
Should Croatia Declare an Exclusive Economic Zone?
When trying to establish reasons why Republic of Croatia has not yet proclaimed its own EEZ, moreover why it has suspended it’s Ecological-Fishery Zone after that zone has already been declared and internationally notified (!), one must first look upon political reasons and current “eurostrategic” position of Croatia. According to Ibler, the answer to this question is foremost political and only alternatively legal question. The only legal question that can arise in this situation is the one of the EEZ’s delimitation procedure. There is no question about the fact that both UNCLOS and Croatian Maritime Code grants Croatia right to declare an EEZ. However, the Republic of Croatia never reached the level to be concerned with these problems.
At a certain point in time, Croatian authorities tried to argument the non-declaration of the EEZ with the fact that Croatian coast guard service does not have appropriate facilities to control the EEZ effectively. However, Ibler strongly disagrees with this argument noting that many countries have proclaimed an EEZ even though they are not even in a capacity to supervise their own territorial waters and not to mention the EEZ.
The necessity for Croatia to declare at least some of the sovereign rights in the sea zone exceeding territorial waters becomes more than evident if one should analyze a very recent occurrence of sea pollution performed by NATO air forces during the Kosovo conflict. Following a request made to NATO by the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Kofi Annan, in October 1999, NATO confirmed in February 2000 the use of depleted uranium during the Kosovo conflict and provided the UN with information consisting of a general map indicating the areas targeted and the total number of depleted uranium rounds fired. UN Environment Program (UNEP) was called to make an assessment study of pollution on the field. The UNEP results of investigation performed in November 2000 suggested that there was no immediate cause for concern regarding toxicity. However, the study also emphasized that major scientific uncertainties persist over the long-term environmental impacts of depleted uranium, especially regarding groundwater. Due to these scientific uncertainties, UNEP calls for precaution and stresses that there is a very clear need for action to be taken on the clean-up and decontamination of the polluted sites.
How does this UNEP environmental study for Kosovo relate to Croatian sea zone? It relates through NATO reports made in May 1999 where NATO confirms the existence of five zones with a diameter of 18 km, which were used for deployment of unused depleted uranium ammunition after an air strike in Kosovo. Four of these zones are in the Adriatic Sea (first is located between the river mouth of Pad and Novigrad, second between Cervij and Lošinj, third between Ancona and Dugi Otok, and fourth between Brindisi and Drač), while the fifth zone is in the Jonian Sea at the cape St Maria di Leuca. At the time of this NATO report, there was a strong reaction from the part of Italy regarding the environmental hazards of such deployment of the depleted uranium. The consequence of this reaction was that NATO made an assurance that it will reallocate the deployed ammunition. If Croatia had wanted to prevent deployment of depleted uranium in waters relatively close to the coast, it could have done it by referring to the protection of its EEZ. This way, NATO simply unloaded the toxic waste in the zone which was formally an area of open waters.
It is questionable where did disappear all the arguments presented by the Croatian Parliament at the time when the Ecological-Fishery Zone was introduced? Is it not necessary any more to attain a better preservation of living maritime resources, to ameliorate the protection of ecological biosphere, to enhance clean tourism? We can only hope that the maritime biosphere will not suffer too much on the account of the political decisions.