh. Teoretični postopek določanja državnih mej je v magistrski nalogi opisan na način, da bralcu poda sistematičen pregled in jasnost dotičnega področja. Bralcu so skozi poglavja predstavljeni tudi možni načini reševanja mejne problematike med državama. Gre tako za reševanje sporov po diplomatski poti ali sodni poti. Tekom magistrske naloge je moč ugotoviti, da sta slednja načina reševanja mejne problematike tesno povezana in da so bili le redki primeri rešeni bodisi samo po diplomatski, bodisi samo po sodni poti. Skozi dolgotrajne ter za stranke finančno izredno obremenjujoče postopke reševanja mejne problematike, gre v mnogih primerih za prepletanje obeh omenjenih načinov. Glede na dejstvo, da v svetu med državami obstoji znatno število meddržavnih mejnih sporov, je v tej magistrski nalogi izbranih le nekaj različnih, pa vendar iz vidika reševanja le-teh izredno zanimivih in kompleksnih. Predvsem ne gre spregledati mejnega spora med Republiko Slovenijo in Republiko Hrvaško, ki je zaradi neposrednega učinka na državo v kateri živimo bistvenega pomena. n the master's thesis, the chapters describe the process of creating a state border with selected cases of judicial, arbitration and other legal practices. Determining the state border is one of the most complex processes in the field of international law. Even more serious category represents the further settlement of border disputes, which also originate from the determination of the border disputes. It is an extremely broad field, therefore it makes sense to look at the problem through the whole, which is certainly offered by the master's thesis. At least the fundamental knowledge of the concepts related to the state border and state territories is necessary to understand the border issues of the state, as well as to understand the possibilities of solving interstate conflicts in the field of border issues, for the needs of implementation of knowledge in concrete examples and understanding of them. The theoretical procedure for determining state boundaries is described in a master's thesis in a way to give a reader a systematic overview and clarity of the subject area. Through the chapters, the reader is also presented possible ways of solving border issues between the countries. It is also about settling disputes through diplomatic channels or judicial channels. During the master's thesis, it can be concluded that the latter is closely related to the way of solving the border issue and that only a few cases have been solved either solely through diplomatic or judicial procedures. Through long-term and client-financially extremely burdensome procedures for resolving border issues, in many cases, the two methods are intertwined. Given the fact that there is a significant number of cross-border border disputes in the world, only a few variants are selected in this master's thesis, but from the point of view of solving them, they are extremely interesting and complex. Above all, we should not overlook the border dispute between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia, which, due to its direct effect on the country in which we live, is of vital importance.

Arbitraža je eden izmed načinov alternativnega reševanja sporov, s katerim stranke spora le-tega rešijo izven sodišča. Stranke spora se sporazumejo z arbitražnim sporazumom ali arbitražno klavzulo, da bodo svoj (že obstoječi ali bodoči) spor rešile s pomočjo arbitraže. Odloča eden ali več nepristranskih arbitrov, odločitev je za stranke pravno zavezujoča. V Združenih državah Amerike je temeljni zakon na področju arbitražnega prava Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), ki ga je Kongres sprejel 12. februarja 1925. Zakon določa, da so stranke na podlagi pogodbenega dogovora obvezane razrešiti spor s pomočjo arbitraže, katere odločitev je zanje zavezujoča. Rezultat arbitraže je arbitražna odločba ('arbitration award') in ne sodba, kot če o sporu odloči sodišče. Razredna arbitraža je alternativa razrednim tožbam, pri katerih skupina tožnikov razreši spor proti tožencu z arbitražo. Razredne arbitraže so manj pogoste kot razredne tožbe. Slednje so običajno vložene s strani večih posameznikov ali manjših podjetij proti korporacijam. Več tožnikov se odloči za skupinsko oziroma razredno tožbo zaradi nižjih stroškov. Toženec se sporazume s skupino tožnikov, da razrešijo spor izven sodišča (z arbitražo), in tako pride do razredne arbitraže. V zadnjih letih je bilo na vrhovnem sodišču ZDA razsojeno v več pomembnih primerih, ki vplivajo na položaj razrednih arbitraž. Najpomembnejši med njimi so: Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter ter Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant. Sodbe predvsem vplivajo na prihodnost vključevanja klavzul, o (ne)možnosti razrednih tožb ter razrednih arbitraž, v pogodbe. Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where a dispute between two parties is resolved outside the courts. The parties to a dispute agree with an arbitration agreement or an arbitration clause that they will resolve their (existing or any future) dispute with arbitration. One or more impartial arbitrators impose a decision which is legally binding for both parties. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is an act of Congress governing arbitration law in the United States of America, it was enacted on February 12th 1925. The FAA provides for contractually based compulsory and binding arbitration, which results in an arbitration award as opposed to a judgment entered by a court of law. Class arbitration is an alternative to a class action lawsuit in which a number of plaintiffs settle their dispute with a defendant in the form of arbitration. Class arbitration is less common than class action lawsuits. The latter are usually brought by several individuals or small businesses versus corporations. A group of plaintiffs opts for class action lawsuit because of a lower cost. Instead of going to court, the defendant comes to the agreement with plaintiffs to settle their dispute in the form of arbitration, which leads to class arbitration. In recent years, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on several cases regarding class arbitration. The eminent cases of Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter and Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, hosting the most important of rulings as they predominantly affect the future inclusion of individual arbitration clauses and the (im)possibility of class action lawsuits and class arbitration.

V Jadranskem morju in med kopnimi ozemlji novonastalih držav po razpadu nekdanje Jugoslavije smo vse od razglasitve samostojnosti priče zanimivem pojavu. Nobena od novonastalih držav (nekdanjih republik zvezne države) s svojimi sosedi še ni pogodbeno rešila svojih mejnih in delimitacijskih sporov tako na kopnem kot na morju. Celo več, nekatere novonastale države so se od leta 1991 naprej večkrat enostransko odločale za razglasitev določenih delov ozemlja ali morskega prostora kot svojega ozemlja, zavedajoč se, da ta ozemlja in enotni Jadranski morski prostor še niso mednarodnopravno razdeljena z dvostranskimi mejnimi pogodbami. Opisali smo najnovejša prizadevanja nekaterih evropskih regij za samostojnost ali večjo avtonomijo, kot jo imajo danes v nacionalnih državah in nekoliko širši pogled na risanje novih mejnih zemljevidov na območjih z veliko nerešenimi ozemeljskimi vprašanji, s katerimi širše območje sveta vstopa v nemiren čas, v katerem je težko doseči mednarodno soglasje. Taka stališča in enostranska dejanja nekaterih novonastalih držav v odnosu do svojih sosed so v zadnjih 23 letih prinašala vrsto mejnih in delimitacijskih sporov tako na kopnem kot na morju ter vrsto medsebojnih političnih zaostritev in soobtoževanj, pogajanj, številne poskuse sklepanja meddržavnih sporazumov, posredovanja vidnih svetovnih političnih osebnosti in uradnih organov EU, vendar niso prinesla uspeha v smislu sklenitve dvostranskega sporazuma o meji. V tem primežu neuspešnih dogovarjanj in stalnih mejnih incidentov sta se znašli tudi obe novonastali državi na tleh nekdanje Jugoslavije: Slovenija in Hrvaška. Slednja poleg nerešene meje s Slovenijo nima rešenega nobenega spornega mejnega vprašanja, prav tako tudi ne s Srbijo na kopnem in na Donavi, ne z Bosno in Hercegovino na kopnem in na morju in ne s Črno goro na morskem delu. Ti nerešeni mejni spori očitno niso bili dovolj trden razlog za nesprejem Hrvaške kot osemindvajsete članice v Evropsko unijo v letu 2013. Eden izmed posrednih pogojev za sprejem v povezano družino evropskih narodov je bila tudi zahteva za ureditev mejnega vprašanja z Republiko Slovenijo, kot polnopravno članico EU. Tako je bil proces reševanja nerešene državne meje med državama ponovno odprt v letu 2009 s posredovanjem komisarja za širitev EU Ollija Rehna, ki je rezultiral Arbitražni sporazum med Vlado Republike Slovenije in Vlado Republike Hrvaške, podpisan v Stockholmu, s katerim sta državi mejni spor na kopnem in delimitacijski spor na morju prepustili ad-hoc mednarodnemu arbitražnemu sodišču, ki bo v naslednjih letih z obvezujočo razsodbo rešil dolgotrajni spor med državama. V diplomski nalogi smo podrobno predstavili točke nesoglasja na kopnem in na morju, zahteve in pričakovanja Slovenije v tem arbitražnem postopku ter pravne posledice arbitražne razsodbe. Omenili smo tudi nekaj mednarodnih razsodb v mejnih in delimitacijskih sporih, ki so podobne mejnemu sporu med Slovenijo in Hrvaško. In the Adriatic Sea and between the territories of the Member States of the newly established after the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, we have everything from the delivery of the independence witnesses interesting phenomenon. None of the newly born States (of the former republics of the Federal States) with its neighbours not yet contracted out their border and delimitacijskih disputes, both on land and at sea. Even more, some of the new Member States are repeatedly since 1991 unilateral decisions to declare certain parts of the territory or the territory of the marine space as his own, realizing that these territories of the Adriatic Sea and a single space not yet divided into international bilateral border treaties. We described the latest efforts of certain European regions for independence or greater autonomy, as they have today in the national States and somewhat broader look at the drawing of the new border maps in areas with a lot of unresolved territorial issues with the wider area of the world is entering a restless time in which it is difficult to achieve an international consensus. Such views and some of the newly established States of unilateral actions in relation to its neighbours in the last 23 years earn a series of border disputes, both in the delimitations and land as at sea and the type of policy tightening and accusations, the conclusion of international negotiations, agreements, a number of experiments, the intervention of prominent world political figures and the official organs of the EU, but have not brought success in the conclusion of a bilateral agreement on the border. In this grip failed discussions and constant border incidents are finding themselves both on the floor of the resulting state of former Yugoslavia-Slovenia and Croatia. The latter, in addition to unresolved border with Slovenia does not have any of the disputed border issues have been disposed of, not with Serbia on the land and the Danube River, not with Bosnia and Herzegovina on land and at sea, and not with Montenegro in the maritime work. These unresolved border disputes were obviously not strong enough a reason for non-acceptance of Croatia as a member of the twenthyeight to the European Union in 2013. Either of the indirect conditions for admission into the family of European Nations to do was also required to regulate border issues with the Republic of Slovenia, as a full member of the EU. So was the process of solving unsolved the State border between the two countries reopened in 2009 with the passing of the Commissioner Olli Rehn for EU enlargement, which has immediately focused on the arbitration agreement between the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the Government of the Republic of Croatia, signed in Stockholm, with which the country border dispute on the land and on the sea dispute delimitation released the ad-hoc international arbitration tribunal, which will be in the next few years with a binding verdict long-term dispute between the countries. In the graduate thesis we presented detailed points of disagreement both on land and at sea, the requirements and expectations Of the arbitration procedure and the legal consequences of an arbitral award. We have mentioned some international judgments into the border and delimitations disputes, which are similar to the border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia.

Več kot dve desetletji sporov in nestrinjanj glede poteka slovensko – hrvaške državne meje, bo razrešenih na podlagi ad hoc arbitraže, vzpostavljene skladno z Arbitražnim sporazum med Vlado Republike Slovenije in Vlado Republike Hrvaške, ki je bil podpisan, ratificiran v obeh parlamentih ter registriran pri Generalnem sekretarju OZN. Arbitražni sporazum je mednarodna pogodba, na podlagi katere je bilo ustanovljeno petčlansko arbitražno sodišče, ki ima mandat, da dokončno in zavezujoče določi potek meje med RS in RH na kopnem in morju, stik Slovenije z odprtim morjem in režim za uporabo ustreznih morskih območij. Arbitražno sodišče je glede na svoja pooblastila naddržavne narave, saj lahko izid arbitraže poseže v teritorialno suverenost države. Časovnica arbitražnega postopka je bila glede na besedilo arbitražnega sporazuma vezana na dan podpisa hrvaške pristopne pogodbe z Evropsko unijo, čeprav so se kasneje določeni roki dogovorno podaljšali. Kot odločilni datum je v arbitražnem sporazumu določen 25. junij 1991, vsa dejanja obeh strank po tem datumu pa so za namene arbitražnega sodišča pravno irelevantna. Državne meje med RS in RH so sicer v obeh državah na ustavnopravni ravni določene, vendar pa niso konkretizirane in označene v naravi. Problematika mejnega spora med RS in RH se deli na dva sklopa: potek kopenske meje ter določitev meje na morju. Večina kopenske meje med državama je jasna. Razhajanja se pojavljajo predvsem na štirih kopenskih odsekih, na katerih si je ponekod načelo uti possidetis iuris v kontradikciji z načelom uti possidetis de facto. Pri meji na morju, ki vključuje vprašanje Piranskega zaliva in teritorialnega dostopa RS do odprtega morja, pa načelo uti possidetis iuris ni uporabno, zato je za RS relevantno le načelo uti possidetis de facto. Večina spornih mejnih vprašanj med RS in RH izhaja iz časa nekdanje federativne Jugoslavije, kjer vprašanje medrepubliških mej ni bilo nikoli celovito rešeno z zveznimi predpisi. Do sprememb notranjih meja je prihajalo zlasti na podlagi ustnih dogovorov najvišjih predstavnikov jugoslovanskega komunističnega režima, predvsem v prvih povojnih letih po zmagi nad nacifašizmom. Glavna očitka glede arbitražnega sporazuma izvirata iz njegovega 3. in 4. člena, ki sta med seboj neločljivo povezana. V 3. členu se nahaja neposrečena sintagma »stik Slovenije z odprtim morjem«, ki ne zadošča slovenskim zahtevam, prav tako pa si jo tudi državi razlagata diametralno nasprotno. V 4. členu, ki določa pravno podlago za odločanje, pa ni vključene abstraktne pravičnosti - načela ex aequo et bono, ki bi lahko v večji meri upoštevalo za Slovenijo pomembne zgodovinske argumente (npr. neupravičena odcepitev k.o. Kaštel in Savudrije od občine Piran, kršitev določb Londonskega memoranduma iz 1954 ipd.). Glede na besedilo arbitražnega sporazuma lahko sklepamo, da se bosta kopenska in morska meja najprej razrešili po mednarodnem pravu, nato pa se bo poiskala neka povezava Slovenije z odprtim morjem in režim, kako bo do njega prihajala. Po mednarodnem pravu je namreč težko pričakovati rešitev, po kateri bi RS pripadel celotni Piranski zaliv, glede na to, da del njegove obale pripada RH, ki ima na podlagi tega pravico do teritorialnega morja. Za razmejitev na morju se bo glede na dosedanjo prakso mednarodnih sodišč najverjetneje uporabila metoda modificirane sredinske črte, ne glede na sklicevanje Slovenije na zgodovinske in posebne okoliščine. Razsodbo arbitražnega sodišča je težko vnaprej predvideti, vendar pa bo eno od odločilnih načel za odločanje nedvomno načelo uti possidetis, ki spoštuje varovanje ozemeljskih meja v trenutku pridobitve neodvisnosti. Arbitražno sodišče bo potek meje določilo originarno, pri čemer bo razsodba za kopensko mejo pomenila mednarodnopravno konkretizacijo meje, kot je bila določena v nekdanji SFRJ, na morju pa mednarodnopravno razdelitev nekdaj pravno enotnega jugoslovanskega morja v severnem delu Jadrana. More than two decades of conflicts and disagreements about the course of the Slovenian - Croatian border will be resolved on the basis of an ad hoc arbitration, established in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the governments of the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia. The agreement was signed, ratified by both parliaments and registered with the UN Secretary-General. The arbitration agreement is a treaty on the basis of which an arbitral tribunal consisting of five members was established. The tribunal has a mandate to finalize and bindingly determine the course of the maritime and land boundary between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia, Slovenia’s junction to the High Sea and the regime for the use of the relevant maritime areas. The arbitral tribunal is by nature supranational regarding its authorizations, for the outcome of the arbitration can interfere with the territorial sovereignty of the country. The timeline of the arbitration process, according to the wording of the arbitration agreement, was bound to the signature date of the Croatian accession treaty with the European Union, although the fixed deadlines were later extended. June the 25th 1991 is specified as a decisive date in the arbitration agreement all actions by both parties after that date are legally irrelevant for the purposes of the arbitral tribunal. The state borders between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia are defined in both countries at the constitutional level, but not concretized and marked in nature. The issue of border dispute between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia is divided into two parts: the course of land border and the definition of maritime border. Most of the land border between the two countries is clear. Discrepancies occur mainly on the four terrestrial sections where the principle of uti possidetis iuris is in contradiction with the principle of uti possidetis de facto. With the maritime border, which includes the Bay of Piran issue and territorial access of Slovenia to the high seas, the principle of uti possidetis iuris case is not applicable, therefore only the principle of uti possidetis de facto is relevant for the Republic of Slovenia. Most of disputable border issues between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia derive from the former federal Yugoslavia times, where the issue of inter-republic borders has never been fully resolved by federal regulations. The internal border changes occurred particularly on the basis of oral agreements made by the highest representatives of the Yugoslav communist regime, especially in the early postwar years after the victory over nazifaschism. The main complaints regarding the arbitration agreement originate from Articles 3 and 4, which are inseparably connected. In Article 3, there is an unfortunate phrase “Slovenia’s junction to the High Sea”, which does not meet Slovenian demands and is also interpreted diametrically opposite by both countries. Whereas Article 4, which determines the legal basis for the decision, does not include abstract equity – the principle of ex aequo et bono, which could to a great extent give consideration to important historical arguments for Slovenia (e.g. the unjustified separation of c. m. Kaštel and Savudrija from Piran, violation of provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding from 1954 etc.). Regarding the wording of the arbitration agreement, we can assume that the land and the maritime border will be resolved under international law first, afterwards some sort of connection to the high seas for Slovenia will be found and a regime to reach it. According to international law, it is difficult to expect a solution that would give the entire Bay of Piran to the Republic of Slovenia, taking into account that part of its coast belongs to the Republic of Croatia, which therefore has the right of its territorial sea. Regarding previous practice of international tribunals, most likely a method of a modified median line will be applied for deli