Page 77 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 77
5.1 Region of Istria: A Political Geography Perspective
ders between countries with a different socio-political system. The first
formal steps in regulating border issues after 1947 were made in 1955 and
then in 1962 with Udine agreements, which gave residents of the Yugoslav
(Koper, Izola, Piran, Buje, Umag and Novigrad were included in Istria)
and Italian border municipalities special rights in cross-border mobility
(Rolandi, 2015, p. 562; Šuligoj & Medarić, 2015, pp. 69–89; Šušmelj, 2005,
pp. 311–314); the independent Slovenia and Croatia became the legal suc-
cessors of this agreement on the ‘Yugoslav side.’
In December 2007, after Slovenia’s accession to the Schengen Area, the
former Italo-Yugoslav border became merely some kind of administra-
tive border within the e u. Completely opposite is the story of the border
between Slovenia and Croatia, which was, until June 1991, only an ad-
ministrative border, whereas after the proclamation of the independence
of both countries, it became a (problematic) state border and wa, since
December 2007, the external border of the Schengen Area. Thus, accord-
ing to Rožac Darovec (2015, p. 494) and Zajc (2015, p. 507), the historical
alliance of two Slavic nations was confronted with a dispute which was
also based on the historical mythologisation of the border issue (pp. 501–
502). In 2023, Croatia became a member of the Schengen area, yet this
did not formally resolve the border issue. However, Istria reflects good
interethnic relationships between Slovenians and Croats, which are not
better in any other border area and are completely different from the rela-
tionship between the political elites of both countries (Bufon, 2009b, pp.
466–467; Dukovski, 2011a, pp. 56–58; Reverdito, 2009; Rožac-Darovec,
2015; Zajc, 2015). Good relations are also highlighted by Bufon (2008d,
pp. 178–185, 2009a, pp. 64, 76, 77; 2009b), who established that Slove-
nians along the border, for example, know the language of Croats and
Italians very well. Hence, he identified the cross-border migration of res-
idents in all directions, familial and interpersonal relations, and positive
perception of the border, which must have a protective role and should
not restrict cross-border social and economic exchange. In addition, Ber-
davs and Kerma’s (2009) research shows that the Italian-Slovenian border
is more integrated in terms of functional factors (e.g. employment), while
the Croatian-Slovenian one is more integrated in terms of social factors
(e.g. personal ties). Interestingly, the border issue in Istria is one of the tra-
ditional political topics of the regional history.¹⁹ Additional elements con-
¹⁹ Generally speaking, historical borders existing for a long time become some kind of traces
which often have a noticeable impact on the present territories/countries and their form
77
ders between countries with a different socio-political system. The first
formal steps in regulating border issues after 1947 were made in 1955 and
then in 1962 with Udine agreements, which gave residents of the Yugoslav
(Koper, Izola, Piran, Buje, Umag and Novigrad were included in Istria)
and Italian border municipalities special rights in cross-border mobility
(Rolandi, 2015, p. 562; Šuligoj & Medarić, 2015, pp. 69–89; Šušmelj, 2005,
pp. 311–314); the independent Slovenia and Croatia became the legal suc-
cessors of this agreement on the ‘Yugoslav side.’
In December 2007, after Slovenia’s accession to the Schengen Area, the
former Italo-Yugoslav border became merely some kind of administra-
tive border within the e u. Completely opposite is the story of the border
between Slovenia and Croatia, which was, until June 1991, only an ad-
ministrative border, whereas after the proclamation of the independence
of both countries, it became a (problematic) state border and wa, since
December 2007, the external border of the Schengen Area. Thus, accord-
ing to Rožac Darovec (2015, p. 494) and Zajc (2015, p. 507), the historical
alliance of two Slavic nations was confronted with a dispute which was
also based on the historical mythologisation of the border issue (pp. 501–
502). In 2023, Croatia became a member of the Schengen area, yet this
did not formally resolve the border issue. However, Istria reflects good
interethnic relationships between Slovenians and Croats, which are not
better in any other border area and are completely different from the rela-
tionship between the political elites of both countries (Bufon, 2009b, pp.
466–467; Dukovski, 2011a, pp. 56–58; Reverdito, 2009; Rožac-Darovec,
2015; Zajc, 2015). Good relations are also highlighted by Bufon (2008d,
pp. 178–185, 2009a, pp. 64, 76, 77; 2009b), who established that Slove-
nians along the border, for example, know the language of Croats and
Italians very well. Hence, he identified the cross-border migration of res-
idents in all directions, familial and interpersonal relations, and positive
perception of the border, which must have a protective role and should
not restrict cross-border social and economic exchange. In addition, Ber-
davs and Kerma’s (2009) research shows that the Italian-Slovenian border
is more integrated in terms of functional factors (e.g. employment), while
the Croatian-Slovenian one is more integrated in terms of social factors
(e.g. personal ties). Interestingly, the border issue in Istria is one of the tra-
ditional political topics of the regional history.¹⁹ Additional elements con-
¹⁹ Generally speaking, historical borders existing for a long time become some kind of traces
which often have a noticeable impact on the present territories/countries and their form
77
