Search

Arbitraža predstavlja postopek sporazumnega in zasebnega mehanizma reševanja sporov, ki se zaključi z izdajo arbitražne odločbe. Arbitražni sporazum ali arbitražna klavzula predstavlja temeljni kamen arbitraže, zaradi česar je za stranki, ki sta se s sklenitvijo arbitražnega sporazuma želeli izogniti sodnemu reševanju spora, bistveno, da je arbitražni sporazum veljaven in izvršljiv. Prav ta dogovorni temelj arbitraže namreč predstavlja bistveno razliko med arbitražo in sodnim postopkom. V prvem delu doktorske disertacije so predstavljene temeljne lastnosti arbitražnega sporazuma, njegove sestavine (obvezne in fakultativne) ter njegova pravna narava. Z arbitražnim sporazumom povezujemo tudi dve splošno priznani in v večini držav uzakonjeni načeli, in sicer doktrino ločenosti arbitražnega sporazuma od glavne pogodbe in načelo kompetence o kompetenci. Prvo poglavje disertacije zaključuje poglobljena analiza odnosa arbitraže in sodišča glede vprašanja (ne)veljavnosti arbitražnega sporazuma in uveljavljanja slednjega v praksi. Doktorska disertacija je v osnovi primerjalnopravna študija. Vendar pa predmet disertacije ne bo zgolj primerjava mednarodnih in (nekaterih) nacionalnih pravnih virov in arbitražnih pravil, temveč bo v njej obravnavan tudi razvoj razumevanja pojma soglasje k arbitražnemu načinu reševanja sporov. Osrednji del disertacije bo tako namenjen analizi materialne veljavnosti arbitražnega sporazuma, in sicer z vidika obstoja in interpretacije soglasja strank k arbitražnemu reševanju sporov, določitve merodajnega materialnega prava ter ugotavljanja objektivnega in subjektivnega obsega arbitražnega sporazuma. Zadnji del doktorske disertacije bo namenjen formalni veljavnosti arbitražnega sporazuma. Še danes je namreč (razen redkih izjem v nacionalnih ureditvah) splošno sprejeto, da je arbitražni sporazum veljaven le, če je sklenjen v pisni obliki. Enako kot razumevanje soglasja k arbitražnemu načinu reševanja sporov pa se je tudi zahteva po pisnosti arbitražnega sporazuma z razvojem in popularizacijo arbitraže spreminjala in je zdaj precej liberalizirana, v nekaterih državah celo odpravljena. Arbitration is a private and consensual method of dispute resolution, which (generally) results with issuing of an arbitration award. Arbitration agreement or arbitration clause represents a foundation stone of any arbitration proceedings therefore it is crucial for the parties who by concluding the arbitration agreement wanted to exclude jurisdiction of the courts to decide on their dispute, that arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. Arbitration agreement as a foundation of arbitration therfore represents the main difference between arbitration and court proceedings. In the first part of the thesis main features of arbitration agreement are analyzed, its elements (voluntary and obligatory) and legal nature. Arbitration agreement entails also two widespread and in most countries recognized principles of arbitration, namely doctrine of severability of arbitration agreement and competence rule. The first chapter of thesis will be concluded with a thorough analysis of relation between the court and the arbitral tribunal regarding the question of who and when decides on the (in)validity of arbitration agreement in practice. The thesis represents a comparative study. However the object of this thesis does not involve only a comparison of international and (some) national legal sources and arbitration rules, but also analyzes a development of understanding of consent of parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration. The main focus of the thesis is therefore an analysis of material validity of arbitration agreement, namely interpretation of consent of parties to conclude arbitration agreement, law governing material validity of arbitration agreement and objective and subjective scope of arbitration agreement. In the last part of the thesis the object of study is formal validity of arbitration agreement. Today it is still a widely recognized rule (subject to few exemptions in national legislations) that arbitration agreement is valid only if it is concluded in writing. However, similar as the development of understanding of parties’ consent to conclude an arbitration agreement, also writing requirement of form of arbitration agreement has gone through changing process in the last decades. Especially under influence of popularization of international commercial arbitration the writing form requirement of arbitration agreements became more liberalized and in some countries even completely abolished.

Rad je usredotočen na geopolitičke značajke spora između Republike Hrvatske i Republike Slovenije, s naglaskom na njegov morski segment. Osnova diplomskog rada počiva na neslaganju dviju država oko određivanja granice, a kroz nekoliko poglavlja dani su različiti pogledi na problematiku spora. Dok Slovenija smatra da joj pripada čitava Savudrijska vala, kao i spoj s otvorenim morem, Hrvatska smatra da granica u zaljevu treba ići crtom sredine. Osim razgraničenja na moru, spor se vodi i na području rijeke Dragonje. Slovenija zahtjeva da granica ide Kanalom sv. Odorika pa čak i nešto južnije, a Hrvatska starom rijekom Dragonjom. Unatoč desetljećima pregovaranja, rješenje spora još uvijek nije izgledno. This thesis is focused on the geopolitical aspects of the conflict between Croatia and Slovenia, with an emphasis on its maritime segment. The basis is on the disagreement between the two countries on defining the border, so throughout few chapters are given the different views in regard of the matter. While Slovenia believes that the whole Gulf of Piran belongs to it, as well as the access to the international waters, Croatia believes that the border in the Gulf should go along the middle line. In addition to maritime border conflict, there is also a issue in the area of the river Dragonja. Slovenia demands that the border goes through the Channel of St. Odorik and even further south,while Croatia demands that it goes through the old river Dragonja. Despite decades of negotiations, a solution to the conflict is still unlikely to happen.

Arbitražni sporazum je ključ do reševanja spora pred arbitražo, za njegovo veljavnost in interpretacijo pa je pomembno pravo, ki ga ureja. Nemalokrat v praksi stranke same ne izberejo merodajnega prava sporazuma, zato je potem naloga nacionalnih in arbitražnih sodišč, da določijo merodajno pravo. Obstajajo različni načini in pristopi določanja prava, praksa pa je razpeta med pravom sedeža arbitraže in pravom temeljne pogodbe. Cilj magistrske diplomske naloge je podrobneje predstaviti, zakaj je v mednarodni arbitraži pomembna izbira prava, ki ureja arbitražni sporazum, kakšne so posledice izbire prava, v kolikor stranki sami ne izbereta prava in kateri so glavni pristopi za določitev prava s strani arbitražnega senata oziroma sodišča. V sklopu tega bom predstavila različna kolizijska pravila ter mednarodne pravne institute kot sta doktrina ločenosti in načelo potrjevanja veljavnosti. V primeru, ko pravo ni izbrano s strani strank, se največkrat uporabi pravo temeljne pogodbe ali pravo sedeža arbitraže, zato bom v ločenih podpoglavjih podrobneje razložila pristope in mnenja teoretikov za izbiro enega ali drugega prava. Predstavila bom nekatera različna stališča sodišč ter zaključila s predstavitvijo posledic, ki jih lahko prinese izbira določenega prava kot merodajnega prava arbitražnega sporazuma. Arbitration agreement is the key to solving disputes before arbitration and the law that governs it has an important impact on its validity and interpretation. Parties in practice often do not choose the law governing the arbitration agreement, therefore the courts and arbitral tribunal need to determine the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. There are different ways and approaches to determine the law applicable to the arbitration agreement and the case law is torn between the law of the seat of arbitration and the law of the main contract. The objectives of the Master's Thesis are to present why the choice of law governing the arbitration agreement is an important issue in international arbitration, what are the consequences if the parties do not choose the law and which are the key principles that the courts and tribunals use when determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. I will firstly present different conflict of law rules and legal doctrines and principles such as, separability doctrine and the validation principle. In cases where the law is not chosen by the parties, the law of the main contract or the law of the seat of arbitration are most often applied, thus I will explain in separate subsections the approaches and opinions of practitioners for the choice of each law. Different views of the courts will be presented and I will conclude by outlining the implications of the choice of a particular law as the law applicable to the arbitration agreement.

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.

Hrvati i Slovenci su narodi koji su kroz više stoljeća živjeli u suživotu, gajili dobrosusjedske odnose i nikad nisu ratovali. Međutim, raspadom Jugoslavije dolazi do stvaranja samostalnih država Hrvatske i Slovenije pa prema tome stvara se potreba za utvrđivanjem međusobnih granica. U ovom diplomskom radu objašnjava se zašto je pitanje granice u Istri postalo “nepremostiva” prepreka u međunarodnim odnosima između Republike Hrvatske i Republike Slovenije koja se očitovala u slovenskoj blokadi hrvatskih pristupnih pregovora Europskoj uniji. Glavni cilj diplomskog rada je istražiti kako je i kada došlo do promjene granice s prirodnog toka rijeke Dragonje na Kanal sv. Odorika te utvrditi je li ta promjena dogovorena bilateralnim sporazumima ili ju je Slovenija proglasila jednostranim aktima. Također, u radu se objašnjava kako je promjena granice na kopnu (s prirodnog toka rijeke Dragonje na Kanal sv. Odorika) uvjetovala promjenu granice u Savudrijskoj vali/Piranskom zaljevu. Slijedom tih procesa došlo je do narušavanja međunarodnih odnosa između Slovenije i Hrvatske pa je dogovoreno da se pravno rješenje hrvatsko-slovenskog graničnog spora potraži pred Arbitražnim sudom. The Croats and the Slovenes are the nations that, for many centuries, lived in coexistence, demonstrated good neighbourly relations and never fought. However, the break-up of Yugoslavia saw the formation of the independent countries Croatia and Slovenia, therefore creating the necessity to establish the formal borders between these two countries. This master’s thesis explains how the question of territorial borders in Istria became the obstruction in the international relations between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia, since it was the cause of Slovenia’s blockage of Croatia’s negotiation to join the European Union. The main aim of this master’s thesis is to investigate how and when the shift of the state border from the Dragonja to the St. Odorik Channel occurred, and to determine whether that shift was agreed upon by a bilateral agreement or it was declared as a unilateral act by the Republic of Slovenia. Furthermore, this paper explains how the shift of the state borders onto the land (from The Dragonja to St. Odorik Channel) affected the shift in border in Savudrija Valley/ Piran Bay. During these processes, the international relations between Slovenia and Croatia were compromised, so the agreement was reached by both countries to settle the state border dispute on the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

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.

Mednarodna trgovinska arbitraža je zasebno razsodišče, ki je ustanovljeno s posebnim dogovorom sodelujočih v primeru spora med njimi. Spada med alternativne oblike reševanja sporov. Od ostalih oblik se razlikuje po tem, da je njenim odločitvam v pravnem prometu priznan dokončen in zavezujoč pravni učinek. Z arbitražnim dogovorom tako stranke izključijo pristojnost sodišč. V poslovnih odnosih se pojem arbitraže prepogosto povezuje z gospodarskimi spori s tujim elementom, vendar pa se lahko arbitraže uporabijo tudi za spore z drugačno naravo in med domačimi subjekti. Dejstvo pa je tudi, da je na razvoj arbitražnega prava najbolj vplivala mednarodna trgovina. Področje mednarodne trgovinske arbitraže pa presega zgolj pravno analizo, saj odseva tudi zgodovinski, sociološki in kulturni napredek ter razvoj, pomembna pa je tudi, saj želi preseči nacionalne okvirje in omejitve različnih pravnih redov. Vsak potencialni arbitražni postopek ima svoje korenine v arbitražnem dogovoru. Za takšno obliko reševanja sporov mora obstajati soglasje med strankami. V arbitražnem sporazumu pa ne gre za golo pripravljenost reševati spor pred arbitražo, saj lahko stranke modificirajo cel postopek s svojimi željami in potrebami. Gre za načelo avtonomije strank, ki je v sodnih postopkih zelo zreducirano, arbitražni postopek pa z določenimi omejitvami spremlja od rojstva do smrti. Pri institucionalnih arbitražah je avtonomija nekoliko manjša, saj stranke v arbitražni dogovor vključijo posebne postopkovne pravilnike. Obstajajo pa tudi priložnostne arbitraže pri katerih stranke same določijo pravila postopka. Arbitražno kolo se zažene, ko stranka arbitražnega sporazuma vloži tožbo oz. zahtevek za reševanja spora pred arbitražo. Stranke lahko sklenejo arbitražni dogovor tudi po izbruhu spora. V naslednji fazi je nato potrebno imenovanje članov arbitražnega senata in njegova konstitucija. Ko je arbitražni senat tako ustanovljen je potem njegova naloga in pristojnost, da pripelje postopek do dokončne rešitve spora med strankami. Običajno se spor konča z izdajo zavezujoče in dokončne arbitražne odločbe, med postopkom pa lahko pride tudi do sporazumnega odstopa, največkrat je to s sklenitvijo poravnave. Arbitražni postopek pa se »dokončno« zaključi, ko stranka dobi to, do česar je upravičena v arbitražni odločbi. Večji del arbitražnih odločb je izpolnjenih prostovoljno, za ostale arbitražne odločbe s tujim elementom pa so na voljo posebni mehanizmi priznanja in izvršitve. Ti mehanizmi so poenoteni po vsem svetu. International commercial arbitration is a private dispute resolution mechanism. It is established by a special agreement of participants who wants to arbitrate. Arbitration is one of the forms of the alternative dispute resolutions (ADR). The main difference in relation to other forms of ADR is final and binding nature of arbitral award, just like the decisions from national courts. In business relationships arbitration has been preferred means for resolving transnational commercial disputes, as well as other categories of disputes. Moreover, the fact is that the development of arbitration law is most influenced by international trade. Field of international commercial arbitration is going above than just pure legal issues. It reflects historical, social and cultural progress as well as general development. International commercial arbitration is also trying to exceed the limits of different national legal systems. Every potential arbitration proceedings has its origins in arbitration agreement. For this form of resolving disputes, arbitration agreement is conditio sine qua non for entire procedure. Arbitration agreement is not just a mere consensus between the parties to arbitrate, however they can modify the entire proceeding to their needs and wishes. This echoes one of the most important principles, which is the principle of party autonomy. In national courts the principle of party autonomy is cut down to its minimum nevertheless, party autonomy in international commercial arbitration exists from the very beginning to the very death of arbitration process. In international commercial arbitrations there is a high degree of party autonomy however, institutional arbitrations does not poses such wide scope of this principle as does the ad hoc arbitrations. Arbitration proceeding starts when one of the parties fills its request for arbitration. The arbitration agreement is not necessary to be signed prior the dispute arises. The next stage is appointment of arbitrators and the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. After the panel is constituted the main task and the responsibility is to render an arbitral award according to applicable law. Usually, the proceeding is ended when arbitral tribunal render a final and binding arbitral award, although it can also end by signing a setlement. In addition the “real” ending of arbitral process is when a party gets the amount to which it is entitled by arbitration award. The great part of arbitral award are in fact carried out voluntarily, that is to say, without need for enforcement proceedings in national courts.

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

Tumače se razlozi koji opravdavaju autorovu tvrdnju da je ovaj Sporazum od znatne važnosti za obje države. Definira se bit (supstrat) spora i preciziraju se dva konkretna zahtjeva (demands) Slovenije. Oba zahtjeva su međunarodnopravno potpuno neutemeljena te predstavljaju jasnu teritorijalnu pretenziju na štetu cjelovitosti državnog područja Hrvatske. Sadržaj preambule Sporazuma i redom sve njegove članke prate autorove kritičke primjedbe. Članku priloženi integralni tekst Sporazuma čitatelju omogućava da ispita i provjeri opravdanost tih primjedaba. Dio odredaba Sporazuma u suprotnosti je s odredbama pozitivnog međunarodnog prava i stavlja jednu od stranaka u sporu u neravnopravan položaj. Od svih prigovora Sporazumu najteži i najodsudniji je onaj upućen dijelu članka 3. koji glasi: „(1) Arbitražni sud utvrdit će (a) ...; (b) vezu Slovenije prema otvorenom moru; (c) režim za uporabu relevantnih morskih područja.“ Zbog potpune besmislenosti i nerazumnosti, kao i ignoriranja Konvencije 82, taj dio Sporazuma, nerazumljiv i neprimjenjiv, valja ignorirati, smatrati ga nepostojećim. Opravdano je očekivati da će Arbitražni sud, primjenjujući pravila i načela međunarodnog pozitivnog, običajnog i kodificiranog prava, uspješno utvrditi granicu na kopnu i na moru između Hrvatske i Slovenije., Two neighbouring states, Croatia and Slovenia, have decided to resolve their territorial dispute by using diplomatic means for peaceful settlement of intergovernmental disputes. After many years of unsuccessful endeavours, both states concluded and agreed that they did not manage to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means; hence, these efforts were terminated. Subsequently, the two states in the dispute concluded an agreement, by which they established an ad hoc arbitral tribunal. They entrusted this tribunal with resolving their dispute. This essay critically indicates to the fact that the agreement has not clearly and impartially enough defined the positions of both parties as being entirely equal. Nevertheless, the agreement does not prevent the arbitral tribunal from issuing its award in conformity with the positive international law, should the arbitral tribunal not take into consideration the fact that one part of the agreement (article 3.1b and c) is to such an extent unclear, unintelligible and senseless that it is essential to consider it nonexistent.