Talk:Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia

In today's world, Talk:Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia has become a topic of increasing interest to a large number of people. Whether due to its impact on society, its relevance in history, its influence on popular culture or its importance in the scientific field, Talk:Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia has captured the attention of a wide spectrum of the population. In this article, we will explore different aspects related to Talk:Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia, from its origins to its evolution today, in order to provide a complete and enriching vision of this topic. Through analysis, data and relevant testimonies, it aims to shed light on Talk:Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia and its meaning within different contexts, giving readers a deeper and more insightful perspective on this matter.

About Peter Radan

An immense section of the article is dedicated to the criticisms of the findings of the Arbitration Commission. I’ve serched trugh the web, and found more about the author of such criticisms, Peter Radan from Australia. Well, first, this guy seems irrelevant in the international community scene, and second, he is a clearly minoritarian Serb nationalist apologist, who worked closely even with another most-known apoplogist, the Serbian-American Srđa Trifković.

My question is: is his criticisms so important to be placed in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.168.220 (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have no opinions on his nationality or ethnicity or political views, which aren't really relevant. He has published his criticisms in a respected law journal, so I think they are worth discussing. However, I would agree that they take up too much space, and the article should merely report his criticisms rather than agreeing with them as it does at present. --SJK (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While criticism was appliable to the Civic war in FRY, it would be interesting to know that this agreement could be also a basis of claim that Kosovo is internationally recognoized part of Serbia, as it was in the time of the decision by FRY constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.39.186 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that his criticism (both his arguments and his conclusion) is generally in accord with the prevailing view in Serbia. That would certainly be an argument for keeping the section, but not necessarily in its present form... GregorB (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As tendentious as his arguments are (he ignores the fact that Serbia and the SDS challenged and violated the intra-republican borders months before Croatia or Slovenia declared independence, had declared itself an "independent and sovereign" state in September 1990 while rejecting the same right for other republics, declared that it was the 'supreme commander' of its armed forces and established a foreign ministry before anyone else, the fact the Serbia withdrew from the federation in March 1991 when it attempted to stage a coup in the federal presidency and announced that it would no longer recognise the decisions of the Yugoslav presidency, the fact that usurpted the rights of the other republics especially Bosnia-Hercegovina by forming the illegal "rump presidency", the fact that the constitution simply makes no mention of a republic's borders being an open question in the event of dissolusion or secession, the fact that the republics are defined as 'states' and 'national states', not simply 'administrative units', the fact that the constitutions state that the peoples 'excercise their sovereign rights in the Socialist Republic of ___', the fact that Serbia had abolished Kosovo's and Vojvodina's autonomy, which was guaranteed by the same constitution, the fact that Serbia refused to even negotiate any confederal proposals, even Bosnia's moderate proposals, the fact that Serbia had sponsored armed rebellion on the territory of another republic, the fact that Serbia had stolen almost half the planned budged for 1991 from the federal treasury and had imposed import tax on goods from Croatia and Slovenia, effectively treating them as seperate states, the fact that it supported the creation of illegal 'Serb autonomous oblasts' on the territory of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and the fact that Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia left because their continued stay in the federation was simply untenable due to bullying and obstruction by Serbia and the JNA), the fact remains that they are published in a respected law journal. While most historians I am aware of agree that the rulings on borders were for the best, and were probably the only realistic option, the fact remains that some legal experts have challenged the Commission's findings on this point. Ana Radic (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Radan's criticisms are pretty standard amongst a majority of historians. This article doesnt even go in the litany of criticisms of the commission's findings amongst legal professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.168.24 (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

title

I just fixed the clearly anachronistic part of the title, but one question still remains - did the conference have a "peace" prefix or was it implicit?

Regardless of that difference, when I click on the last page of either of these, I get "Page 5 of 42 results". So it looks like it's largely synonymous, but it should be possible to lose the extra word since the title is already long enough. --Joy (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Can someone explain why is it insisted in the article that Uti Possidetis Juris was applied in the Yugoslavia fallout? Neither side kept what was theirs at the time The Commission made it's opinion, and there was no other agreement. These should have been the borders if Uti Possidetis was to be applied. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Map_of_war_in_Yugoslavia,_1992.png Cheerz, Mike.

Dead link

The link for this source is dead: Allain Pellet (1992). "The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples" (PDF). European Journal of International Law 3 (1): 178–185.

Maybe this is the right link: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/1/178.full.pdf+html

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting article

In the article is is stated that the Arbitration Commission handed out 15 opinions, however only 10 are listed in content and summarized. In short: 1. How many opinions did this commission issue? 2. If the number is greater that those summarized in section 2 of this article, where are the remaining ones? 91.150.112.250 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia