The border betweenCroatia andSerbia in the area of theDanube isdisputed, an important part of their broaderdiplomatic relations. While Serbia claims that thethalweg of the Danube valley and the centreline of the river represent theinternational border between the two countries, Croatia disagrees, claiming that the international border lies along the boundaries of thecadastral municipalities located along the river—departing from the course at several points along a 140-kilometre (87 mi) section. The cadastre-based boundary reflects the course of the Danube which existed in the 19th century, before anti-meandering andhydrotechnical engineering works altered its course. The area size of the territory in dispute is reported variously, up to 140 km2 (54 square miles).
The dispute first arose in 1947, but was left unresolved during the existence of theSocialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After thebreakup of Yugoslavia, the dispute would become a contentious issue. Particular prominence was given to the dispute at the time ofCroatia's accession to the European Union. The dispute remains unresolved, and the line of control mostly corresponds to Serbia's claim.
The Croatian–Serbian border dispute involves competing claims regarding the border at several points along theDanube River valley shared by the two countries. The disputed areas lie along a 140-kilometre (87 mi) portion of the course,[1] out of 188-kilometre (117 mi) of the river course in the area.[2] In that area, the border is defined differently by the neighbouring countries—either as following the Danube, asSerbia claims, or the borders ofcadastral municipalities having seat in either country, asCroatia claims.[3] The cadastre-based boundary also traces the former riverbed of the Danube, which was changed bymeandering andhydraulic engineering works in the 19th century, after the cadastre was established.[4] The border dispute involves up to 140 square kilometres (54 square miles) of territory.[3] Other sources specify somewhat different figures, indicating a Croatian claim over 100 square kilometres (39 square miles) on the eastern bank of the river, inBačka, while saying that the cadastre-based boundary leaves 10 to 30 square kilometres (3.9 to 11.6 square miles) of territory on the western bank of the Danube, inBaranja to Serbia.[5][6] Yet another estimate cites a total area of 100 square kilometres (39 square miles) in dispute, 90% of which is on the eastern bank of the Danube, controlled by Serbia.[7]
The bulk of the territory in dispute is near the town ofApatin,[6] while theIsland of Šarengrad and theIsland of Vukovar are cited as particularly contentious parts of the dispute. Other disputed areas are located near the town ofBačka Palanka,[5] and in the municipality ofSombor, at thetripoint of Croatia, Hungary, and Serbia.[8] Croatia claims that the cadastre-based boundary was adopted by the Đilas Commission, set up in 1945 to determine the borders between federal constituents ofYugoslavia, while Serbia claims that the same commission identified the boundary as the course of the Danube in 1945.[9] In 1991, theArbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia ruled that the border between federal units of Yugoslavia became inviolableinternational borders without referring to the location of any specific claim or line. Before the ruling, Serbia asserted that the borders were subject to change following thebreakup of Yugoslavia and theindependence of Croatia.[10] Since theCroatian War of Independence, the line of control coincides with the Serbian claim.[7]
On 28 July 2002, a patrol boat of theYugoslav Army firedwarning shots at four boats carrying theprefect ofVukovar-Srijem County, the mayors of Vukovar and Bačka Palanka, and several civilians to Bačka Palanka. The incident occurred approximately 800 metres (2,600 feet) away from Šarengrad Island. Shots were also fired at a Croatian patrol boat which attempted to approach the same vessel. There were no casualties, but the passengers and crew of the civilian boat were arrested.[11] Four elderly individuals and four children were released immediately, while the rest were interviewed at a Yugoslav military barracks for two hours before being set free.[12] Yugoslav foreign ministerGoran Svilanović expressed regret over the incident, but Croatian Prime MinisterIvica Račan stated that Croatia was not satisfied with the gesture.[13] TheSerbian Army withdrew from the border in October 2006, turning control over to theSerbian police.[14]
In early 2000, Croatia and Serbia established a commission tasked with determining the border, but in its first ten years it convened only once or twice.[15] Since 2010, the issue has gained increasing prominence in the disputing countries. Plans for construction of a port in Apatin, on a piece of territory claimed by Croatia, added fuel to the dispute.[16] After years of inactivity the commission met inZagreb in April 2010, only to conclude that there was a difference of opinion on the matter.[8] Later that month, theSerbian Radical Party (SRS) deputies in theNational Assembly proposed a resolution which required Serbian officials to resolve the dispute in compliance with the Serbian claim.[17] Months later, Radoslav Stojanović, a former legal representative ofSerbia and Montenegro in theBosnian Genocide Case andformer ambassador to the Netherlands,[18] likened the dispute to theCroatia–Slovenia border dispute in theGulf of Piran. Stojanović said that the position held by Croatia in its dispute withSlovenia was favourable to Serbia and warned that Serbia might be in a disadvantageous position if Croatia joined theEuropean Union (EU) before Serbia—which would allow it to impose its conditions to the process ofaccession of Serbia to the EU.[8]
By 2011, Serbian diplomats requested the EU to pressure Croatia to resolve the dispute beforeCroatia's accession to the union for fear it might follow the Slovene example and stall Serbian accession similar to the impasse between Croatia and Slovenia over their border disputes and the subsequent blockade of the Croatian EU accession negotiation process. The EU denied the request.[19]Croatian PresidentIvo Josipović said that the dispute was the most contentious issue ofCroatia–Serbia relations but added that it should not be difficult to resolve.[20] In 2012, Josipović stated that Croatia should not block Serbia's EU accession over the issue and suggested that the dispute should be resolved througharbitration,[21] which is considered an acceptable solution by both countries.[22] In 2014, the Croatian ambassador to Serbia reiterated Josipović's stance from 2012.[23] On the other hand,Zoran Milanović, thePrime Minister of Croatia, said that resolution of the border dispute would be Croatia's condition placed before Serbia in its EU accession negotiations.[24]
In 2006, representatives of the city of Vukovar and the municipality ofBač, located on the bank opposite Vukovar, reached an agreement on use of Vukovar Island as a recreational facility and beach. The island is accessible to organised transport by boats sailing from Vukovar. No border controls are involved in the process.[25] By 2012, visits to the island reached 150,000 persons per year.[26]
.jpg)
On 13 April 2015,Vít Jedlička from the CzechParty of Free Citizens proclaimed themicronationLiberland on Gornja Siga, a pocket of land left unclaimed by both Croatia and Serbia.[27][28] TheSerbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on 24 April 2015 that while Serbia does not consider "Liberland" an important matter, the "new state" does not impinge upon the Serbian border, which is delineated by the Danube River.[29]
In 2019, pocket 3 on the west side of the Danube was also proclaimed by Australian teenager Daniel Jackson as a micronation, the Free Republic of Verdis.[30][31][32] In October 2023, Jackson and other supporters travelled to Verdis and set up a settlement, which was quickly destroyed by Croatian authorities.[33] Since the settlement was destroyed, Jackson has started a 'government-in-exile',[34] and claims that Croatian authorities are guarding the island from anyone landing there. Jackson also told The Guardian that over $37,000 was raised through an unaffiliated crypto coin called $VERDIS.[35]
The evolution of the Croatia–Serbia border began in 1699 with theTreaty of Karlowitz, transferringSlavonia and a portion ofSyrmia from theOttoman Empire to theHabsburg monarchy at the conclusion of theGreat Turkish War. The rest of Syrmia was transferred to the Habsburg monarchy through theTreaty of Passarowitz in 1718. The transferred territories were organised within the monarchy into theKingdom of Slavonia, with its eastern border established at the Danube, and the defensive belt ofMilitary Frontier stretching along theSava River, governed directly fromVienna.[36]
Subsequent territorial changes in the region included the proclamation of the short-livedSerbian Vojvodina during theHungarian Revolution of 1848, which included Syrmia as its territory. A year later Serbian Vojvodina was abolished and replaced by thecrown land of theVoivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar, which ceded Syrmia back to the Kingdom of Slavonia.[36] In 1868, following theCroatian–Hungarian Settlement, the Kingdom of Slavonia was incorporated into theKingdom of Croatia-Slavonia,[37] before theSlavonian Military Frontier was fully annexed to Croatia-Slavonia in 1881.[36] At the end ofWorld War I in 1918, Croatia-Slavonia became a part of theState of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, whileBanat, Bačka and Baranja proclaimed direct unification toKingdom of Serbia on 25 November 1918.[38] They were formed after the division of HungarianBaranya andBács-Bodrog Counties along the "Clemenceau line" established through theTreaty of Trianon of 1920. The territory of southern Baranja was ceded to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on the premise, claimed by the Yugoslav delegation at the conference, that it formed a natural hinterland of the city ofOsijek.[39] The territory south of the "Clemenceau line" was distributed to administrative divisions in existence before First World War, with the territory beingreorganised administratively later in 1922.[40] All these territories were united under theKingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (which was later renamed to Yugoslavia, in 1929).
Yugoslavia was established in 1918 as a centralised monarchy under the Serbian Karađorđević dynasty.[41] In 1922, the territory was reorganised byoblasts. Baranja along with Bačka were incorporated into the Novi Sad oblast, Syrmium became a separate oblast with its seat in Vukovar, and Osijek was incorporated into the Slavonija oblast.[40] By Royal Proclamation of 6 January 1929, the Constitution of 1921 was abolished, the parliament dissolved, and an absolutist monarchy proclaimed. The country was renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the territory was reorganised intobanovinas. The greatest change concerning the region in dispute here occurred in Syrmia, with the districts ofVukovar,Vinkovci,Šid,Županja, andSremska Mitrovica becoming part of theDrinska Banovina with its seat inTuzla. The northern half of the disputed territory was incorporated along with Baranja and Bačka into theDanube Banovina. Two years later, in 1931, the districts of Vukovar, Vinkovci and Županja were transferred toSavska Banovina.[40] A further territorial reorganisation was carried in 1939 as part of an agreement reached after intensive talks between authorities in Belgrade and opposition forces in Zagreb. The agreement known asCvetković-Maček Agreement created theBanovina of Croatia. The creation of the Banovina of Croatia was the first step to the federalization of Yugoslavia, in which a Slovenian autonomous unit was also envisaged, while the rest of the country was to be a Serbian unit.[42] In relation to the Croat-Serbs boundary, the 1939 delimitation of Banovina of Croatia includedŠid andIlok districts[42] while no version of the agreement included Baranja in Croatia, meaning the northern half of the disputed area was to stay excluded from Croatia in all versions.
The first general outline of the post-1945 borders of Croatia was made by theAnti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia on 24 February 1945.[43] Some issues regarding the border, such as Baranja, were left unresolved.[44] The newly establishedAutonomous Province of Vojvodina, a part of theSocialist Republic of Serbia since April 1945, sought to establish its border with theSocialist Republic of Croatia along theDrava River, thus including Baranja, the Danube and along theVukovar–Županja line.[45] To counter the claims made by Vojvodina, Croatian authorities staked counterclaims in the areas of Vukovar,Vinkovci, Baranja and in the area of Sombor.[46]
In order to settle the matter, the federal authorities set up a five-member commission presided over byMilovan Đilas in June 1945. The commission identified three sets of disputed territories. Those were the districts ofSubotica, Sombor, Apatin andOdžaci in Bačka, districts ofBatina andDarda in Baranja, and districts of Vukovar,Šid andIlok in Syrmia.[47] The districts in Bačka were awarded to Vojvodina, while those in Baranja were awarded to Croatia, both primarily along ethnic lines. The commission also noted that if Yugoslavia managed to acquire the region ofBaja from Hungary, the decision regarding Bačka would be reviewed.[48] The district of Vukovar was also awarded to Croatia, while Ilok and Šid were assigned to Vojvodina. In the case of Ilok, the decision was specified to be provisional until authorities are consolidated on either side of the boundary, when the issue would be reexamined.[49]
Subsequently, the Serbian Parliament enacted a law establishing Vojvodina's borders. It referred to the boundary proposed by the Đilas commission explicitly noting that it was temporary. The law noted that the border follows the Danube from the Hungarian border to Ilok, crosses the Danube leaving Ilok,Šarengrad andMohovo in Croatia then moves south and leaves the cadastral municipalities ofOpatovac,Lovas,Tovarnik,Podgrađe,Apševci,Lipovac,Strošinci andJamena in Croatia, and everything east of the line in Vojvodina.[50] The awarding of Ilok to Croatia was a departure from the findings of Đilas commission and it was based on a referendum held in the town on the matter in 1945 or 1946,[51][52] when its population voted to be added to Croatia.[53]
In 1947, Vojvodina's Ministry of Agriculture sought assistance from both Serbia's and Croatia's Ministries of Forestry when authorities in Vukovar refused to hand over four river islands. After Croatia refused the request, the Serbian authorities turned to the federal government. The federal authorities advised resolving the matter through mutual agreement and said that Vojvodina's interpretation of the law on its borders—that the border runs along thethalweg of the Danube valley, i.e. along the river's midpoint—is erroneous because the law does not apply such wording.[54] In a letter dated 18 April 1947, Yugoslav authorities said that the disputed river islands were the territory of Vukovar district and that the territory could not be transferred to Vojvodina before the border was defined otherwise.[55]
By May 1947, authorities in Vojvodina noted that there was a dispute between them and the authorities in Croatia regarding the interpretation of the position of the border along the Danube, and that the federal authorities, who were asked to mediate in the dispute, supported the position of Croatia. At the same time, Vojvodina requested that Croatia return the territories on the right bank of the Danube that had previously been ceded to it (Varoš-Viza and Mala Siga).[56] While in the Yugoslav framework, the issue received little further attention as its resolution was discouraged by the federal authorities, and because the area involved had limited economic value, was uninhabited and frequently flooded.[57]
By 1948, Croatia and Serbia agreed on two modifications of the border—the village ofBapska was transferred to Croatia, whileJamena was turned over to Vojvodina. No further changes to the border were agreed upon.[58] A map of the area issued by theYugoslav People's Army Military-Geographic Institute in 1967 depicts the border along the cadastre-based boundary, corresponding to the Croatian claim in the dispute.[59]
| Africa |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Americas | ||
| Asia | ||
| Europe | ||
| Oceania | ||
| Multilateral | ||
| Related topics | ||
| ||
