Response to Večernji List Article on Liberland Jurisdiction

URL: https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/liberland-sedam-spornih-cetvornih-kilometara-pod-jurisdikcijom-je-rh-1835150

We would like to thank Večernji List and journalist Marinko Jurasić for publishing a well-researched and informative article addressing the ongoing legal and diplomatic questions surrounding Gornja Siga and the Free Republic of Liberland.

However, we respectfully submit that certain legal conclusions in the article — particularly regarding Croatian jurisdiction over the disputed territory — may warrant clarification or correction in light of established international legal principles. As stated in the article, the legal counsel of the accused is using these points in the ongoing proceedings and it is our opinion that the Liberland side of the argumentation was significantly underrepresented in your article.

In the name of objectivity, we are presenting it here in a concise form:

Legal Rebuttal to Croatian Jurisdiction over Gornja Siga in the Case of T.H.G.

I. Absence of Final Border Settlement – Pending Sovereignty

Under international law, sovereignty over a territory subject to an unresolved border dispute is not presumed in favor of either claimant until a final settlement or arbitration occurs.

1. Gornja Siga is not internationally recognized as Croatian territory, nor has Serbia recognized it as such. In fact, both Croatia and Serbia disclaim ownership, making it a unique interstitial zone. 
2. A situation similar to yet in many ways profoundly different from the open seas. Similar in that there is no internationally recognized jurisdiction, different in that there is no special international regime like that which governs the open seas, and therefore the legal qualification of each situation in this land must be derived from analogy of law, legal principles and so on.
3. The Croatian claim of jurisdiction is based on administrative practice, not on a final legal determination. Jurisdiction based on de facto control does not equal de jure sovereignty.
4. The Croatian court’s reliance on “diplomatic notes” instead of a formal bilateral treaty or arbitral ruling demonstrates the lack of binding, settled jurisdiction.

➡️ Rebuttal: The area is legally ambiguous and not definitively Croatian, and therefore application of Croatian misdemeanor law amounts to extraterritorial penal enforcement — a serious breach of international law.

II. Improper Use of Diplomatic Notes as Legal Foundation

1. Diplomatic notes are non-binding unless incorporated into a treaty or formal memorandum of understanding.
2. The Croatian court admits that there is no treaty; the use of phrases like “bilateral understanding” is legally vague and unenforceable.
3. Whatever these notas are, a treaty or not, they are not published in any meaningful form and therefore not binding on people visiting Liberland. Not published documents cannot be enforced against people in a rule-of-law based country which Croatia claims to be.
4. The fact that Serbia agrees Croatia can “administer” the area pending resolution does not constitute sovereignty cession. It may be administrative convenience, not full territorial jurisdiction.

➡️ Rebuttal: The court improperly elevated nonbinding diplomatic notes into binding legal instruments, thereby violating Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, which recognizes treaties, custom, general principles, and judicial decisions as sources of international law — but not mere diplomatic notes.

III. Violation of the Principle of Legality (Nullum Crimen Sine Lege)

1. Under European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 7, no one may be punished for an act which was not clearly defined as a criminal offense at the time.
2. The absence of notice (no signs, warnings, or clear jurisdictional notice) meant T.H.G. could not reasonably foresee that Croatian criminal or misdemeanor law applied to him in that location.
3. Police allegedly told him the camera was for wildlife monitoring, reinforcing his reasonable belief that Croatian police were not active in the zone.
4. The accused cannot be held responsible for there being at that moment a police officer or for his subjective feelings. The accused could not presume any of those. Hence, the basic intent to commit a misdemeanor is absent - and therefore, the action cannot be a misdemeanor.

➡️ Rebuttal: The punishment violates legal certainty and individual foreseeability under ECHR standards. A foreign citizen cannot be held criminally liable in disputed territory unless jurisdiction is clearly and unambiguously established.

IV. Disproportionality and Political Targeting

1. The gesture — while vulgar — was not accompanied by violence or threats. In a normal democracy, 3,000 euros and a one-year exclusion zone would be disproportionate, especially absent clear jurisdiction.
2. The court’s reasoning is not neutral; it uses politically charged language, portraying Liberland as disruptive, thereby undermining neutrality and suggesting selective enforcement against political dissenters or microstate activists.
3. T.H.G. has no prior record, expressed remorse, and relied on conflicting information from officers.

➡️ Rebuttal: The sentence is grossly disproportionate under ECHR Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 (fair trial), especially considering the unclear status of the land, lack of warnings, and political overtones of the case.

V. Terra Nullius Argument – Not Irrelevant

The Croatian court declares terra nullius is a “non-issue,” citing Serbian diplomatic statements. However:

1. If both Serbia and Croatia deny sovereignty, and no other state claims it, then under the Island of Palmas doctrine (PCIJ, 1928), the territory may indeed be subject to original acquisition under specific conditions.
2. T.H.G. did not claim sovereignty, but merely that the Croatian court lacks jurisdiction to punish him there. This is a narrow procedural defense, not a challenge to global borders.
3. A restraining order against approaching terra nullius (or disputed land) has no legal basis without title to that land.

➡️ Rebuttal: Until full border delimitation occurs through a competent international process, such as arbitration or ICJ proceedings, Croatia cannot unilaterally claim full criminal jurisdiction in Gornja Siga.

VI. Inconsistent Application of Jurisdiction Undermines Croatian Claim

The Croatian court assumes that Croatia exercises lawful jurisdiction over Gornja Siga. However:

1. Even if we were to grant that Croatia exercises jurisdiction, such a claim would necessarily imply the existence of full Croatian civil and criminal administration — including consistent access to legal institutions for individuals legitimately seeking remedy.
2. This would require that persons present in Gornja Siga be able to access Croatian courts for civil disputes, criminal protection, property registration, and other administrative services, and that a municipal authoritybe identified as locally competent.
3. Yet based on firsthand experience and documented inquiries, we understand that Croatian courts routinely deny jurisdiction over substantive matters arising in Gornja Siga — including property claims, criminal complaints, and civil disputes — on the grounds that no competent authority exists for the territory.

➡️ Rebuttal: This contradiction between limited penal enforcement and general institutional absence reveals that Croatia does not exercise effective, consistent, or lawful jurisdiction over Gornja Siga. Under the international law standard of effectivités, such selective assertion of authority is insufficient to support a claim of sovereignty. Therefore, Croatia cannot unilaterally claim jurisdiction for misdemeanor prosecution without exercising the full spectrum of public law functions in the territory.

🧩 Conclusion

While Croatian courts are currently defending the status quo, the legal objections raised here rest on four fundamental points:

• The lack of final and recognized sovereignty over Gornja Siga;
• The improper reliance on diplomatic notes in place of a binding agreement or adjudication;
• The violation of European human rights standards, particularly regarding legal certainty, foreseeability, and proportionality;
• And the disputed and indeterminate status of the territory, which should preclude unilateral criminal enforcement.

An application to the European Court of Human Rights or the UN Human Rights Committee would raise serious procedural and substantive concerns about the use of penal law in a territory that is neither fully administered nor legally resolved. These concerns could form the basis for a strong challenge to the selective exercise of jurisdiction — and contribute meaningfully to the broader legal record regarding Gornja Siga.

We thank Večernji List for bringing public attention to this important topic and acknowledge the seriousness with which the article addresses it. At the same time, we respectfully maintain that the legal status of Gornja Siga remains unresolved, and that any assertion of criminal jurisdiction in such a context must be treated with legal caution and international scrutiny.

We remain committed to 

respectful dialogue, the rule of law, and peaceful international engagement, and we welcome continued discussion on the just and lawful resolution of this unique and symbolically significant territorial question.