4 ms·

It is unclaimed if you choose to accept both the Croatian and Serbian border definitions at the same time (which they apparently have done)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 3y ago
Without dignifying any of this supremely silly drama, that's not an option that logically avails. Both Serbia and Croatia agree that one of them is getting this territory.
- yreg 3y ago
  Neither of them claim it. Why is their opinion on land they do not claim relevant? (Other than because of force.)
  - kramler 3y ago
    Croatia asserts its right to administer the patch through the simple expedient of actually administering it. The fact that Croatia claims to only be controlling access and evicting squatters on behalf of Serbia does not change the fact that Croatia is controlling access and evicting squatters. The Liberlanders' claim that the patch was terra nullius was silly from day one. An area is terra nullius if there is no recognized government hoping to run it, not if there is no recognized government that will publicly commit to keep running it forever. The Liberlanders' new claim that the patch is bona vacantia is just completely batshit gaga. Bona vacantia is about private ownership title rather than sovereignty, does not exist in civil law jurisdictions, and when successfully invoked just means ownership of the item in question has reverted to the Crown. We need a moratorium on ancaps having legal opinions until their semantics games become functionally distinguishable from SovCit woo.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    There's a border definition dispute where its unclear whose side this piece if land falls on, and where Croatia has decided (and Serbia has acceded to this decision) to administer it until the dispute is resolved. But there's no dispute that either Serbia or Croatia owns it, and it doesn't really matter, as to any third party attempt to set up a state in defiance of the status quo administration, whether Croatia is conducting non-hostile administration of Serbian territory with Serbian consent or administering its own territory. If there's a smudge in the only copy of a contract you can find and you think it called for a 60/40 split of profits from a certain kind of joint activity in your partner’s favor, and they think it called for a 60/40 split in your favor, there's 20% that is uncertain until some reolution is reached, but that doesn’t mean that someone else can just restructure the deal unilaterally to be 40/40/20, which is (but for the actual numbers and the nonfungible nature of land) what Liberland is trying to do.
    - dllthomas 3y ago
      To extend your metaphor, with a big "IIUC", there's a sense in which "neither side wants the land" but that's because there's another term in the contract where the party with the smaller portion on this 60/40 split gets something they both want even more than the 20%. They'd both rather have that thing, but they'd both rather have the 20% than not.
dragonwriter 3y ago
Seems like Serbia’s position is that Croatia owns it and Serbia has no intent to administer it given that, while Croatia’s position is that (1) either Serbia or Croatia owns it, (2) it's probably Serbia, and Croatia makes no positive claim, but also won’t force the issue pending international arbitration to clarify the border, and (3) Criatia will continue administering it as an interim matter until the border is resolved. So it seems clear that (1) its either non-ceded Croatian territory being administered by Croatia with a diplomatic choice not to make an affirmative claim without arbitration of the border, or (2) it's by prior treaty Serbian territory, which may or may have been ceded to Croatia, which is being administered by Croatia without challenge to any rights Serbia (and only Serbia) may have.
- throwoutway 3y ago
  In terms of international law, does Croatian law enforcement performing a court order and making arrests within the land, make this an affirmative claim? Otherwise wouldn't it be an cross-border action?
  - micwag 3y ago
    Technically it is a cross-border action, but neither Croatia nor Serbia are claiming the island so Croatia didn't cross into any other recognized country. Furthermore international law differs from normal law as usually at least one party has tanks.
  - tylergetsay 3y ago
    Its not really meant as a "documentary" but more as entertainment, but a youtuber visited the area under this idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb8T9X5K1AA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb8T9X5K1AA
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
HWR_14 3y ago
You cannot accept both Croatia and Serbia's borders at the same time. Croatia's policy is Serbia has this worse land and they have a better plot of land. And Serbia's policy is they own the better plot and Croatia owns this worse plot. So, neither side claims it, because they both claim a better area. But whoever ends up losing the better area is going to take it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 3y ago

Without dignifying any of this supremely silly drama, that's not an option that logically avails. Both Serbia and Croatia agree that one of them is getting this territory.

yreg 3y ago
Neither of them claim it. Why is their opinion on land they do not claim relevant? (Other than because of force.)
- kramler 3y ago
  Croatia asserts its right to administer the patch through the simple expedient of actually administering it. The fact that Croatia claims to only be controlling access and evicting squatters on behalf of Serbia does not change the fact that Croatia is controlling access and evicting squatters. The Liberlanders' claim that the patch was terra nullius was silly from day one. An area is terra nullius if there is no recognized government hoping to run it, not if there is no recognized government that will publicly commit to keep running it forever. The Liberlanders' new claim that the patch is bona vacantia is just completely batshit gaga. Bona vacantia is about private ownership title rather than sovereignty, does not exist in civil law jurisdictions, and when successfully invoked just means ownership of the item in question has reverted to the Crown. We need a moratorium on ancaps having legal opinions until their semantics games become functionally distinguishable from SovCit woo.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  There's a border definition dispute where its unclear whose side this piece if land falls on, and where Croatia has decided (and Serbia has acceded to this decision) to administer it until the dispute is resolved. But there's no dispute that either Serbia or Croatia owns it, and it doesn't really matter, as to any third party attempt to set up a state in defiance of the status quo administration, whether Croatia is conducting non-hostile administration of Serbian territory with Serbian consent or administering its own territory. If there's a smudge in the only copy of a contract you can find and you think it called for a 60/40 split of profits from a certain kind of joint activity in your partner’s favor, and they think it called for a 60/40 split in your favor, there's 20% that is uncertain until some reolution is reached, but that doesn’t mean that someone else can just restructure the deal unilaterally to be 40/40/20, which is (but for the actual numbers and the nonfungible nature of land) what Liberland is trying to do.
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    To extend your metaphor, with a big "IIUC", there's a sense in which "neither side wants the land" but that's because there's another term in the contract where the party with the smaller portion on this 60/40 split gets something they both want even more than the 20%. They'd both rather have that thing, but they'd both rather have the 20% than not.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Seems like Serbia’s position is that Croatia owns it and Serbia has no intent to administer it given that, while Croatia’s position is that (1) either Serbia or Croatia owns it, (2) it's probably Serbia, and Croatia makes no positive claim, but also won’t force the issue pending international arbitration to clarify the border, and (3) Criatia will continue administering it as an interim matter until the border is resolved. So it seems clear that (1) its either non-ceded Croatian territory being administered by Croatia with a diplomatic choice not to make an affirmative claim without arbitration of the border, or (2) it's by prior treaty Serbian territory, which may or may have been ceded to Croatia, which is being administered by Croatia without challenge to any rights Serbia (and only Serbia) may have.

throwoutway 3y ago
In terms of international law, does Croatian law enforcement performing a court order and making arrests within the land, make this an affirmative claim? Otherwise wouldn't it be an cross-border action?
- micwag 3y ago
  Technically it is a cross-border action, but neither Croatia nor Serbia are claiming the island so Croatia didn't cross into any other recognized country. Furthermore international law differs from normal law as usually at least one party has tanks.
- tylergetsay 3y ago
  Its not really meant as a "documentary" but more as entertainment, but a youtuber visited the area under this idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb8T9X5K1AA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb8T9X5K1AA
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

HWR_14 3y ago

You cannot accept both Croatia and Serbia's borders at the same time. Croatia's policy is Serbia has this worse land and they have a better plot of land. And Serbia's policy is they own the better plot and Croatia owns this worse plot. So, neither side claims it, because they both claim a better area. But whoever ends up losing the better area is going to take it.