No source, born digital.
Contributions to Contemporary History is one of the central Slovenian scientific
historiographic journals, dedicated to publishing articles from the field of
contemporary history (the 19th and 20thcentury).
The journal is published three times per year in Slovenian and in the following foreign languages: English, German, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Italian, Slovak and Czech. The articles are all published with abstracts in English and Slovenian as well as summaries in English.
Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino je ena osrednjih slovenskih znanstvenih zgodovinopisnih revij, ki objavlja teme s področja novejše zgodovine (19. in 20. stoletje).
Revija izide trikrat letno v slovenskem jeziku in v naslednjih tujih jezikih: angleščina, nemščina, srbščina, hrvaščina, bosanščina, italijanščina, slovaščina in češčina. Članki izhajajo z izvlečki v angleščini in slovenščini ter povzetki v angleščini.
Avtor analizira dva vidika dolgega trajanja fenomena mejne reke na
primeru reke Mure: a) razmerje med rečno strugo, mejno črto in antropogenimi
učinki na reko; b) odkrivanje historičnih struktur skozi perspektivo mejnih
sporov. “Zdravorazumsko” razumevanje mejnih rek predpostavlja ujemanje reke in
mejne črte. Kljub temu je lahko v pokrajini in v kartografskih reprezentacijah
velika razlika med tema dvema elementoma.
Ključne besede: mejne reke, Mura, okoljska zgodovina, rečne
regulacije, mejni spori
The Author analyses two long-term aspects of the border river
phenomenon with the example of the river Mura: a) the relationship between the
river bed, the boundaryline, and the anthropogenic effects on the river; b)
discovering the historical structures through the perspective of border
disputes. The "common sense" ideas about border rivers imply that the river bed
and the boundaryline usually match. However, in the actual landscape and
cartographic representations, the differences between these elements can be
significant.
Key words: Border rivers, River Mura, Environmental History, River regulations, Border Disputes
Rivers were not invented by people. They are natural phenomena with their own
dynamics, and can never be completely controlled. However, border rivers are
different: they are social and political concepts that people "assign" to natural
rivers. The basic goal of the project entitled "The Border River Phenomenon" has
been to explore the relationship between "natural" rivers and the concept of border
rivers, using selected examples. According to their classic sociological definition,Grenzsoziologie, die politische Strukturierung des
Raumes, eds. Monika Eigmüller and Georg Vobruba (Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft, 2006), 22.Grenzsoziologie, die politische Strukturierung des
Raumes, eds. Monika Eigmüller and Georga Vobruba (Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft, 2006), 55.
The "common‑sense" ideas about border rivers imply that the river bed and the boundaryline usually match. However, in the actual landscape and cartographic representations, the differences between these elements can be significant. The elements are mutually dependent: boundarylines are usually defined on the basis of the river beds. In turn, boundarylines may also influence the river beds (human activities on the river). Due to meandering and erosion, the river does not "stick" to the river bed as "captured" by the cartographers/geodesists in a certain historical moment. Boundarylines may also change due to political/administrative changes.
The proximity of rivers calls for certain human activities. In case of border rivers, these activities become even more complicated: who has the jurisdiction to build there? Who finances the works? Who carries them out? Such activities require communication and coordination between the two entities, separated by the river. We can notice an interesting rule in the interaction between people and rivers: the rivers that are prone to changing their river beds often due to hydrological and geomorphological characteristics (meandering, dead river beds, gravel bars) – which means that they are active "in themselves" – call for a more significant human response than the rivers with relatively stable river beds. In case of border rivers we can underline an additional phenomenon. By changing its river bed often, a border river can cause political problems at the level of the two entities it separates. The regulation of such a river calls for the cooperation of both sides, which involves the coordination of works and expenses. Due to the problems with coordination and financing, the authorities from both sides frequently delay the works at the detriment of the population on both sides of the border. The history of river regulation is also exceedingly significant in the cases where the river has only recently gained the status of a border river. In such cases the history of regulations may be deemed as typical administrative legacy.
The history of the river Mura is truly fascinating – in the sense of environmental
history as well as regarding the delimitation of political entities. It is not
remarkable in any way that many different disciplines have often focused on Mura and
its history: political history, environmental history, various fields of geography,
cartography, and hydrology. Due to the hydrological characteristics and lowlands
environment, the downstream part of Mura has always kept changing. Mura is a part of
the Black Sea drainage basin, a left‑bank tributary of the river Drava. It is a
snow‑fed river system and belongs among lowland rivers, characterised by frequent
river bed changes on the flood plains, meandering, and frequent floods (the
frequency and scope of floods have been anthropogenically reduced by means of
several hydro‑accumulation dams even before this river reaches Slovenia). In its
totality, Mura is 465 kilometres long. It flows through Slovenia in the total length
of 95 kilometres, and the section of the Slovenian "internal" Mura is approximately
33 kilometres long.14. Mišičev vodarski dan, zbornik referatov (Maribor:
Vodnogospodarski biro, 2003), 119.17. Mišičev vodarski
dan, zbornik referatov (Maribor: Vodnogospodarski biro, 2006),
38.
In the language of political history, Mura's main characteristic could be described
as "movement". However, the expression is not precise enough. Throughout its
history, Mura has been creating new river beds and branches. Hydrologists describe
it as a type of a meandering braided river, whose channel typically consists of a
network of small channels. The majority of it does flow through its main river bed,
but its diversion results in new main channels, while the old main channels turn
into side channels.25. Mišičev vodarski
dan, zbornik referatov (Maribor: Vodnogospodarski biro, 2014),
183–90.th century, a large area of fallow land was created
between the towns of Šentilj and Radgona, supposedly resulting predominantly from
the untameable nature of the river. By the early modern period, the river Mura had
shaped a large island between two of its branches, where the fortified border town
of Radgona with its extensive fortification system and two strategically important
bridges developed. According to the historian Hozjan, south of Radgona the river
kept creating many new branches, and the Josephine maps reveal all sorts of river
bed changes.Ekonomska
i ekohistorija 9 (2013): 17.th century Mura captured it into a U-shaped channel.
Until 1918, the section of Mura between Radgona and Gibina was a border river, while
from Gibina to its mouth it was Hungarian. Regarding the issue at hand, we are
especially interested in the fact that any human intervention in the river bed or
river banks, no matter how small, was related to the border river political concept.
Hydrological literature places the first unsystematic measures addressing the
river's water regime management into the 16th century. Their goal was to protect the
settlements and allow for the navigation of the river Mura. Since the late Middle
Ages, Mura has had the greatest transport potential of all the Styrian rivers. In
the early modern period, the centres of rafting on Mura were located in Ernovž,
Cmurek, and Radgona. On the Hungarian side, legislation on securing the banks in
order to protect the local settlements was already in force in the 17th century. In
the first period of early modernisation – the Theresian period – Mura's river bed
was surveyed (1753). On the basis of these surveys, a few meanders were shortened
and the river banks secured.
In this period, the nascent Habsburg state was mostly interested in managing river
navigation rather than in the border function of Mura. The planned river management
with the aim of ensuring navigation began in 1770, when a special commission
inspected the river bed. The works were overseen by Gabrijel Gruber, a Jesuit from
Ljubljana, while the future mathematician Jurij Vega participated in the project as
well. The thorough regulation of the river Mura could only be implemented at the
section before Radgona.Zgodovina Prekmurja. Izbrane razprave in članki (Murska Sobota:
Pomurska založba, 1996), 68.
In 1810 the meander near Razkrižje was shortened in order to protect the settlement
from the annual floods. In 1822 Mura created a new water channel near Mursko
Središče. Thus the bridge found itself on dry land and regulation was necessary in
order to steer Mura back to its old river bed. The construction of the Ledava – Krka
relief channel and the relocation of the mouth of Krka's tributary Ledava around
1850 were important as well. In the second half of the 19th century, large-scale
regulation took place. In 1874 the government in Vienna adopted a decision to
finance the regulation of three sections of the river Mura between Graz and Cven
(the so-called Hohenburg Regulation 1874 – 1891). The majority of the works took
place at the section between Graz and Wildon as well as between Wildon and
Radgona.Slovenski gospodar, 1. 10. 1874, 345.Slovenski gospodar, 8. 10. 1878, 413.
In the beginning of the 20thcentury, the local large estate owners at the Hungarian
side of Mura organised themselves and established a river cooperative in Lendava in
1901. The cooperative was supposed to address the water management problems in
certain parts of the Zala County. It drew up plans for the regulation of streams and
draining of certain areas, but the Zala County did not give its concession for the
construction works until as late as 1907. The cooperative was supposed to broaden
the river bed of Ledava and maintain the conditions of the following streams:
Ledava, Krka, Kobiljski potok, Bukovnica, Libenica, Črnec, Lipnica, and Bogojinski
potok. With the dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1918, the works at the river
Mura stopped. Due to the abandonment of maintenance works at the section between
Špilj and Radgona (after 1919 the new border between the Republic of Austria and the
Kingdom of SHS), certain sections of Mura broadened significantly (up to 200
metres). Due to the neglect of its banks, Mura flooded several times between 1918
and 1926 (Bunčani, Veržej, Dokležovje, Melinci). The interwar period authorities
only undertook the regulation works at the (new) internal section of Mura after the
catastrophic floods.Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 51, No. 3 (2011):
26.
A few fortification works at the (internal) river Mura were carried out in 1928,
while between 1936 and 1938 it was regulated between Sladki vrh and Apače. Despite
everything, the 1938 floods were catastrophic. Mura engulfed more than 40 villages
on both sides, almost flooding the entire Mursko polje plains. In light of this
disaster, the Prekmurje correspondent of the Slovenski gospodar newspaper complained
that the authorities neglected the Prekmurje region, and that Mura should have been
systematically regulated a long time ago. He also underlined that the inhabitants of
Prekmurje could see clearly how Austria assisted the victims of the floods in its
territory, and that "this certainly does not contribute to national awareness".Slovenski gospodar, 1. 6. 1938, 7.
By the dissolution of the common state, the Pomurje region had become, in the sense
of its watercourses, a completely artificially-regulated landscape with channels,
embankments, and artificial lakes that had not existed previously. The secondary
river branches and marshes had largely disappeared from the landscape. The estimate
that the geographical character of the landscape has changed most profoundly
precisely due to watercourse regulation is not an exaggeration. However, human
interventions into the nature of the river Mura and its tributaries have also
resulted in unforeseen consequences. In the period of the so-called "natural" Mura,
the width of the river and its secondary river beds reached up to 1.2 km, but it was
narrowed to as little as 60 – 80 metres by means of hydrological interventions.
These processes have resulted in a greater speed of the river and a more significant
power of erosion. Due to the fortified banks, the erosion power of the river cannot
be distributed throughout its bed: instead all of the energy goes toward deepening
the river bed.Načelna vodnogospodarska zasnova za mejno Muro, I. Faza
(Gradec/Graz: Stalna slovensko-avstrijska komisija za Muro, 2001),
5.th and 20th century. From the viewpoint of environmental
history, the example of Mura is interesting because of the relationship between the
river and human interventions in the long run: if repeated attempts had been made to
"capture" Mura into a single fortified river bed for more than three centuries (and
regulate its unpredictable tributaries), in the last few decades measures have been
initiated to undertake a (limited) reconstruction of the pre-regulation
conditions.
According to the findings of hydrologists, after World War II the maintenance and
construction works at the basin of the river Mura where it borders on Austria have
been most thorough, while they have been less intensive at the river's internal
sections and where it borders on Croatia.20. Mišičev vodarski dan 2011, zbornik referatov (Maribor:
Vodnogospodarski biro, 2011), 158.
Rivers as transnational natural phenomena with their unpredictable "lives" tend to
force political entities to engage in long-term cooperation. We have already
mentioned the first permanent bilateral commission between Austria and the Kingdom
of SHS/Yugoslavia, established in 1926. On 16 December 1954, the Federal People's
Republic of Yugoslavia signed the agreement on the establishment of a permanent
bilateral commission for the river Mura, and ratified it in 1956. The commission was
tasked with the joint investigation and resolution of water management issues,
implementation of measures, and realisation of works at the border section of Mura
and its branches due to pollution and drainage of water from the river. After it
attained independence, the Republic of Slovenia ratified this agreement in
1993.2nd Workshop on
Assessing the Water-Food-Energy-Ecoystem Nexus and Benefits of
Transboundary Cooperation in the Drina River Basin, Belgrade, 8 – 9
November 2016,” accessed August 3, 2017, https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2016/wat/11Nov_08-10_Nexus_2nd-WS_Drinabasin_Belgrade/day_3/ab_UNECE_NEXUS_BELGRADE__Transboundary_Cooperation_091116.pdf.Uradni list Republike Slovenije
11/1998.
How can we "discern" the role and changes of the political structures from the example of border rivers? Documents about border disputes represent an excellent source for analysing the relations between the state structures and the situation "in the field". Border river disputes can drag on for several centuries. In order to solve the current border disputes, it is especially important to understand the rich pre‑history (a part of the border rivers' administrative legacy). River border disputes can also "become obsolete" and calm down due to altered circumstances, or can also be created anew as a river acquires the status of a border river.
At the river Mura between the towns of Radgona and Ljutomer, the border between the
German part of the Roman Empire or Styria and Hungary had been settled by the middle
of the 13th century, in so far as that was possible in the medieval
circumstances.Srednjeveški urbarji za Slovenijo, Urbarji
Salzburške nadškofije (Ljubljana: Akademija znanosti in umetnosti,
1939), 12.Viri za zgodovino Prekmurja 1 / Források a Muravidék történetéhez 1 (Szombathely
– Zalaegerszeg: Arhiv županije Vas in Arhiv županije Zala, 2008),
45.
In the first half of the 16th century, disputes between the inhabitants of the two
river banks would often arise due to Mura's inconstant flow. Tomaž Széchy, a
landowner with land holdings in Gornja Lendava and Murska Sobota, attempted to
protect his extensive properties in the Prekmurje region by constructing two river
beds on his side, steering the flow of Mura towards the Styrian side. There the
river started eroding the fertile land and getting closer to the settlements.Zgodovina Prekmurja, 65.th century the conflicts gradually cooled down.Ljutomer, Zgodovina trga in sreza (Maribor:
Zgodovinsko društvo, 1926), 24.
According to Kovačič, it could also happen that Mura itself would remedy what
"Hungarians took from Styrians unjustly". Towards the end of the 17th century, Mura
changed its flow yet again. The inhabitants of the Styrian village of Hrastje
acquired a bit of territory that they started using as grazing grounds. In the
middle of the 18th century, attempts were made to take away the villagers' right to
grazing, and therefore they complained to the provincial authorities. According to
the older Slovenian historiography, the border between Hungary and Styria was
supposedly settled in 1755, during the Theresian consolidation of the Habsburg
Empire, especially in the upper part of the river Mura between Radgona and
Mota.Zgodovina Prekmurja, 68.Ljutomer, 25.th century, Mura became a "solid" state border for a short time, in 1848 and 1849,
when the revolutionary Hungary achieved significant autonomy in its relations with
Vienna. This was followed by a reaction from the Habsburg Court.Madžarska zgodovina (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2005),
203.Viri za zgodovino Prekmurja 1,
354.
In the tumultuous times of the establishment of new states in the Central Europe and
the formation of new state borders between 1918 and 1920, the status of the border
at the river Mura changed a few times. On 12 August 1919, the Army of the Kingdom of
SHS occupied the Prekmurje region, and this territory on the left bank of Mura was
finally annexed to the Yugoslav state with the Treaty of Trianon (4 June 1920). It
is interesting that during the occupation (between August 1919 and June 1920), the
border at Mura was not abolished, but rather even strengthened. The passage of the
inhabitants of Prekmurje over Mura was only possible with permits. In the autumn of
1920, Prekmurje was still a closed territory, and the Prekmurje press complained
that soldiers would not let people cross Mura without the permits that were
difficult to obtain.Časopis za
zgodovino in narodopisje 61, No. 1 (1989): 49.Viri za zgodovino Prekmurja 2 / Források a Muravidék történetéhez 2 (Szombathely
– Zalaegerszeg: Arhiv županije Vas in Arhiv županije Zala, 2008),
330.
The National Government in Ljubljana was well-aware of this. On 13 October 1919, the
Commissioner of Social Welfare reported to Ljubljana that the only road connection
with Prekmurje was the bridge in Radgona, which, however, now belonged to the
Republic of Austria.Sejni zapisniki Narodne vlade
Slovencev, Hrvatov in Srbov v Ljubljani in Deželnih vlad za Slovenijo
1918–1921, 2. del (Ljubljana: Arhiv republike Slovenije, 1999),
385.Slovenec, February 5, 1922, 2.Jutro, April 25, 1922, 2.Slovenec, April 19, 1922, 2.
While the processes of approximation were underway at the former border section of
the river Mura, at the new Austrian-Yugoslav border disputes and difficulties with
the delimitation kept arising. The new state border at the river Mura between Cmurek
and Radgona weighed heavily on the peasants between Drava and Mura. Until the end of
1921, the Yugoslav authorities allowed access to mills and saws at the border river,
but in the beginning of 1922 the customs services prohibited the access. After the
intervention of the Slovenian Members of Parliament in Belgrade, the access to the
aforementioned mills and saws was included in the agreement on the frontier-zone
traffic with the Republic of Austria.Slovenski gospodar, August 24, 1922, 35.Slovenski gospodar, 28. 12. 1922, 53.Slovenski gospodar, September 24, 1940, 4.
During the period of World War II (1941–45), Prekmurje was reannexed to Hungary, and
subsequently (after the Soviet occupation and the arrival of the Yugoslav forces) to
Yugoslavia or the People's Republic of Slovenia.Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino
37, No. 2 (1997): 175-86.Mikužev zbornik (Ljubljana:
Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete, 1999), 201-16.
In the period between 1945 and 1991, Mura did not "actively" appear in the
international (or inter-republican) disputes. The nature of the border between two
Yugoslav federal units did not call for a precise demarcation or division of
jurisdiction. However, with the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991, the relations in
the Slovenia – Mura – Croatia triangle once again became complicated. The problem of
the so-called twofold ownership appeared by the Slovenian-Croatian border at the
river Mura, which had remained in the background before the emancipation of both of
the states involved, even though even in the Yugoslav period there had been
differences between the taxation of property in Croatia and Slovenia. In 1992, in
the Lendava municipality, 2963 landowners from Croatia owned 805 hectares of land or
3.1 % of the territory. On the other hand, around 800 landowners from the Lendava
municipality – most of them from Hotiza – owned land in Croatia as well.Dela 12 (1997): 186.th century. Since then the river has changed its
flow considerably, while the cadastral municipality borders have remained in the
ongoing administration of both states as the Habsburg administrative legacy.
It is important for the future development of the events that the equalisation of the
Slovenian-Croatian border and the cadastral border took place rather late. The
border between Slovenia and Croatia might have had an administrative and state-legal
character (the Yugoslav republics were defined as "states"). However, in the field
the boundaryline was not defined precisely until as late as 1980. In 1980, the
legislation on municipalities changed in Slovenia, and now set out that the
territories of the municipalities should correspond to the cadastral municipalities.
As the border between Slovenia and Croatia had been defined descriptively as the
border between the Slovenian and Croatian municipalities, the border between the
Slovenian and Croatian cadastres de facto became the Slovenian-Croatian
boundaryline. In the first years of independence, Slovenian geodesists underlined
that the border according to cadastral municipalities "will not be functional and
prudent", and saw bilateral harmonisation with the assistance of joint commissions
as the right way of defining the border.Geodetski vestnik 36, No. 4 (1992): 298-303.
The discrepancies between the cadastral border and Mura's river bed paved the way for
the border incidents near Hotiza in 2006. Despite the multiple attempts at
specifying the border between the states (e.g. the efforts of joint commissions
between 1993 and 1998 and the so-called "Drnovšek-Račan Agreement" of 2001), the
Slovenian-Croatian border at the river Mura in 2006 was just as vague as in
1991.Arbitraža, Vlada Republike Slovenije, accessed
October 10, 2017, http://www.vlada.si/teme_in_projekti/arbitraza/.
The considerable flooding potential of the river Mura and the importance of flood
protection embankments represented an important environmental and historical factor
in this story.Geografski vidiki
poplav v Sloveniji (Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2008), 138.Dnevnik, August 30,
2006.Dnevnik, September 14, 2006.Dnevnik, September 15, 2006.
There is no room here for an additional historical discourse analysis of the dispute.
However, a short media analysis of the conflict by the border river Mura in 2006
indicates the importance of the representations of border rivers in various
environments. Judging from the Croatian response, Croatia completely equalised the
state border with the cadastral border. Meanwhile, for the Slovenian leadership the
cadastral border represented merely one of the criteria for defining the borders in
the future. While the Croatian media reported on the cadastre as the indisputable
border between the states,Slobodna
Dalmacija, September 15, 2006, accessed August 5, 2017, http://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20060915/novosti03.asp.
Dnevnik, August 28, 2006.Dnevnik, 15. 9. 2006, 4.
The activities of the permanent inter-state bodies, which usually take place in the
background, became inseparable from national interests. Only studying the border
river discourse allows for the understanding of the relations at the
landscape–politics–ideology level, and it especially has a role in comprehending the
mechanisms of nationalist delimitation. Landscape changes (the movement of the
river, flooding) call for measures to be implemented by both entities. This is
exploited by various political groups that are looking to further their interests,
and at the level of ideology and representations various media discourses, involved
in the reporting/reflecting on the border dispute, are established. Even the mere
choice of words can have a decisive impact on the main message: is this a cadastral
border or a state border? In media discourses, however, particularly the outrage and
feelings of endangerment tend to come to the forefront. If the Slovenian media were
appalled at the Croatian construction projects on the left bank of Mura, then the
Croatian media were horrified because of the presence of the Slovenian police in the
territory of the Croatian cadastre. On the other hand, the media critical of
nationalism and the contemporaneous leadership were indignant at the border disputes
in general as well as at the demonstration of force.MLADINA.SI, September 21, 2006, accessed August 5, 2017, http://www.mladina.si/92602/napeti-petelini/. STA: BBC: Hotiza povod za nov konflikt na Balkanu? (September 18,
2006), accessed August 5, 2017, https://www.sta.si/1088579/bbc-hotiza-povod-za-nov-konflikt-na-balkanu-18-9.
The political elites solved the issue by signing the Arbitration Agreement regarding
the border in November 2009. Both governments submitted their territorial and
maritime disputes to arbitration. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague
was chosen as the arbitral institution.Acta Histriae 23, No. 3
(2015): 502.
The "longue durée" border river status indirectly affects the shape and dynamics of
the river bed. In the time when Mura represented the border between the Austrian and
Hungarian parts of the Habsburg Empire (in various forms ever since the late 18th century), the "internal" Austrian part of the river
was regulated, while the section of Mura bordering on Hungary was neglected. In the
historical press we can come across several reports on the demands of the Styrian
province that the central (Austrian) government in Vienna should demand that Hungary
co-finance the regulation works at the border river Mura (the today's Slovenian
"internal" Mura). At the same time, the Hungarian side took its own initiatives to
regulate the river and its tributaries. After 1918, a different dynamics became
noticeable. The section of the river at the Yugoslav-Austrian border was
well-maintained (joint commission after 1926), while its internal part between
Styria and Prekmurje was neglected (i.e., works would only be initiated after
catastrophic floods). In the period after World War II, the section of Mura
bordering on Austria was still the best-maintained part of the river, while
significant improvement of regulation works was also noticeable at the internal Mura
and at the section bordering on Croatia, as the border between the republics did not
impede them. As Mura moved from the cadastral borders, the left‑bank flood
protection embankments were also constructed in the territory of Croatian cadastral
municipalities, for example near Hotiza and Petišovci. Until 1991 the rule was that
both states had to take care of their respective banks, regardless of the location
of the cadastral border. However, since the border in the area of Hotiza had not
been defined, after the emancipation of Slovenia and Croatia conflicts arose with
regard to the administrative jurisdiction.
Who, then, is responsible for the 2006 border dispute? The answer is simple: the
river Mura, which has its own life and refuses to stick to its river bed. The
history of border disputes points out the difficult relationship between the river
in the landscape and the borders. All the sections of Mura that we have analysed in
this contribution had the status of a border river in certain periods of time. From
the longue durée perspective, we can establish that the border disputes by the river
Mura took place in two periods: in the Middle Ages / early modern period; and in the
contemporary history. Could we propose a hypothesis that border disputes tend to
arise when the constellations of the political spaces and borders are not specified?
Our findings do support this, even though this interaction cannot be completely
proved. However, we can definitely underline the significant importance of
administrative legacy. We can also apply the concept of phantom borders, i.e.
borders that no longer exist, yet continue to structure the political and actual
space.Phantomgrenzen, Räumen
und Akteure in der Zeit neu denken (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag,
2015), 7-13.
For the borders in the Slovenian space, the administrative legacy of cadastral
municipalities is the most significant.Zgodovinski časopis 36, No. 4 (1982):
334.th century in order to allow for tax
exploitation and the exertion of general control over the state's territory, are
still alive. The former river beds, marked on cadastral maps, possess a strong
"phantom" potential, which can activate itself in the appropriate political
situation. In case of Mura, this happened during the dissolution of Yugoslavia and
formation of two independent countries. The administrative legacy of the cadastral
municipalities, which had merely possessed a "boring" technical character before
1991, suddenly became a "hot" political (and ideological) instrument
afterwards.Conference Borders and Administrative
legacy, Ljubljana, 24. – 26. 11. 2016, accessed August 5, 2017,
http://www.sistory.si/11686/37233.
Avtor analizira dva vidika dolgega trajanja fenomena mejne reke na primeru reke Mure: a) razmerje med rečno strugo, mejno črto in antropogenimi učinki na reko; b) odkrivanje historičnih struktur skozi perspektivo mejnih sporov. “Zdravorazumsko” razumevanje mejnih rek predpostavlja ujemanje reke in mejne črte. Kljub temu je lahko v pokrajini in v kartografskih reprezentacijah velika razlika med tema dvema elementoma. Vsi odseki reke Mure, ki jih analiziramo v članku, so imeli v določenih obdobjih status mejne reke. Status mejne reke dolgem trajanju posredno vpliva na obliko i dinamiko rečne struge. Nekdanje rečne struge, ki so “ujete” v katastrskih mapah, imajo velik “fantomski” potencial, ki se lahko aktivira v pravem političnem trenutku. V primeru Mure se je to zgodilo z razpadom Jugoslavije in vzpostavitvijo dveh neodvisnih držav.