3 ms·

Why exactly do you think the Serbian claim has more merit?

by nsajko 12y ago

toyg 12y ago
I don't think it has "more merit", but pragmatically: 1) if Serbia joins the EU, borders disappear because of Schengen, it becomes a somewhat-academic debate, Serbia keeps control of the Eastern bank. 2) if Serbia does not join the EU, borders stay in place, no EU state is ever going to help Croatia go to war for a few square-km of Balkan swamps, Serbia keeps control of the Eastern bank. From this point of view, the incentive for Croatia is to extoll the maximum amount of compensation it can as part of the EU membership process of Serbia, because it's unlikely it will ever get anything more. Then again, this would assume rational actors, and the history of those lands is full of extremely irrational ones, so...
- Someone 12y ago
  Rational actors do not need to resolve border disputes quickly. For example, there has been a border dispute between Germany and the Netherlands for centuries about what part of the Ems-Dollart waterways belongs to whom. Even when, after World War Two, there was significant discussion about the border, resulting in small shifts of the border (http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/ibs031.pdf http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/i...), this didn't get resolved. Result is that, in 2011, Google maps didn't really know where to put the border (http://www.thelocal.de/20110221/33241 http://www.thelocal.de/20110221/33241) This conflict was finally 'resolved' in 2014 by deciding that the border will remain ambiguous (http://www.dw.de/germany-and-the-netherlands-end-centuries-old-border-dispute/a-18020219 http://www.dw.de/germany-and-the-netherlands-end-centuries-o...)
  - toyg 12y ago
    That would be scenario 1 -- the border becoming an academical exercise.
- rospaya 12y ago
  Your points are disingenuous and suggest that Serbia wins in any case while it lacks higher ground. In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too and this is a legitimate reason to block entry. In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo before a way is found to settle the dispute, something that has been done in a lot of post-Yugoslav succession cases with success.
  - toyg 12y ago
    > Your points are disingenuous Thanks for the ad-hominem, but I honestly couldn't care less who "wins", I'm looking at the incentives purely as a third-party observer (well, as an EU citizen, I guess I have an interest in keeping the peace over there). > In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too Sure (well, until certain procedures become a matter of majority vote -- the EU is constantly changing, but I digress). But let's be honest here: if everyone else wants Serbia in, they will lean on Croatia to make it happen; and a few square kms of swamps are not worth souring relationships with the likes of Germany. That's why I said Croatians will likely get as much compensation as they can, while they have the chance; after all, they are not going to take back those swamps with tanks anytime soon. > In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo Yup, which is my scenario 2; and considering the status quo matches Serbian views, the only country with a problem remains Croatia. A rational actor would then pack it in, if maintaining a claim with very low chances made it not worth the trouble of dealing with a silly micronation on their doorstep. In fact, if I were Serbia I'd give Liberland all the help I get, trying to force Croatia to take charge of the area and add further legitimacy to the status quo.
    - klez 12y ago
      > Thanks for the ad-hominem GP is attacking your points, not your person, that's not an ad-hominem attack.
      - shawn-furyan 12y ago
        Google's definition of disingenuous: dis·in·gen·u·ous ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/ adjective adjective: disingenuous not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical "that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act" Calling it an ad-hominem is certainly not off base. Due to some linguistic anomaly, a lot of people seem not to realize that this word has a significant component that indicts the character of its target. Sometimes it seems to be used in an ad-hominem manner, and sometimes it seems to be used in ignorance of that component of definition of the word. However, it's often impossible to tell with certainty whether the person is using the word to intentionally attack someone's character or not. In any case, using the word can be incendiary. The word 'misleading' can generally be substituted in cases where one wishes to avoid the character attack.

Why exactly do you think the Serbian claim has more merit?

by nsajko 12y ago

Why exactly do you think the Serbian claim has more merit?

toyg 12y ago

I don't think it has "more merit", but pragmatically: 1) if Serbia joins the EU, borders disappear because of Schengen, it becomes a somewhat-academic debate, Serbia keeps control of the Eastern bank. 2) if Serbia does not join the EU, borders stay in place, no EU state is ever going to help Croatia go to war for a few square-km of Balkan swamps, Serbia keeps control of the Eastern bank. From this point of view, the incentive for Croatia is to extoll the maximum amount of compensation it can as part of the EU membership process of Serbia, because it's unlikely it will ever get anything more. Then again, this would assume rational actors, and the history of those lands is full of extremely irrational ones, so...

Someone 12y ago
Rational actors do not need to resolve border disputes quickly. For example, there has been a border dispute between Germany and the Netherlands for centuries about what part of the Ems-Dollart waterways belongs to whom. Even when, after World War Two, there was significant discussion about the border, resulting in small shifts of the border (http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/ibs031.pdf http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/i...), this didn't get resolved. Result is that, in 2011, Google maps didn't really know where to put the border (http://www.thelocal.de/20110221/33241 http://www.thelocal.de/20110221/33241) This conflict was finally 'resolved' in 2014 by deciding that the border will remain ambiguous (http://www.dw.de/germany-and-the-netherlands-end-centuries-old-border-dispute/a-18020219 http://www.dw.de/germany-and-the-netherlands-end-centuries-o...)
- toyg 12y ago
  That would be scenario 1 -- the border becoming an academical exercise.
rospaya 12y ago
Your points are disingenuous and suggest that Serbia wins in any case while it lacks higher ground. In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too and this is a legitimate reason to block entry. In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo before a way is found to settle the dispute, something that has been done in a lot of post-Yugoslav succession cases with success.
- toyg 12y ago
  > Your points are disingenuous Thanks for the ad-hominem, but I honestly couldn't care less who "wins", I'm looking at the incentives purely as a third-party observer (well, as an EU citizen, I guess I have an interest in keeping the peace over there). > In case Serbia wants to join the EU they need a vote from Croatia too Sure (well, until certain procedures become a matter of majority vote -- the EU is constantly changing, but I digress). But let's be honest here: if everyone else wants Serbia in, they will lean on Croatia to make it happen; and a few square kms of swamps are not worth souring relationships with the likes of Germany. That's why I said Croatians will likely get as much compensation as they can, while they have the chance; after all, they are not going to take back those swamps with tanks anytime soon. > In case it doesn't enter the EU it's just status quo Yup, which is my scenario 2; and considering the status quo matches Serbian views, the only country with a problem remains Croatia. A rational actor would then pack it in, if maintaining a claim with very low chances made it not worth the trouble of dealing with a silly micronation on their doorstep. In fact, if I were Serbia I'd give Liberland all the help I get, trying to force Croatia to take charge of the area and add further legitimacy to the status quo.
  - klez 12y ago
    > Thanks for the ad-hominem GP is attacking your points, not your person, that's not an ad-hominem attack.
    - shawn-furyan 12y ago
      Google's definition of disingenuous: dis·in·gen·u·ous ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/ adjective adjective: disingenuous not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical "that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act" Calling it an ad-hominem is certainly not off base. Due to some linguistic anomaly, a lot of people seem not to realize that this word has a significant component that indicts the character of its target. Sometimes it seems to be used in an ad-hominem manner, and sometimes it seems to be used in ignorance of that component of definition of the word. However, it's often impossible to tell with certainty whether the person is using the word to intentionally attack someone's character or not. In any case, using the word can be incendiary. The word 'misleading' can generally be substituted in cases where one wishes to avoid the character attack.