The Border Dispute Between Croatia

and Slovenia: The Stages of a

Protracted Conflict and Its Implications
for EU Enlargement Thomas Bickl
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-border-dispute-between-croatia-and-slovenia-the-
stages-of-a-protracted-conflict-and-its-implications-for-eu-enlargement-thomas-bickl/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Cross Border Mergers EU Perspectives and National

Experiences Thomas Papadopoulos

https://textbookfull.com/product/cross-border-mergers-eu-
perspectives-and-national-experiences-thomas-papadopoulos/

The EU Enlargement and Gay Politics: The Impact of

Eastern Enlargement on Rights, Activism and Prejudice
1st Edition Koen Slootmaeckers

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-eu-enlargement-and-gay-
politics-the-impact-of-eastern-enlargement-on-rights-activism-
and-prejudice-1st-edition-koen-slootmaeckers/

The EU, Promoting Regional Integration, and Conflict

Resolution 1st Edition Thomas Diez

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-eu-promoting-regional-
integration-and-conflict-resolution-1st-edition-thomas-diez/

EU Enlargement and Civil Society in the Western Balkans

Natasha Wunsch

https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-enlargement-and-civil-
society-in-the-western-balkans-natasha-wunsch/
The Participation of the EU in International Dispute
Settlement: Lessons from EU Investment Agreements Luca
Pantaleo

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-participation-of-the-eu-in-
international-dispute-settlement-lessons-from-eu-investment-
agreements-luca-pantaleo/

The Border Between Seeing and Thinking 1st Edition Ned

Block

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-border-between-seeing-and-
thinking-1st-edition-ned-block/

The Speed of Sound Breaking the Barriers Between Music

and Technology A Memoir Thomas Dolby

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-speed-of-sound-breaking-the-
barriers-between-music-and-technology-a-memoir-thomas-dolby/

Cooperation and Protracted Conflict in International

Affairs Cycles of Reciprocity 1st Edition Anat Niv-
Solomon (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/cooperation-and-protracted-
conflict-in-international-affairs-cycles-of-reciprocity-1st-
edition-anat-niv-solomon-auth/

Market Integration The EU Experience and Implications

for Regulatory Reform in China 1st Edition Niels
Philipsen

https://textbookfull.com/product/market-integration-the-eu-
experience-and-implications-for-regulatory-reform-in-china-1st-
edition-niels-philipsen/
Contributions to Political Science

Thomas Bickl

The Border
Dispute Between
Croatia and
Slovenia
The Stages of a Protracted Conflict and
Its Implications for EU Enlargement
Contributions to Political Science
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11829
Thomas Bickl

The Border Dispute Between

Croatia and Slovenia
The Stages of a Protracted Conflict and Its
Implications for EU Enlargement

123
Thomas Bickl
Brussels, Belgium

ISSN 2198-7289 ISSN 2198-7297 (electronic)

Contributions to Political Science
ISBN 978-3-030-53332-8 ISBN 978-3-030-53333-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53333-5
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Albin Zupanc and Karl Bickl who have
proven that friendship can outdo war.
Preface

In mid-June 1991, Slovenia started to build checkpoints along the future interna-
tional border with Croatia. A row over the location of one of the border posts could
be solved by telephone diplomacy on the eve of both countries’ declarations of
independence. Almost 30 years on, the lifespan of one generation after the dis-
memberment of Yugoslavia, the two countries were most recently involved in a
lawsuit at the EU Court of Justice over whether the territorial application of EU law
required the implementation of the arbitration award from 2017 in the first place.
How could it come to this? What has made the current situation so intractable? Why
is it that two countries that have never been at war apparently find it so difficult to
solve a minor territorial issue bilaterally and by diplomatic means?
Some may be inclined to assume a “conflict mindset” in the region for historical
reasons, as some Western and other diplomats tend to do. Or is it that good-
neighbourly relations that are commonplace on a local level are virtually impossible
to achieve at the political level when nobody can afford to be unpatriotic?
If one is inclined to look at the wider picture of the region, an incident from early
December 2016 may be worth contemplating. The President of Croatia was visiting
war veterans at a Dubrovnik kindergarten to mark the 25th anniversary of the city’s
shelling by the Yugoslav Army (JNA) when she handed out chocolate bars along
with a signed photograph of herself. The children happily ate the chocolate only to
find out that an angry parent complained about the origin of the chocolate—made in
Serbia—on social media. The President felt obliged to publicly apologise,
promising to send Croatian products to the parents whose children had received the
Serbian chocolates. The event sparked a fair amount of teasing and mockery on
social media. Is “Chocolategate” perhaps more than a communication mishap?
Meanwhile, Slovenian winemakers have heavily protested at the use of “Teran”,
a local grape from Slovenian Istria and its Karst region, by producers from Croatian
Istria. In September 2017, the Slovenian government sued the European
Commission for allowing Teran to be used on the labels of Croatian winemakers, a
derogation that the Commission had endorsed a few months earlier (the EU Court
of Justice dismissed the Slovenian claim in September 2020). Have we witnessed a
trade war between Slovenia and Croatia over a grape variety which has been part

vii
viii Preface

of the geographical region of Istria for more than 600 years irrespective of political
borders?
Many Slovenes go on holiday in Croatia during the summer, and many citizens
on both sides of the border are uncomfortable with the border dispute over what
they see as a trivial question. Politicians, on the other hand, have used the border
dispute in election campaigns, both in Slovenia and Croatia, and there is a lot of
patriotic language to go with it.
However, what is at times purely nationalist rhetoric seems largely incompre-
hensible to many locals and observers alike. Croatia and Slovenia were together in
the same political unit for 70 years: during the Habsburg era, during the period in
which Yugoslavia was ruled by a monarchy and during the period when Yugoslavia
was communist. Nevertheless, Slovenia and Croatia are relatively young States and
this is perhaps why borders matter. However, both countries are now members
of the European Union, where borders could be seen as administrative-territorial
rather than political. After all, contemporary Europe strives for a close union
between its peoples where internal borders have until recently become more
symbolic rather than functional despite the major disruption to the status quo during
the migration and coronavirus crises.
This book re-constructs the development of the bilateral border conflict between
Croatia and Slovenia. The aim is to reveal the processes at work, the historical and
contemporary circumstances, what the actors in the conflict did, at what moment
they did it, and why they did it. In addition, this piece of research aims to highlight
the role of the European Union and of judicial third parties in the management
of the conflict. Lastly, the book will look at the precedent-setting value of the
Slovenian–Croatian conflict, the attempts at resolving it and what this means for
ongoing and prospective EU enlargement in South-East Europe.
In the scorching heat of late July 2015, this author would go on early morning
runs from Savudrija on the Croatian mouth of Piran Bay to Sečovlje by the salt pans
on the Slovenian side. Stops had to be made, passing the border checkpoints back
and forth at one of the most stunning sections along the former Parenzana railway
path from Trieste to Poreč. As it happened, the arbitration procedure between
Croatia and Slovenia to settle the common State border imploded the very same
week. And this was the moment the idea for this book was born.

Brussels, Belgium Thomas Bickl

Acknowledgements

This book would not have come into being without the considerable amount of
support provided by a number of individuals. From an academic perspective, I am
highly indebted to Profs. Susanne Pickel and Michael Kaeding at Duisburg-Essen
University for the supervision of my doctoral research. Susanne and Michael’s
availability, expert guidance, and particularly helpful suggestions were outstanding.
I wish to thank my fellow postgraduates at Susanne’s seminar, in particular Toralf
Stark and Wiebke Breustedt, for their clever reflections, and Jutta Wergen for her
support. Special thanks go to Prof. Dejan Jović at Zagreb University for the
inspirational chats on domestic politics, EU issues and the legacy left by the former
Yugoslavia in the region. For early academic inspiration on European Union issues,
I am particularly grateful to Isabelle Canu and Thomas Fischer. I would like to
thank Johannes Glaeser and Irene Barrios-Kežić at Springer for their helpful sug-
gestions and impressive availability throughout the entire publication process. My
appreciation also goes to Julian Hale and my brother Martin for reading my
manuscript.
The numerous interviews I had the privilege to conduct were extremely fruitful,
and everyone proved remarkably open, keen, and supportive. I am highly indebted
to all interviewees (listed at the end of each chapter) for their readiness to talk to me
and for providing both specialist expertise and invaluable anecdotal and docu-
mentary evidence. Many civil servants, who must remain anonymous according to
the rules of the game, have given me a great deal of enlightening insight into the
secret workings of national, intergovernmental, and supranational diplomacy
behind the scenes, which I greatly appreciate. It has been enormously rewarding
and a true privilege to be on this process-tracing journey, meeting so many gifted
and passionate people with strong views on what they do or did.
I have benefitted immensely from experiencing the wonderful support and
inspiration from Damir Arnaut, Shakuntala Banerjee, Filip Boras, Elmar Brok,
Daniel Brössler, Helene Bubrowski, Božena Bulum, Agata Byczewska, Giuseppe
Cataldi, Hannelore Crolly, Andrea Čović-Vidović, Vladmir-Đuro Degan, Moritz
Dütemeyer, Florian Eder, Uroš Esih, Tanja Fajon, Detlef Fechtner, Jean-Luc Feixa,

ix
x Acknowledgements

Damir Fras, Angela Franz-Balsen, Tina Freyburg, Theo Georgitsopoulos, Markus

Grabitz, Mitja Grbec, Oliver Grimm, Marek Hannibal, Per Heister, Frank
Hoffmeister, Helge Holleck, Stephan Israel, Marion Jeanne, Nataša Jovović, Lada
Jurica, Matías Kambič, Thomas Kirchner, Milica Kotur, Thomas Krings, Ana Laća,
Ulrich Ladurner, Stefan Leifert, Felix Leinemann, Stephan Löwenstein, Alen
Legović, Janez Lenarčič, Pedro Lopez, Marko Makovec, Bianca Matković, David
McAllister, Andreja Metelko-Zgombić, Ana Milošević, Tanja Miščević, Alexander
Mühlauer, Werner Mussler, Niklaus Nuspliger, Alex Oude-Elferink, Marta Osojnik,
Doris Pack, Adriana Vincenca Padovan, Augustin Palokaj, Jasna Paro, Alojz Peterle,
Antonija Petričušić, Ana Polak Petrič, Bernd Posselt, Margherita Paola Poto, Boštjan
Pucelj, Sebastian Ramspeck, Filip Raunić, Olli Rehn, Peter Riesbeck, Eugen Sandu,
Goran Šaravanja, Mario Sestito, Christoph Schiltz, Leo Šešerko, Katarina
Sinadinovska, Mojca Širok, Tina Štrafela, Lina Stenlund, Mateja Štrumelj Piškur,
Jure Tanko, Nina Tavčar, Antti Timonen, Aleksandra Tomasić, Katharina von
Tschurtschenthaler, Sandra Veljković, Delia Vlase, Boris Vlašić, Marko Vrevc,
Slavko Vukadin, Petra von Wüllerstorf, Aleš Weingerl, Michael Weiss, Irena
Zagajšek, Peter Žerjavič, and the two policemen I happened to meet at probably the
best and definitely the most inspiring Istrian restaurant (just off Kaldanija). My
appreciation also goes to Ivo Brekalo and Stipe Knezović for their fantastic “food for
thought” (quite literally) along the way. I am highly indebted to all of you.
I gratefully acknowledge the permission given by the International Boundaries
Research Unit (IBRU), Durham University, UK, to reprint the maps entitled “The
Free Territory of Trieste” and “United Nations Protected Areas in Croatia 1992–
1995” in Chap. 2, given by the University of Chicago Press to reprint the map
entitled “The Julian Region and border changes between 1866 and 1954” in Chap. 2,
given by the Permanent Court of Arbitration to reprint the map entitled “IMO Traffic
Separation Scheme 2004 with designated sea lanes to and from Koper” in Chap. 6
and to reprint the two originals of the 2009 Arbitration Agreement in Appendix A,
and given by the Camera dei deputati of the Italian Parliament to reprint the map
“Fisheries Zone Italy-Yugoslavia” in the same Chapter. Further, I am grateful for
the permission given by the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the
Republic of Croatia to reprint note verbale 55/2016 in Appendix B, and by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia to reprint the English
translation and the initialled Slovenian original of the draft bilateral agreement from
2001 (Appendices C and D).
Above all, I would like to thank my parents and my brother for their unlimited
faith in my abilities, and Mila, Lorenz, and Karla, who have had to cope with me
living in a parallel universe for a number of years.

Brussels Thomas Bickl

September 2020
Contents

1 Introduction to the Border Dispute Between Croatia

and Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 1
1.1 Main Argument of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 1
1.2 Research Gap and Contribution to the Debate . . . . ........... 4
1.3 Analytical Framework: Conflict Resolution and EU
Enlargement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.1 Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.2 EU Enlargement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3.3 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.4 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4.1 Case Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4.2 Method and Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.5 Map of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2 History of Territorial, Political, and Violent Conflict
in the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 41
2.1 Border Changes Between the Republic of Venice
and World War I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.1.1 Late Venice Empire and Napoleon’s Interregnum . . . . . . . 44
2.1.2 Return of Habsburg Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.1.3 Treaty of London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2 Yugoslavia I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.2.1 Founding a New State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.2.2 Paris Peace Conference and Treaty of Rapallo . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.2.3 Italian Rule in Istria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.3 Yugoslavia and World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3.1 Partition of Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3.2 Resistance Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

xi
xii Contents

2.3.3 Liberation of Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2.3.4 Founding of Yugoslavia II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.4 Free Territory of Trieste (FTT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.4.1 Liberation of Trieste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.4.2 Workings of the Free Territory of Trieste (FTT) . . . . . . . . 61
2.4.3 Osimo Treaty 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.5 Dissolution of Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.5.1 Badinter Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.5.2 Homeland War in Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.5.3 Agreement on Succession Issues (ASI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3 Marine Spaces and Maritime Delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.1 Marine Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.1.1 Baselines, Bays, and Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.1.2 Internal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.1.3 Territorial Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.1.4 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.1.5 Continental Shelf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.1.6 High Seas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.2 Maritime Delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.2.1 Delimitation Provisions of UNCLOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.2.2 Development of Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4 The Four Development Phases of the Croatia-Slovenia Border
Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.1 Bilateral Phase (1992–2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.1.1 Expert Groups and Joint/Mixed Diplomatic
Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.1.2 First Stand-Off Over Piran Bay and the Dragonja Strip
1993–94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.1.3 Agreement on Local Border Traffic and Cooperation
(SOPS) 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.1.4 Initialled Draft Agreement 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.1.5 Bled Agreement 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.2 Croatia’s EU Accession Negotiations 2008–09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.2.1 EU Accession Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.2.2 Early Efforts to Defuse the Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
4.2.3 Rehn I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Contents xiii

4.2.4 Rehn II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

4.2.5 Final Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.2.6 Setting up the Arbitral Tribunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
4.3 Arbitral Proceedings Before the Permanent Court
of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.3.1 Features of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
4.3.2 Written Memorials 2013 and Hearing 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
4.3.3 Summer of Disruption 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
4.3.4 Written Submissions, Hearing, and Partial Award 2016 . . . 205
4.3.5 Final Award 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
4.3.6 Follow-up to the Final Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
4.4 Lawsuit Before the CJEU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
4.4.1 Slovenia’s Claims and Croatia’s Inadmissibility Motion . . . 230
4.4.2 CJEU Judgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
4.4.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
4.4.4 Reactions of the Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4.5 Concluding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5 Analytical Framework Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
5.1 Conflict Analysis and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
5.1.1 Participation and Communication Aspects of Third-Party
Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
5.1.2 Conflict Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
5.1.3 Voluntary Versus Coercive Dispute Settlement . . . . . . . . . 265
5.1.4 Timing of Conflict Management Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
5.1.5 Positions and Real Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
5.1.6 Judicial Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
5.2 EU Enlargement Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
5.2.1 Conditionality (Rationalist Approach) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
5.2.2 National-Identity and Legitimacy Considerations
(Constructivist Approach) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
5.3 Concluding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
6.1 Way Forward with Final Award Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
6.1.1 Implementation Needs to Consider Existing
Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
6.2 Strengthening Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
6.2.1 Strong EU Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
6.2.2 Arbitration Must Become More Robust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
xiv Contents

6.3 Pressing Bilateral Issues Ahead of EU Accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

6.3.1 Croatia–Montenegro Sea Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
6.3.2 Croatia–Serbia Land Border Along the Danube . . . . . . . . . 304
6.3.3 Universal/Regional Jurisdiction for War Crimes
(Serbia–Croatia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
6.3.4 Normalisation of Serbia–Kosovo Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
6.3.5 Maritime Access for Bosnia-Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
6.4 EU Accession Must Become Truly Credible and Predictable . . . . . 319
6.4.1 Credibility Through Real Stick-and-Carrot
Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
6.4.2 Unanimity Cannot Be Scrapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
About the Author

Thomas Bickl Ph.D. has studied political science and international law and is
passionate about conflict and EU integration in the post-Yugoslav sphere.
He researches territorial and other bilateral issues in the Western Balkans. His
latest scientific paper “Bridge over Troubled Waters: The Pelješac Project, China,
and the Implications for Good-neighbourly Relations and the EU” appeared in
Croatian Political Science Review.

xv
Abbreviations

ASI Agreement on Succession Issues

AVNOJ Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia
BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina
BIS Bank for International Settlements
CEE Central and Eastern European States
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
CIS Community of Independent States
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union
COELA Council Working Group on Enlargement
COREPER Comité des Représentants Permanents (EU Ambassadors)
CP Common Position
CS Continental Shelf
CSCE Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
ČSFR Czech and Slovak Federative Republic
DCP Draft Common Position
EC European Community
ECJ European Court of Justice
EEC European Economic Community
EU European Union
FPRY Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia
FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
FTT Free Territory of Trieste
FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
HDZ Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica (Croatian Democratic Union)
HSLS Hrvatska Socijalno-Liberalna Stranka (Croatian Social Liberal
Party)
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
IGC Intergovernmental Conference
ITLOS International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea

xvii
xviii Abbreviations

JNA Yugoslav People’s Army

LCY League of Communists of Yugoslavia
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
OBAR Opening Benchmark Assessment Report
OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe
PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration
PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice
SDP Socijaldemokratska Partija Hrvatske (Social Democratic Party
of Croatia)
SDS Slovenska Demokratska Stranka (Slovenian Democratic Party)
SEE South-Eastern European States
SFRY Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
TO Territorial Defence
UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNPROFOR United Nations Protection Force
US United States of America
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Maritime delimitation in the Gulf of Trieste after the

independence of Croatia and Slovenia in 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Fig. 1.2 Coercive and problem-solving approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fig. 1.3 Conflict triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fig. 1.4 Independence continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fig. 1.5 Access continuum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Fig. 1.6 Embeddedness continuum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fig. 1.7 Filter model for conditionality compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Fig. 1.8 Compliance behaviour of EU candidate countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Fig. 2.1 Julian Region and border changes between 1866 and 1954
(Novak 1970: 261). ©University of Chicago Press . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Fig. 2.2 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—SFRY . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
Fig. 2.3 Free Territory of Trieste (Blake and Topalović 1996: 22).
©IBRU, Durham University, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
Fig. 2.4 United Nations Protected Areas in Croatia, 1992–1995
(Klemenčić and Schofield 2001: 27). ©IBRU, Durham
University, UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Fig. 3.1 Riparian States and main ports in the Adriatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fig. 3.2 Marine zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Fig. 3.3 Straight baselines and the low-water line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Fig. 3.4 Juridical bay with closing line, (failed) semi-circle test, closing
line within bay, and closing line with island at bay’s mouth . . . . 103
Fig. 4.1 Dragonja strip and Three Hamlets—situation after 1991 . . . . . . . 134
Fig. 4.2 Delimitation in Piran Bay, territorial sea border and high-seas
corridor according to the 2001 Initialled Draft Agreement . . . . . . 142
Fig. 4.3 EU accession negotiations: procedure for opening and closure
of Chaps. 23 and 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Fig. 4.4 Delimitation in Piran Bay, territorial sea border and junction
area according to the 2017 final award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Fig. 5.1 Diplomacy conflict management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

xix
xx List of Figures

Fig. 5.2 Resolution attempts and coercive versus problem-solving

approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Fig. 5.3 Croatian national-identity filter (EU membership)
for acceptance of Arbitration Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Fig. 5.4 Croatian national-identity filter (no unfounded loss of territory)
for withdrawal from arbitration procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Fig. 5.5 Compliance behaviour when arbitration procedure was in sight
in the spring of 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Fig. 5.6 Compliance behaviour in the quasi-equilibrium phase between
July 2009 and July 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Fig. 5.7 Compliance behaviour as from August 2015 after Croatia
exiting the arbitration procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Fig. 5.8 Timeline of Croatia–Slovenia border conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Fig. 6.1 IMO Traffic Separation Scheme 2004 with designated sea lanes
to and from Koper (PCA Final Award 2017: 334, para 1040).
©Permanent Court of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Fig. 6.2 Fisheries zone Italy–Yugoslavia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Fig. 6.3 Delimitation around Prevlaka and entrance to Herceg Novi Bay
according to 2002 protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Fig. 6.4 Disputed spots of State border Croatia–Serbia along Danube . . . . 305
Fig. 6.5 Territorial sea delimitation between Croatia and Bosnia-
Herzegovina according to 1999 Border Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Fig. 6.6 Croatian straight baselines cutting off the territorial waters
of Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
List of Tables

Table 1.1 Typology for conflict intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Table 2.1 State of play implementation of Agreement on Succession
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86
Table 3.1 Major maritime delimitation cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Table 4.1 Overview drafting stages Croatia–Slovenia arbitration
agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

xxi
Chapter 1
Introduction to the Border Dispute
Between Croatia and Slovenia

Abstract This Chapter aims to familiarise the reader with the distinctive features
of the Croatia–Slovenia border dispute, the unique context of an asymmetric power
relationship during EU accession negotiations, and an awareness of the peculiarities
of a bilateral dispute in the post-Yugoslav space. The introduction conceptualises
the research gap that this book aims to fill in the context of bilateral conflict and EU
enlargement. To achieve this, the analytical framework comprises conflict resolution
and third-party-role theory strands and draws on EU enlargement approaches. It
makes plain that, for Candidate Countries, there are both rationality and legitimacy
considerations when it comes to fulfilling EU conditionality, and that the latter tend
to play a vital role in the Western Balkans region. The research design outlines
the process-tracing method that this study is based on and the crucial role of the
collection of empirical data through qualitative interviews with actors, and draft or
undisclosed documents. Lastly, this introductory Chapter provides a map of the book.
Interviewees include a senior Croatian and a senior Slovenian civil servant.

Keywords Croatia · Slovenia · Conflict resolution · EU enlargement ·

Conditionality · Identity

1.1 Main Argument of This Book

The border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia as an inter-State conflict over
territory has been frozen at a critical stage. It appears fair to say that the EU has in
fact imported a bilateral conflict. Croatia does not recognise the arbitration award
handed down in June 2017, and, in January 2020, the European Court of Justice
(CJEU) ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the Slovenian claim that Croatia was
not fulfilling its obligation in relation to the territorial application of EU law. This
comes irrespective of the fact that, as the Court noted, there is, under international
law, an obligation for both parties to implement the arbitration award.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 1
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
T. Bickl, The Border Dispute Between Croatia and Slovenia,
Contributions to Political Science,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53333-5_1
2 1 Introduction to the Border Dispute Between Croatia and Slovenia

Fig. 1.1 Maritime delimitation in the Gulf of Trieste after the independence of Croatia and Slovenia
in 1991 (schematic view; Source Author; base map: d-maps.com)

The current state of play also is a result of the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991. As
a matter of fact, the boundaries of the Republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (SFRY) were not clearly determined or lacked determination altogether.
This has led to a remarkably rock solid conflict between Croatia and Slovenia, two of
Yugoslavia’s successor States, almost 30 years on. It must be noted that the boundaries
of the SFRY Republics have never been established expressly. There have been
no such legal acts, neither by the federal parliament nor by the parliaments of the
Republics (Dragićević et al. 2013: 10; Milenkoski and Talevski 2001: 93; Radan
2000: 7). The land boundary was de facto governed by the limits of the cadastral
units of the municipalities or districts in the border areas of the SFRY Republics.
This “cadastral delimitation”, or “administrative border”, became the international
border after the declarations of independence of both countries in June 1991. At
various spots, however, the cadastral records do overlap. As for the sea boundary,
the territorial SFRY waters were fully integrated, meaning that there was no internal
allocation of territorial waters by Republics. As a result, the question of maritime
delimitation between Slovenia and Croatia at the time of independence was fully open
(interview senior Croatian civil servant, 19-08-2016; interview senior Slovenian civil
servant, 17-10-2016; see also PCA Final Award 2017: 10–11, paras 37–42; 113; see
Fig. 1.1).1

1 As was the case with maritime delimitation between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and between

Croatia and the FR Yugoslavia (later between Croatia and Montenegro).

1.1 Main Argument of This Book 3

The border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia was a purely bilateral issue
in the initial stages of the relations of the two newly independent countries after
1991. As from the mid-2000s, however, the conflict turned into a power struggle
between Slovenia as an EU Member and Croatia as a Candidate Country, in partic-
ular during Croatia’s EU accession negotiations in 2008/09. In a major diplomatic
exercise involving the two States, the European Commission and the EU Council
Presidency, the settlement of the conflict was finally externalised to a third-party arbi-
tration tribunal. After the Croatian withdrawal from the arbitration procedure in the
summer of 2015 following a major disruption due to a leaked intelligence recording
of conversations between a Slovenian government representative and the Tribunal
member appointed by Slovenia (ex parte communication), both the Tribunal’s Partial
and Final Awards were not recognised by the respective governments in Zagreb. At
the beginning of 2020, the CJEU ruled that it has no jurisdiction under EU law with
regard to its territorial application.
As a result, the real-life situation at the time of writing is such that two EU Member
States continue to be in a territorial conflict over their common State border, both
at land and at sea—an unparalleled situation in the history of European integration.
This is all the more so, as the matter was the first-ever Art. 259 TFEU Member-
State-against-Member-State case on a territorial issue that was brought before the
CJEU (by Slovenia in July 2018). In fact, such a manifest territorial conflict within
the EU constitutes a serious political burden for the internal political cohesion of the
European Union but not just that. On an operational level, vital cross-border issues,
such as fisheries or the Schengen border, which are core EU value-added elements
on the ground, are hampered or blocked altogether.
This book will attempt to deliver an in-depth analysis into how this deadlock mate-
rialised. The two macro-research questions2 centre around the causal mechanisms
for the conflict to become ever more intractable:
• What are the specific circumstances and causal mechanisms of a bilateral conflict
between an EU Member State and a Candidate Country—Slovenia and Croatia—
with regard to conflict resolution?
• What are the conclusions that can be drawn from the Croatia–Slovenia case with
regard to other latent or upcoming cases of bilateral conflict and its management
in an EU context under very similar circumstances?
The aim is to trace back “the unfolding of events and situations over time” (Collier
2011: 824). To achieve this, one has to examine, first, the actions and behaviour of the
agents and institutions of both Slovenia and Croatia as parties to the conflict, second,
the third parties involved in the management of the conflict within the EU framework,
such as the European Commission and the respective EU Council Presidencies, and
third, both the externalised arbitral proceedings and the procedure before the EU
Court of Justice.
Looking ahead, this book will present recommendations with regard to:

2 The analytical framework micro-research questions are outlined in Sect. 1.3.3.

4 1 Introduction to the Border Dispute Between Croatia and Slovenia

(i) A sustainable implementation of the common State border between Croatia

and Slovenia including the need to take into account existing agreements and
the interests of third States;
(ii) means to strengthen dispute resolution both in terms of an EU framework and
concerning reform of international arbitration;
(iii) pressing bilateral issues in the ongoing and prospective accession negotiations
with the Candidate Countries from the post-Yugoslav space;
(iv) increasing the credibility and predictability of the EU accession negotia-
tion process, in particular the EU’s responsiveness to positive and negative
performance with regard to the Candidate Countries.

1.2 Research Gap and Contribution to the Debate

Much has been written about EU enlargement and how conditionality on the part of
the EU has been perceived by the Candidate Country, and to what degree the EU
requirements have been met (see, e.g., Bojinović Fenko and Urlić 2015; Böhmelt
and Freyburg 2015; Grabbe 2014; Jović 2011). Generally, the causal mechanisms
of and effects on processes of compliance, for both acquis and political criteria,
have been subject to solid research. It has been demonstrated that domestic costs
weighed up against the EU incentives (the rationalist perspective; see, e.g., Moravcsik
1993; Zhelyazkova et al. 2019; Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier 2004, 2005; Schim-
melfennig 2008; Vachudova 2005; Ladrech 1994), and considerations of the inter-
dependence between human agents and the institutional structure (the constructivist
perspective; see, e.g., Checkel 1998; Wendt 1999; Diez and Wiener 2009; Miošić-
Lisjak 2006) of the Candidate Country actors play a vital role as to the sustainability
and pace of EU accession negotiations.3
The research gap in this context is about how bilateral issues feed into ongoing
accession negotiations and are, as a matter of fact, able to stall the process, and about
whether it is possible to resolve these bilateral issues during accession negotiations.
The border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia is a prototype research case. A
national veto raised during accession negotiations vis-à-vis a Candidate Country is
a new matter. The Croatia–Slovenia case 2008/2009 is the first of its kind. What
renders it an item worth analysing in greater detail is the particular salience of the
issue in question: conflict over territory. It is useful to note that this piece of territorial
conflict is a legacy of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a country whose successor States
all have EU prospects. Slovenia and Croatia have already joined the EU by now, most
notably in the context of the present study, however, not at the same time. In fact,
the remaining SFRY successor States plus Albania already have the status of EU
Candidate Country (except for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo) and EU accession
negotiations have been underway with Serbia and with Montenegro, most recently
also with North Macedonia and Albania.

3 For the analytical framework on EU enlargement and the issue of conditionality, see Sect. 1.3.2.
1.2 Research Gap and Contribution to the Debate 5

To that end, and in view of the implications for the post-Yugoslav space in relation
to the EU, an insight into how bilateral conflict between an EU Member State and a
Candidate Country has been handled is urgently needed. The recent so-called Western
Balkans Strategies of the European Commission from 2012, 2018, and 2020 have
confirmed the merit-based approach, meaning that each Candidate Country will join
the EU when it fully complies with EU conditionality individually and irrespective
of the progress of other Candidate Countries. That merit-based approach, which also
includes a re-prioritisation of Chapters (fundamentals first), is a sea change in the
history of the EU’s enlargement policy which, up until 2007 when Bulgaria and
Rumania joined together, was based on the so-called convoy approach if there was
more than one applicant country.4 It follows from the current merit-based approach
that it appears highly unlikely that the remaining SFRY successor States and Albania
will be able to join at the same time. With that in mind, every time a Candidate Country
joins the EU, it acquires the Member State veto power vis-à-vis remaining Candidate
Countries, so conflict over bilateral issues between Member States and Candidate
Countries may become self-energising.
The Croatia–Slovenia case has produced novel ways and unique efforts of conflict
management, whereas this process is far from being completed. This book will
analyse the roles of processes and the interplay between (i) the bilateral-level
Slovenia–Croatia, (ii) the (rotating) EU Council Presidency, (iii) the European
Commission, (iv) the Arbitral Tribunal as the third party entrusted with the final
substantive decision, (v) the derailment of the arbitration process leading to the
conflict on the common State border becoming ever more protracted, and (vi) the
CJEU’s ruling of non-jurisdiction in terms of EU law.
The conclusions from the analysis of the border dispute between Slovenia and
Croatia are of particular and immediate salience to all Candidate Countries of the
Western Balkans region. The ongoing accession negotiations between the EU and
Serbia have already demonstrated that what is at stake as for bilateral conflict between
the EU and prospective members is no less than (i) unresolved territorial issues from
the times of Yugoslavia and (ii) the legacy of the Homeland War. Whilst the first
issue relates to border delimitation at land and at sea,5 the latter touches on very
straightforward and sensitive national identity issues in the aftermath of the violent
break-up of the SFRY and the very painful experience of State-building in the 1990s,
such as (regional/universal) war crime jurisdiction, missing persons, or minority
rights, to name but a few.
Looking ahead from the angle of EU enlargement in Southeast Europe, no research
has been conducted yet as to the need to define a new operational framework for
the resolution of bilateral disputes (i.e. institutionalised procedures, such as early-
warning mechanisms or dispute resolution units in the EU enlargement process), or

4 For the development of the approaches and the operational level of EU accession negotiations, see

Sect. 4.2.1.
5 Unresolved border issues include Croatia versus Serbia (along the Danube in the Baranja/Bačka
region; see Sect. 6.3.2), Croatia versus Montenegro (final settlement of the provisional agreement
on the sea border around Prevlaka/Outer Herceg Novi Bay; see Sect. 6.3.1), and Croatia versus
Bosnia-Herzegovina (maritime access to Neum; see Sect. 6.3.5).
6 1 Introduction to the Border Dispute Between Croatia and Slovenia

novel approaches to the substantive issues at dispute (such as maritime and territo-
rial delimitation issues between the SFRY successor States). The Croatia–Slovenia
case constitutes a precedent in dispute resolution in general and in handling partic-
ular circumstances and sensitivities of the post-Yugoslav region. When all is said
and done, all current and prospective Candidate Countries (Turkey aside, for fairly
obvious reasons of moving away from the EU) are located in the Western Balkans
region. And it is the countries from this region which are closest to the EU in both a
geographical and a time dimension.
The need to resolve bilateral disputes ahead of EU accession has been the mantra
of the European Commission and the Member States for many years. Yet, how this
can be achieved has remained highly obscure. This study will want to shed light on
the efforts in that regard in the border conflict between Croatia and Slovenia, and on
the way ahead by concluding with practitioner-proof recommendations.

1.3 Analytical Framework: Conflict Resolution and EU

Enlargement

This section will outline several theory approaches on (i) conflict analysis and dispute
resolution, and (ii) EU enlargement in order to develop the analytical framework with
its research questions. This tool kit will inform the process-tracing6 in this study. It is
important to note that the approaches are not clear-cut “alternatives” to one another.
Neither should they be seen as mutually exclusive. Yet, they do highlight distinctive
features of conflict analysis and resolution, which is why we look at them individually
before merging them into an appropriate analytical framework.

1.3.1 Conflict Resolution

The major theory strands outlined below can be grouped into (i) conflict origins
based on needs and the third-party role in dispute resolution, (ii) conflict based on
rational or strategic considerations, (iii) the dynamic aspect of conflict,7 and (iv)
judicial conflict resolution.

1.3.1.1 Human Needs and Third-Party Role in Conflict Resolution

The human needs theory on the ontological needs of human beings (Azar 1990;
Burton 1990) first of all posits that “individuals strive to fulfil their developmental

6 Forthe process-tracing method, see the research design in Sect. 1.4.

7 The typology (i)–(iii) is taken from Wallensteen (2015), albeit in an individual fashion as for the
order of the strands, and the choice of scholars’ works representing them.
1.3 Analytical Framework: Conflict Resolution and EU Enlargement 7

human needs through the formation of identity groups”. In the group aspect of
conflict, Azar follows early writers such as Coser (1964), an American sociolo-
gist, and differentiates between three types of ontological needs: security, access,
and acceptance needs (Azar 1990: 7–8).
A crucial point on protracted social conflict (PSC) appears to be that results of
such conflicts (e.g. military victories or negotiated agreements) that do not satisfy
basic needs “contain latent conflicts which cause further […] manifest conflict, often
involving a shift or spill-over in issues and actors”. He diagnoses that the intensi-
fication of conflict in developing countries “proved to be devastating in terms of
physical, psychological, political and economic costs” (Azar 1990: 13).
Further on the context of needs, Burton distinguishes between needs, values, and
interests. Needs are “non-negotiable” and “universal in the human species”. When
the needs are not met, the individual’s behaviour will inevitably lead to what is
“outside the norms of the society”. Values are “ideas, habits, customs and beliefs
that are a characteristic of particular social communities” leading to the formation of
“identity groups through which the individual operates in the pursuit of […] security
and cultural identity”. He contends that it is the very values which have divided
Northern Ireland and other multi-ethnic societies. Interests, according to Burton,
“are negotiable” [sic], and it is very well “possible to trade an individual interest for
a social gain”, for example through taxation (Burton 1990: 36–38).
It is the denial of human needs, such as ethnic or cultural identity, that lies at the
heart of ethnic conflicts “where boundaries have been drawn as a result of colonialism
or conquest”. Fundamentally, “majority rule and power sharing” is something the
individual has been “coerced to accept” as an “ideological misinterpretation of the
notion of democracy” which became “a source of protracted conflict in many multi-
ethnic societies” (Burton 1990: 39).
“The distinction between the concepts of needs, values and interests seeks to be
analytical, revealing the underlying sources of conflict rather than merely negotiating
from fixed positions of relative power” (Burton 1990: 39). Notably, this view is in
stark contrast to neo-realist perceptions of international relations which are power-
based and where peace tends to be equated with military power (e.g. Morgenthau
1962; see also Kriesberg 1992: 6).
Third-party role in conflict resolution
The concept of “problem-solving conflict resolution” abandons traditional forms
of conflict management. This can be seen as a new paradigm in how behaviour and
conflict are explored (Ramsbotham et al. 2015: 51–52; emphasis added). Irrespective
of whether one challenges traditional forms of third-party involvement, the need for
a skilled third party is acknowledged.
There is a distinction between conflict management and conflict resolution—the
first being the “traditional” way of invoking containment by means of third-party
coercive power, the latter “truly” overcoming the conflict by analysing its causes
through the needs-based angle. This translates into the following three-component
model:
8 1 Introduction to the Border Dispute Between Croatia and Slovenia

• Participation by the parties;

• Communication between the parties; and
• Third-party involvement in terms of decision-making power (Burton 1990: 188–
9).
Traditional forms of third-party involvement include several standard types.
Direct conflict:
Participation: ---------------
Communication: -------
Third Party: -
Full participation being obvious, communication translates into high verbal or
physical interaction, and third-party involvement can be assumed at zero.
Direct negotiations:
Participation: ---------------
Communication: --------
Third Party: -
Here, the same component degrees are assumed as with direct conflict. The process
and the outcome reflect the relative power of the parties and tend to be short-lived
due to a static power relationship.
Court settlement:
Participation: ---
Communication: -
Third Party: --------------
With the actual participation of the parties at a low level, there is virtually no
communication between the parties and the full authoritative power lies with the
court with the arguments being based on legal norms and principles rather than an
analysis of the values and needs of the parties.
Arbitration represents the following component degrees:
Participation: -------
Communication: -
Third Party: --------------
The measured degrees as for communication and third-party power stay the same,
but the participation degree is somewhat higher as the parties have a say in nominating
the members of the arbitration tribunal (Burton 1990: 189–192).
The essentially new avenue here is to strive for outcomes which are positive
for all (Burton 1990: 196). The differences between coercive and problem-solving
approaches are demonstrated in Fig. 1.2.
1.3 Analytical Framework: Conflict Resolution and EU Enlargement 9

Fig. 1.2 Coercive and problem-solving approaches (Source Author; modelled after Burton 1990:
197)

Segment A contains imposed settlements supposed to be favourable to the parties

to the conflict, for example the Dayton Peace Accord for Bosnia-Herzegovina in
1995.8 Segment D represents a win-lose scenario where the rules are accepted. Burton
provides the change of government after elections as an example. Segment C stands
for “classical” authoritative-power settlements, and area B is the prototype result of
the problem-solving approach (Burton 1990: 196–7).

1.3.1.2 Principled Negotiation

Principled negotiation as a rational calculation approach assumes that the parties and
the third party have their individual rationality, judgements, decisions, and strategies.
It is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what
each side says it will and won’t do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever
possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based
on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method of principled
negotiation is hard on the merits, soft on the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing.
Principled negotiation shows you how to obtain what you are entitled to and still be decent.
It enables you to be fair while protecting you against those who take advantage of your
fairness. (Fischer et al. 2012: xxvi)

8 This author concedes that it is indeed questionable whether the Dayton Accord
has in reality been
favourable to the statehood of Bosnia-Herzegovina as such. For a critical view on the dilemma
between unworkable institutions created by Dayton and the agreement’s establishing of sustainable
peace, see Chivvis (2010).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
thought; for the Indians after they had fired the village and burnt
every house in it, finding the powder exhausted, laid siege to the fort
by undermining the walls and shooting lighted arrows into the wood-
work. From that moment there was nothing to hope for; and the
preacher who knew that if the place were carried by assault, every
living creature within the four walls would be put to death, and that
there would be no escape for the women or the babes, the aged or
the sick, if they did not immediately surrender, drew the principal
man of the fort aside (major Davis) and assuring him of what he
foresaw would be the issue, advised a capitulation.
A capitulation Sir, after the work of this day? said the Major. What will
become of you? you have killed a chief and two or three warriors,
and how can you hope to be forgiven, if they once get you in their
power.
Leave that to me—I know their language—I will try to pass for one of
the tribe—
But how—how—impossible, Sir.
Let me have my own way, I beseech you—leave me to take care of
myself....
No, Sir ... we know our duty better.
Then, Sir, as I hope to see my God, I will go forth alone to meet the
savages, and offer myself up for the chief that I have slain. Perhaps
they may receive me into their tribe ... give me a blanket, will you ...
and perhaps not ... for the Pequod warrior is a terrible foe.
Here he shook his black hair loose, and parted it on his forehead and
twisted it into a club, and bound it up hastily after the fashion of the
tribe.
—And the faith which a Huron owes to the dead is never violated.... I
pray you therefore—
—Stooping down and searching for a bit of brick, and grinding it to
dust with his heel—
I pray you therefore to let me go forth—
—Bedaubing his whole visage with it, before he lifted his head—
You cannot save me, nor help me—
Shouldering up his blanket and grasping a short rifle.
What say you!—
Leaping to the turf parapet as he spoke, and preparing to throw
himself over.
God of our Fathers—cried the Major, Is it possible! who are you?
A Mohawk! a Mohawk! shouted all that saw him on the parapet; even
those who beheld the transfiguration were aghast with awe; they
could hardly believe their own eyes.
What say you!—one word is enough ... will you give up?
For the love of God, Mr. Burroughs! cried the Major, putting forth his
hand to catch at the blanket as it was blown out by a strong
breeze.... I do pray you——
He was too late; for Burroughs bounded over with a shout which
appeared to be understood by the savages, who received him with a
tremendous war-whoop. A shriek followed ... a cry from the people
within the fort of—treachery!—treachery!—and after a moment or
two every-thing was quiet as the grave outside.
The garrison were still with fear—still as death.... Were they deserted
or betrayed? Whither should they fly?—What should they do? Their
deliverer ... where was he? Their Joshua ... what had become of
him?
The attack was renewed after a few minutes with tenfold fury, and
the brave Major was driven to capitulate, which he did to the Sieur
Hertel, under a promise that the survivors of the garrison should be
safely conducted to Saco, the next English fort and that they and
their children, their aged and their sick should be treated with
humanity.
Alas for the faith of the red men! alas for the faith of their white
leaders! Before they saw the light of another day, the treaty was
trampled under foot by the savages, and hardly a creature found
within the four walls of the fort was left alive. The work of butchery —
but no—no—I dare not undertake to describe the horrible scene.
And Burroughs.... What of Burroughs?—Did he escape or die?...
Neither. He was carried away captive to the great lakes, and after
much vicissitude, trial and suffering which lasted for upwards of a
year, came to be an adopted Iroquois, and a voluntary hostage for
the faith of the white men of Massachusetts-Bay. From this period
we lose sight of him for a long while. It would appear however that
he grew fond of a savage life, that his early affection for it sprang up
anew, as he approached the deep of the solitude, where all that he
saw and all that he heard, above or about him, or underneath his
feet, reminded him of his youth, of his parentage and his bravery;
that he began after a time to cherish a hope—a magnificent hope, for
a future coalition of the red men of America; that he grew to be a
favorite with Big Bear, the great northern chief, who went so far as to
offer him a daughter in marriage; that he had already begun to reflect
seriously on the offer, when the whites for whom he stood in pledge,
were guilty of something which he regarded as a breach of trust—
whereupon he bethought himself anew of a timid girl—a mere child
when he left her, and beautiful as the day, who when the shadow of
death was upon all that he cared for, when he was a broken-hearted
miserable man without a hope on earth, pursued him with her look of
pity and sorrow, till, turn which way he would, her eyes were forever
before him, by night and by day. It was not with a look of love that
she pursued him—it was rather a look of strange fear. And so,
having thought of Mary Elizabeth Dyer, till he was ready to weep at
the recollection of the days that were gone, the days he had passed
in prayer, and the love he had met with among the white girls of the
Bay, he arose, and walked up to the Great northern chief, who but
for the treachery of the whites would have been his father, and stood
in the circle of death, and offered himself up a sacrifice for the white
countrymen of the child that he knew—the lovely and the pure. But
no—the Big Bear would not have the blood of a brother.
You know the Big Bear, said he to the young men of the Iroquois that
were gathered about him. Who is there alive to harm a cub of the Big
Bear? I am your chief—who is there alive to harm the child of your
chief? Behold my daughter!—who is there alive to strike her
sagamore? Warriors—look at him—He is no longer a pale man—he
is one of our tribe. He is no longer the scourge of the Iroquois. The
beloved of our daughter—who is there alive to touch him in wrath?
Here all the warriors of the tribe and all the chief men of the tribe
stood up; and but one of the whole drew his arrow to the head—the
signal of warfare.
White man—brother, said the Big Bear. Behold these arrows! they
are many and sharp, the arrows of him that would slay thee, but few
—but few brother—and lo!—they are no more. Saying this, he struck
down the arrow of death, and lifted the hatchet and shook it over the
head of the stubborn warrior, who retreated backward step by step,
till he was beyond the reach of the Big Bear.
Brother—would ye that we should have the boy stripped and
scourged? said the Big Bear, with all the grave majesty for which he
was remarkable. White man—behold these arrows—they are
dripping with blood—they are sharp enough to cleave the beach
tree. White man—whither would you go? Feel the edge of this knife.
That blood is the blood of our brave, who would not obey the law—
this knife is the weapon of death. Fear not—for the arrows and the
knife are not for the pale man—fear not—beloved of her in whom we
have put our hope. The arrows and the knife are not for him—but for
the dogs that pursue him. Speak!
I will, said Burroughs, going up to the resolute young savage, who
stood afar off, and setting his foot upon the bare earth before him
with all his might—I will. Big Bear—father—I must go away. I found
you in peace—Let me leave you in peace. Your people and my
people are now at war. I cannot strike a brother in battle. The white
men are my brothers.
Big Bear made no reply.
Farewell.... I must go away. I cannot be on either side when Big Bear
and Long-knife are at war.
Good.
I cannot have Pawteeda now. I have done.
Speak.
Wherefore?
Speak. Why not have Pawteeda now?
Pawteeda should be wife to some warrior, who, when he goes forth
to war, will strike every foe of his tribe, without asking, as I should,
who is he—and what is he? As a white man, I will not war with white
men. As the adopted of the red men ... with the blood of a red man
boiling in my heart, as the captive and nursling of the brave Iroquois,
I will not be the foe of a red man.
Good—
Let Pawteeda be wife to Silver-heels. He hath deserved Pawteeda,
and but for me, they would have been happy.
Good.
Here the youthful savage, whose arrow had been struck aside by the
Big Bear, lifted his head in surprise, but he did not speak.
I beseech you father! let my beloved be his wife.
Good.
The youthful savage dropped his bow, threw off his quiver, and
plucking the ornamented hatchet from his war-belt, after a
tremendous though brief struggle, offered the weapon of death to
Burroughs, thereby acknowledging that in some way or other he had
injured the pale man. Big Bear breathed fiercely and felt for his knife,
but Burroughs went up to the bold youth and gave him his hand after
the fashion of the whites, and called him brother.
It shall be so, said the Big Bear. And from that day the youth was
indeed a brother to Burroughs, who being satisfied that Pawteeda, if
she married one of her own people, would be happier than with a
white man, left her and the savages and the Big Bear and the woods
forever, and got back among the white people again, at a period of
universal dismay, just in time to see a poor melancholy creature,
whom his dear wife had loved years and years before, on trial for
witchcraft. He could hardly believe his own ears. Nor could he
persuade himself that the preachers and elders, and grave
authorities of the land were serious, till he saw the wretched old
woman put to death before their faces.
 CHAPTER XIV.
From that hour he was another man. His heart was alive with a new
hope. The dark desolate chambers thereof were lighted up with a
new joy. And what if there was no love, nor beauty, nor music
sounding in them all the day through, such as there had been a few
brief years before, in the spring-tide of his youthful courage; they
were no longer what they had been at another period, neither very
dark, nor altogether uninhabited, nor perplexed with apparitions that
were enough to drive him distracted—the apparition of a child—the
apparition of a dead hope—for with him, after the death of a second
wife, hope itself was no more. He was now a messenger of the Most
High, with every faculty and every power of his mind at work to baffle
and expose the treachery of those, who pretending to be afflicted by
witchcraft, were wasting the heritage of the white man as with fire
and sword. He strove to entrap them; he set spies about their path.
He prayed in the public highway, and preached in the market place,
for they would not suffer him to appear in the House of the Lord. He
besought his Maker, the Searcher of Hearts, day after day, when the
people were about him, to stay the destroyer, to make plain the way
of the judges, to speak in the dead of the night with a voice of
thunder to the doers of iniquity; to comfort and support the souls of
the accused however guilty they might appear, and (if consistant with
his Almighty pleasure) to repeat as with the noise of a multitude of
trumpets in the sky, the terrible words, Thou shalt not bear false
witness.
But the death of Martha Cory discouraged him. His heart was heavy
with a dreadful fear when he saw her die, and before anybody knew
that he was among the multitude, he started up in the midst of them,
and broke forth into loud prayer—a prayer which had well nigh
exposed him to the law for blasphemy; and having made himself
heard in spite of the rebuke of the preachers and magistrates, who
stood in his way at the foot of the gallows, he uttered a prophecy and
shook off the dust from his feet in testimony against the rulers of the
land, the churches and the people, and departed for the habitation of
Mr. Paris, where the frightful malady first broke out resolved in his
own soul whatever should come of it—life or death—to Bridget Pope,
or to Abigail Paris—or to the preacher himself, his old associate in
grief, straightway to look into every part of the fearful mystery, to
search into it as with fire, and to bring every accuser with whom
there should be found guile, whether high or low, or young or old, a
flower of hope, or a blossom of pride, before the ministers of the law,
—every accuser in whom he should be able to see a sign of bad
faith or a look of trepidation at his inquiry—though it were the aged
servant of the Lord himself; and every visited and afflicted one,
whether male or female, in whose language or behaviour he might
see anything to justify his fear.
It was pitch dark when he arrived at the log-hut of Matthew Paris,
and his heart died within him, as he walked up to the door and set
his foot upon the broad step, which rocked beneath his agitated and
powerful tread; for the windows were all shut and secured with new
and heavy wooden bars—and what appeared very surprising at such
an early hour, there was neither light nor life, neither sound nor
motion, so far as he could percieve in the whole house. He knocked
however, and as he did so, the shadow of something—or the shape
of something just visible in the deep darkness through which he was
beginning to see his way, moved athwart his path and over the step,
as if it had pursued him up to the very door. He was a brave man—
but he caught his breath and stepped back, and felt happy when a
light flashed over the wet smooth turf, and a voice like that of Mr.
Paris bid him walk in, for he was expected and waited for, and had
nothing to fear.
Nothing to fear, brother Paris.... He stopped short and stood awhile
in the door-way as if debating with himself whether to go forward or
back.
Why—how pale and tired you are—said Mr. Paris, lifting up the
candle and holding it so that he could see the face of Burroughs,
while his own was in deep shadow. You appear to have a—the Lord
have pity on us and help us, dear brother! what can be the matter
with you?—why do you hold back in that way?—why do you stand
as if you haven’t the power to move? why do you look at me as if you
no longer know me?—
True—true, said Burroughs—very true—talking to himself in a low
voice and without appearing to observe that another was near. No,
no ... it is too late now ... there’s no going back now, if I would ... but
of a truth, it is very wonderful, very ... very ... that I should not have
recollected my rash vow ... a vow like that of Jeptha ... very ... very ...
till I had passed over that rocky threshold which five years ago this
very night, I took an oath never to pass again. What if the day that I
spoke of be near?... What if I should be taken at my word! Our
Father who art in....
Sir—Mr. Burroughs—my dear friend—
Well.
What is the matter with you?
With me? ... nothing.... Oh ... ah ... I pray you, brother, do not regard
my speech; I am weary of this work, and the sooner we give it up
now, the better. I have done very little good, I fear ... two deaths to
my charge, where I had hoped a ... ah, forgive me, brother; pray
forgive me.... But how is this?... What’s the matter with you?
With me!
Yes—with you. What have I done, that you should block up the door-
way of your own house, when you see me approach? And what have
I done that you should try to hide your face from me, while you are
searching mine with fire, and looking at me with half-averted eyes?
With half-averted eyes—
Matthew, Matthew—we are losing time—we should know each other
better. You are much less cordial to me than you were a few days
ago, and you know it. Speak out like a man ... like a preacher of truth
—what have I done?
What have you done, brother George—how do I know?
Matthew Paris ... are we never to meet again as we have met? never
while we two breathe the breath of life?
I hope ... I do hope.... I am not less glad to see you than I should be;
I do not mean to give you up, whatever others may do, but—but
these are ticklish times brother, and just now (in a whisper) situated
as we are, we cannot be too cautious. To tell you the truth ... I was
not altogether prepared to see you, after the—
Not prepared to see me! Why you told me before you lifted the latch
that I was expected, and waited for—
So I did brother ... so I did, I confess—
And yet, I told nobody of my intention; how did you know I was to be
with you?—
One of the children said so above a week ago, in her sleep.
In—deed.
Ah, you may smile now, brother George; but you looked serious
enough a moment ago, when I opened the door, and if what they say
is true—
How did I look, pray?
Why—to tell you the truth, you looked as if you saw something.
Well ... what if I did see something?
The Lord help us brother—what did you see?
I do not say—I am not sure ... but I thought I saw something.
The Lord have mercy on you, brother—what was it?
A shadow—a short black shadow that sped swiftly by me, but
whether of man or beast, I do not know. All that I do know, is—
Lower ... lower ... speak lower, I beseech you, brother B.
No brother P. I shall not speak lower.
Do ... do—
I shall not. For I would have the shadow hear me, and the body to
know, whether it be man or devil, that if either cross my path again, I
will pursue the shadow till I discover the body, or the body till I have
made a shadow of that—
Walk in brother ... walk in, I beseech you.
I’ll not be startled again for nothing. Ah—what are you afraid of?
Afraid—I—
Brother Paris—
There now!
Look you brother Paris. You have something to say to me, and you
have not the courage to say it. You are sorry to see me here ... you
would have me go away.... I do not know wherefore ... I do not ask;
but I know by the tone of your voice, by your look, and by everything
I hear and see, that so it is. In a word therefore ... let us understand
each other. I shall not go away ... here I am Sir, and here I shall
abide Sir, until the mystery which brought me hither is cleared up.
Indeed, indeed Mr. Burroughs, you are mistaken.
I do not believe you.
Sir!
I do not believe you, I say; and I shall put you to the proof.
George Burroughs—I will not be spoken to, thus.
Poh—poh—
I will not, Sir. Who am I, Sir—and who are you, that I should suffer
this of you?—I, a preacher of the gospel—you, an outcast and a
fugitive—
Burroughs drew up with a smile. He knew the temper of the aged
man, he foresaw that he should soon have the whole truth out of
him, and he was prepared for whatever might be the issue.
—Yea, an outcast and a fugitive, pursued by the law it may be, while
I speak; I, a man old enough to be your father—By what authority am
I waylaid here, underneath my own roof—a roof that would have
been a refuge for you, if you were not a—
A what Sir?
I have done—
So I perceive Matthew. I am satisfied now—I see the cause now of
what I charged you with. I do not blame you—grievous though it be
to the hope I had when I thought of you—my—my—brother. I feel for
you—I pity you—I am sorry now for what I said—I pray you to forgive
me—farewell—
Hey—what—
Farewell. You saw me, as you thought, pursued by the law—flying to
the shadow of your roof as to a refuge, and so, you stood at the door
and rebuked me, Matthew.
You wrong me—I love you—I respect you—there is no treachery
here, and what I have said, I said rashly, and I know not why. Forgive
me brother George ... forgive the old man, whose fear hath made
him overlook what is due to them, whoever they are, that fly to his
habitation for shelter.
I do forgive you ... my brother. Let me also be forgiven.
Be it so ... there ... there ... be it so.
But before I take another step, assure me that if I enter the door,
neither you nor yours will be put in jeopardy.
In jeopardy!
Am I pursued by the law? ... am I, of a truth?
Not pursued by the law, George: I did not say you were; I do not
know that you will be ... but indeed, indeed, my poor unhappy friend,
here is my roof, and here am I, ready to share the peril with you,
whatever it may be, and whatever the judges and elders and the
people may say.
You are.
Yes.
I am satisfied. You have done your duty.... I shall now do mine. You
are a true brother; let me prove that I know how to value such truth. I
am not pursued by the law, so far as I know or have reason to
believe, and if I was ... I should not come hither you may be assured
for safety ... nay, nay, I do not mean a reproach.... I have absolute
faith in your word now; I do believe that you would suffer with me
and for me ... but you shall not. If I were hunted for my life, why
should I fly to you?... You could be of no use to me ... you could
neither conceal me nor save me ... and I might bring trouble upon
you and yours forever. What would become of you, were I to be
tracked by the blood-hounds up to your very door?
I pray you, said the aged man, I do pray you ... looking about on
every side, shadowing the light with his meagre hand, the whole
inward structure whereof was thereby revealed, and speaking in a
low subdued whisper—as if he knew that they were overheard by
invisible creatures.... I pray you brother ... dear brother ... let us have
done with such talk—
Why so ... what are you afraid of?
Softly ... softly ... if they should overhear us—
They ... who ... what on earth are you shaking at?
No matter ... hush ... hush ... you may have no such fear brother B.
... you are a bold man brother B. ... a very bold man ... but as for me
... hark!...
What’s the matter with you? ... What ails you?
Hush! ... hush ... do you not hear people whispering outside the
door?
No.
A noise like that of somebody breathing hard?—
Yes—
You do ... the Lord help us.
I do man, I do—but it is yourself—you it is, that are breathing hard—
what folly Matthew—what impiety at your age!
At my age ... ah my dear brother, if you had seen what I have seen,
or heard what I have heard, or suffered as I have, young as you are,
and stout and powerful as you are, you would not speak as you do
now, nor look as you do now....
Seen ... heard ... suffered. Have I not seen ... have I not suffered!...
How little you know of me....
Here Matthew Paris, after securing the door with a multitude of bars
and bolts of oak, led the way with a cautious and fearful step toward
a little room, through the gaping crevices of which, a dim unsteady
light, like the light of a neglected fire could be seen.
Death Sir ... death in every possible shape, I might say ... but who
cares for death? ... peril which, whatever you may suppose Matthew,
at your age—old as you are ... why—what am I to understand by
your behaviour! ... you don’t hear a word I am saying to you.
There, there—not so loud I entreat you ... not so loud—there’s no
knowing what may be near us.
Near us—are you mad?—what can be near us?
There again—there, there!
Stop—I go no further.
My dear friend—
Not another step—if you are crazy, I am not—I will be satisfied
before I go any further. Were I to judge by what I now see and hear
—did I not believe what you said a few moments ago; and were I not
persuaded of your integrity, Matthew, I should believe my foes were
on the look out for me, and that you had been employed to entrap
me, as the strong man of old was entrapped for the Philistines, with
a show of great love—
Brother!
—Nay, nay, it is not so; I know that very well. But were I to judge by
your behavior now, I say, and by that alone, I should prepare my
fingers for the fight, and this weapon for war.
And I—if I were to judge by your looks and behaviour at the door, I
should believe that you were flying for your life, and that betaking
yourself to my roof, without regard for me or mine, you were willing
to betray us to the law.
Man—man—how could you believe such a thing of me?
You were pale as death, George—
Speak louder—
Pale as death, and you did not answer me, nor even appear to see
me, till after I had spoken to you two or three times.
Of a truth?—
You appeared unwilling to trust yourself beneath my roof, when you
saw me—
Did I—
—So that I was driven to recall the transaction which drove us apart
from each other—
Did I, Matthew?—I am sorry for it—
Yes—and your behavior altogether was very strange—is very
strange now; it is in fact, allow me to say so, just what I should look
for in a man who knew that his life was in jeopardy. Take a chair—
you are evidently much disturbed, you appear to have met with some
——surely—surely—my brother, something has happened to you.
—Did I—
You do not hear me—
True enough, Matthew—I am very tired—please to give me a drop of
water and allow me to rest myself here a few minutes—I must be
gone quickly—I have no time to lose now, I perceive.
You take a bed with me to night, of course.
No.
You must—indeed you must, my good brother—I have much to ask
—much to advise with you about. We are in a dreadful way now, and
if we—
Impossible Matthew—I cannot—I dare not. I have more to do than
you have to say. Are the children a-bed yet?
Ah brother, brother—you have not forgotten the dear child, I see.
Which dear child?
Which dear child!—why—oh—ah—I thought you meant little Abby—
the very image of my departed wife.
Is Bridget Pope with you now?
—She often speaks of you, the dear little babe ... she wears the
keep-sake you gave her, and won’t let any body sit in your place,
and if we desire to punish her, we have only to say that uncle
George won’t love her....
The dear child! I saw her with Bridget on the day of the trial, but I had
no time to speak to either. I hope they are both well—Bridget has
grown prodigiously, I hear—
And so has Abby—
Indeed!
Indeed—why—is it so very wonderful that Abby should grow?
To be sure—certainly not—she was very fair when I saw her last—
when I left this part of the world, I mean.
Very—
So upright, and so graceful and free in her carriage....
Free in her carriage?
For a child, I mean—so modest, and so remarkable in every way—
so attentive, so quiet—
Ah my dear friend—how happy you make me. You never said half so
much about her, all the time you lived here; and I, who know your
sincerity and worth and soberness—to tell you the truth George—I
have been a little sore....
....So attentive, so quiet and so assiduous....
Very true ... very true ... and to hear you say so, is enough to make
her father’s heart leap for joy.
What—in the grave?...
In the grave?...
And after all, I do not perceive that her eyes are too large....
Too large?
Nor that her complexion is too pale....
Nor I....
Nor that her very black hair is either too....
Black hair ... black ... pray brother B. do you know what you are
saying just now? black hair ... why the child’s hair is no more black
than—large eyes too—why it is Bridget Pope that has the large eyes
—
Bridget Pope—to be sure it is—and who else should it be?
 CHAPTER XV.
So then—It was Bridget Pope you were speaking of all the time, hey,
continued the father.
To be sure it was—what’s the matter now?
Why——a——a——the fact is, brother—
You are displeased, I see.
Not at all—not in the least—no business of mine, brother George—
none at all, if you like Bridget Pope as much as ever—child though
she is—no business of mine brother Burroughs—I am sure of that.
So am I—
You may laugh brother B., you may laugh.
So I shall brother P.—so I shall. O, the sick and sore jealousy of a
father! Why—do you not know Matthew Paris—have I not given you
the proof—that your Abigail is to me even as if she were my own
child—the child of my own dear Sarah? And is not my feeling toward
poor Bridget Pope that of one who foresees that her life is to be a
life, perhaps of uninterrupted trial and sorrow, because of her
extraordinary character. I do acknowledge to you that my heart
grows heavy when I think of what she will have to endure, with her
sensibility—poor child—she is not of the race about her—
There now George—there it is again! That poor child has never been
out of your head, I do believe, since you saw her jump into the sea
after little Robert Eveleth; and if she were but six or eight years older,
I am persuaded from what I now see, and from what I have seen
before——
Matthew Paris!
Forgive me George—forgive me—I have gone too far.
You have gone too far.
Will you not forgive me?
I do—I do—I feel what you have said though; I feel it sharply—it was
like an arrow, or a knife—
Allow me to say—
No, no—excuse me—I know what you would say.
Her great resemblance to your wife, which everybody speaks of, and
her beauty—
No, no, Matthew, no, no.... I cannot bear such talk.
Ah George!
Both my wives were very dear to me; but she of whom you speak,
she whom you saw upon the bed of death in all her beauty—she
who died before you, in all her beauty, her glorious beauty! but the
other day as it were....
The other day, George?
—Died with her hand in yours but the other day, while I was afar off
—she whom neither piety nor truth could save, nor faith nor prayer—
she of whom you are already able to speak with a steady voice, and
with a look of terrible composure—to me it is terrible Matthew she is
too dear to me still, and her death too near, whatever you may
suppose; you, her adopted father!—you, the witness of her marriage
vow—you, the witness of her death—for me to endure it—O my God,
my God—that such a woman should be no more in so short a time!
Dear George——
—No more on the earth ... no more in the hearts of them that knew
her.
Have I not lost a wife too? ... a wife as beautiful as the day, George,
and as good as beautiful?
—No more in the very heart of him, her adopted father, who sat by
her and supported her when she drew her last breath——
Dear George ... would you break the old man’s heart? why should I
not speak of them that are dead, as freely as of—
The children ... the children, Matthew—how are they?
The children?
I have work to do before I sleep. It grows late ... how are they?
No longer what they were, when you saw them about my table five
years ago....
I dare say not—five years are an age to them.
But they are better now than they were at the time of the trial; we
begin to have some hope now—
Have you, indeed?
Yes, for they have begun to ... she has begun, I should say ...
Bridget Pope....
I understand you—the father will out....
—She has begun to look cheerful and to go about the house in that
quiet smooth way—
I know, I know ... it was enough to bring the water into my eyes to
look at her—
Robert Eveleth is to be with us to-night, and if we can persuade him
to stay here a week or two, I have great hope in the issue....
What hope—how?—
That both will be cured of their melancholy ways—Bridget Pope and
my poor Abby—
Their melancholy ways—why, what have they to do with Robert
Eveleth?
Why—don’t you see they are always together when he is here—
Who—Abigail and he?
No—Bridget Pope—
Well, what if they are—what does that prove?
Prove!
Yes—prove—prove—you know the meaning of the word, I hope?