Dec 17, 2008

Retaliatorne mjere temeljem Sporazuma o Stabilizaciji i pridruživanju

Siniša Rodin

Kako izvješćuje Jutarnji list, Slovenija uvjetuje otvaranje i zatvaranje određenog većeg broja pregovaračkih poglavlja u pristupnim pregovorima za članstvo Hrvatske u EU prethodnim rješavanjem bilateralnog spora teritorijalne naravi s Hrvatskom. O ovome je bilo riječi u dva prethodan posta na ovom blogu. Ovdje ću se pozabaviti pitanjem može li Hrvatska, pravno gledano, uzvratiti određenim retaliatornim mjerama koje bi bile zakonite u smislu međunarodnog prava i Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju.

Pretpostavke na kojima temeljim ovu analizu (vidi prethodne postove) su slijedeće:

  1. SSP je nerazdvojni dio procesa pridruživanja Hrvatske EU;
  2. SSP valja interpretirati u svjetlu Bečke konvencije o pravu ugovora, posebice u skladu s normama iz Čl. 31 temeljem kojih se SSP ima interpretirati temeljem naknadnih akata i prakse stranaka;
  3. Takvi naknadni akti i praksa, posebice odluke institucija EU kojima se kao ishod pregovora predviđa članstvo Hrvatske u EU, definiraju SSP kao međunarodni ugovor koji predstavlja predpristupni instrument;
  4. Blokada pregovora iz bilateralnih razloga (razloga koji nisu dio acquisa niti spadaju u doseg Osnivačkih ugovora) predstavlja mala fide provedbu SSP-a na koju se primjenjuje Čl. 120 SSP-a;
  5. Čl. 120 SSP-a predviđa da u slučaju da ako jedna od stranaka smatra da je druga stranka propustila ispuniti neku obvezu iz ovoga Sporazuma, ona može poduzeti odgovarajuće mjere;
  6. Te mjere mogu biti usko skrojene kako bi se usmjerile upravo na onaj problem koji je doveo do povrede, odnosno, mogu biti usmjerene isključivo protiv Slovenije;
  7. Prije prihvaćanja takvih mjera, potrebno je poduzeti određene prethodne korake, prvenstveno, obavijestiti o problemu Vijeće Stabilizacije i pridruživanja.

Koje mjere stoje Hrvatskoj na raspolaganju? Načelno, bilo koja mjera koja predstavlja suspenziju određenih odredbi SSP-a i koja će najučinkovitije dovesti do otklanjanja povrede ugovora.

Primjerice, jedna od takvih mjera mogla bi biti izuzeće državljana Slovenije od opće liberalizacije tržišta nekretnina u odnosu na građane EU koje je predviđeno za 1. veljače 2009. godine. Tako bi hrvatska vlada mogla odlučiti da građani svih država članica osim Slovenije mogu stjecati nekretnine u RH pod jednakim uvjetima kao i hrvatski državljani, dok bi se za slovenske državljane zadržao neki restriktivniji oblik stjecanja, tako dugo dok ne odklone blokadu pregovora. Slične mjere moguće su i u drugim područjima. Npr. u području slobode kretanja dobara, moguće je suspendirati bescarinski režim za dobra porijeklom iz Slovenije, a zadržati ga u pogledu dobara iz svih drugih država članica. Izbor retaliatornih mjera je širok i moguće je upotrijebiti one koje najučinkovitije ostvaruju njihov cilj.

Navedene mjere ne bi predstavljale povredu međunarodnog prava niti SSP-a ali bi politički zaoštrile situaciju. Također, predstavljale bi presedan, jer do sada ni jedna država kandidatkinja nije posizala za njima.

4 comments:

Q said...

Još jedna napomena. Hrvatska može reći da će prihvatiti sve slovenske uvjete ukoliko Europska unija prihvati da su takvi uvjeti legitimni dio pregovaračkog procesa za članstvo koji će se moći legitimno postavljati u svim budućim pristupnim pregovorima. Time bi se EU dovela u poziciju da se očituje o legitimnosti slovenskih uvjeta, a Hrvatska u win-win situaciji. Ukoliko bi EU rekla da su ti uvjeti legitimni, Hrvatska bi iste mogla postavljati Srbiji, Bosni i Hercegovini, Crnoj Gori. Ukoliko EU kaže da nisu legitimni, Slovenija bi se našla u slijepoj ulici.

Anonymous said...

Dear Siniša,

First of all congratulations on this blog. You have done great work. I come across it from time to time and I truly enjoy it.

Now, regarding this topic. I have been following closely the SLO-CRO relations for a couple of years now. In so doing, I have been, not infrequently, disappointed by the way the events unfolded and I remain so today.

Having a benefit of understanding both languages I am also very well acquainted with the constructed political reality by the media in both countries. Here the situation is truly worrisome. There is no sign of reflexivity, of trying to understand the other side and of attempting to contemplate on what might have agonized it.

Instead, the debate, if there is one, is moving into the spehere of irrational. It is about who believes whom - and not truly what the arguments, the reasons on both sides are.

Interestingly, in the present deadlock it has not been made clear to either of the publics what actually is at stake. Nevertheless, Sanader shrugged the burden off his shoulders by demagogically asserting that "Croatia will not pave its way to the EU by ceding its territory to anyone."

But this is not what it is at stake. According to my understanding, the problem is the following:

There are some undetermined points on the SLO-CRO border. The principled agreement, yet legally binding because confirmed by both sides many times in the last 17 years, is that the situation on the border should be the same as it was on the 25.6.1991. Uti possidetis iuris.

However, Croatia has since then made a number of unilateral moves, on the level of legislation, on the ground and indeed everywhere (for example: it is commonplace to see the boarder in Piran bay alias Savudrijska vala (sic!) drawn in the middle). These borders are now even contained in the documents submitted to the Commission - which is a first hand confirmation of (attempted) unilateral moves.

Naturally, Slovenia has to dispute them in order to avoid acquiescene under int'l law. It insists the maps should be removed, along with the unilateral moves in the accompanying legislation, for they prejudice the border.

Now, Croatia agrees to that re EU, but not re possible international dispute resolution. This position is of course not just inconsistent, it is unsustainable from the int'l perspective. One just can not argue that he does not want to prejudice border re EU, but do so against the remaining int'l community. The borders exist erga omnes, or they do not.

This is the crux of the issue and the solution will need to be found. I am deeply convinced that retaliatory measures are not a solution to the problem. And neither are the calls to stop buying SLO goods, to block the property market etc.

The fact is that in the decades to come, SLO-CRO are codnemned to live, hopefully not just co-exist, side by side to each other. This is just unavoidable. For that reason inflaming the tensions between the two nations should be stopped and avoided by all means.

Every nation harbors a dark shadow and it is for the intellectuals to act as a voice of reason, possessing the emergency brake that should be pulled whenever the dark shadow comes to close to the surface.

A long time ago, I wrote (together with my SLO colleague Letnar) an article on the maritime border resolution between SLO and CRO. Here is the link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=990183

To all those interested I would especially insist to consider the tenor of my conclusion. I think that is the direction we should head to.

With best wishes from Florence,

Matej

Q said...

Dear Matej, thank you very much for your comment. I fully agree with you that retaliatory measures are not a solution to the problem and I would be the last one to recommend them. However, I believe that Slovenian government is violating the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (accordingly the EU as well), and that Croatia is entitled to (under international law) to adopt retaliatory measure.

Also. I fully understand the argument of acquiescence under international law. However, I do not understand why should Slovenia or, indeed, anyone else care about Croatian position. Croatia is not asking Slovenia to acquiesce to our position. Croatian government only insists on its own position which is disputed and can ultimately be challenged before an international tribunal.

Unfortunately, Slovenian position has a huge detrimental effect on relations between common citizens. Even my mother in law who is the most disinterested person in international relations I know (and I take her as an example of a Clapham omnibus person), is now closely watching the affair.

There are many legal arguments about the dispute we could discuss. However, what I have said many times, Europe's identity should be constructed as against negative historic experiences and towards new common values. I do not believe that the position of Slovenian government is contributing to that.

Also, I do not believe that the present course Slovenian government took is in Slovenian best interest. It will only turn her allies against her. Ultimately, there will be no gain for anyone.

One more thing. I would immediately agree to sign the Slovenian proposal under one condition. That the EU adopts a declaration stating that Slovenian requirements are in accordance with the acquis (including accession acquis), and that it will be legitimate to demand the same thing from all future accession candidates.

With my best friendly regards, Siniša

Anonymous said...

Indeed, I know we do subscribe to the same normative tenor of the affairs: the new common European values. But these entail hard work - reflexivity - and it is not what the High Politics - currently played out - is all about.

It has never been and it will never be. Precisely because of the Clapham omnibus persons who are embroiled in the political-media construction of reality.

Well, there is so much more to be said about this... Hopefully, we get to discuss it once in person - when the things calm down a bit.
Keep in touch,
MA